Talk:The Matrix Resurrections

This article reads like it was written by an intern who works at Warner Brothers. It must be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:6F01:9480:58F5:D372:2440:BC86 (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Review summaries

Reviews are mostly positive now but section only quotes negative reviews 124.170.173.105 (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Really? The last few reviews I've seen have not been good. Right now reaction appears mixed at best. Trivialist (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Concerning reviews (and thus the lead-section) and how to summarize them; "mixed" is still a very broad but simultaneously a fixed term applied by Metacritic - and thus it is a rating easily recognized by people. Same would go for critical acclaim, for example. These would inherently be inscrutable terms, but due to being quantified by Metacritic, they are synonymous and easily identified as either 40-60 and 81-100 scores. Especially since Wikipedia uses the quantifiable data from RT and MC all the time for proving the general reception via their use of certified critics. For this exact reason, I think writing "mixed reception" and the like is a huge misrepresentation and should only be applied once it actually falls into a verfiable mixed-range at metacritic or the below-fresh bar at RT. Sure, aggregators are not perfect, but they are better than writing "mixed" because one or even two or three out of probably hundreds of articles say that a reception has been mixed. It is skewing the sample, maybe not even deliberately, by putting a strong focus on some articles that can be placed highly visible. Anyone can do that and Wikipedia should always try for quantifiable standards. For example, anyone could link three highly positive/negative sources as well and skew the sample. Sure an LA-Times-author is sourcable even with a claim that something has been mixed - without providing a source of their own -, that does not mean that the actual ratings of the movie cannot directly contradict this statement, especially if we were to talk about the median of ratings. Which is the whole reason for why aggregators exist: providing a sourced median to point at. Thing is, the movie is rated both "fresh" on RT (64) and "generally favorable" (64) on MC with a large and verifiable sample which is why it should be used. Plus it is about critical reception, not audience-reviews, which is by definition the reception by critics and largely means verified critics in terms of Wikipedia. You can always "prove" a reception with MC and RT as the critics there are the sources themselves, the LA-times-article for example does not mention sources, it just states a claim. In the end, which leads to the actual "lead"-section, too, I do not think that it is only two options, but three. First one: Leaving the phrasing at "mixed" quite clearly is problematic as it overtly contradicts one of the reception-tentpoles of wikipedia that is MC. The reception there is "generally favorable", not "mixed" (same as fresh on RT), so one could write that and not comment on anything else. Second one: Leaving it at mixed, plain and simple. However, as it is a clear contradiction to both RT and especially MC, that just seems inadvisable due to being, well, wrong in at least one major aspect and decreasing the quality of the article. Third one: Leave it out altogether in the lead and only write sourced content down in the review-section without commenting on it. Since this both solves the "mixed"-phrasing and does not detract from or conflict any sources, I think this would be most advisable. I will edit this accordingly for the time being. Autorefiller (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Great summary of what's going on. We can't discount the aggregators, but we also can't discount what strong, reliable sources have said. When they contradict, we need to leave it up to the reader instead of attempting to pick sides and summarize in the lead. Also have to keep in mind that aggregators go by a formula in determining if a particular review is positive or negative (and some reviews don't even include a rating by its author), and neither counts split/mixed in their aggregation. A 3.5/5, or 70%, may be their typical cut-off for rating a review positive, for example, but they still count an overall score of 60% as positive (Certified Fresh is at 75%). You'll even see some reviews with a score of 2.5/4 or 3/5 rated positive, and other times they're counted negative. So there is some interpretation going on within those that are on the bubble.

While we use aggregators as a good starting point for discussion, they are not relied upon as the end-all, final arbiters in the debate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

No disagreement with any point mentioned here, I think that summarizes all neatly and concisely. I also do not want to wield aggregators as the definitive hammer with which judgement is cast, far from it, I would even be relieved if aggregators were not as big a thing as they are for the multiple implicit and explicit reasons touched upon. Yet overall for the time being, I still prefer using them to at least the alternative of saying something is mixed which can mean anything and everything, but I think there is agreement here already. After all, judging solely from my experience on Wikipedia, this is by far one of the most common discussions, too, and it will be discussed time and time again how something fared critically and how it should be represented. We are all working with imperfect systems and our own meaning-making, after all. Autorefiller (talk) 17:24, 02 January 2022 (UTC)

Neo "offering to release Trinity if she consents"

I've reverted this change some three times already. That's not what happens. Neo doesn't "offer to release Trinity". He goes to the Analyst demanding that he release Trinity, threatening to have the Mnemosyne's crew kill him (read Neo) if the Analyst doesn't comply. --uKER (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

From what I understand Neo mentioned to the Analyst that his crew would never allow him to return voluntarily to the Matrix regardless of what happens. It would have been too dangerous to allow the Analyst to take control of Neo and use his powers against the red pills. 62.30.3.82 (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Plot summary improvements

UKER, thanks for your help to continually improve the plot summary. I made a few more changes to build upon your recent edits. Some phrasing was restored, but others were influenced by the ones you made. Since you're the other active editor paying attention to this section, thought I'd bring that to your attention. If you have any issues with the most recent iteration, figured we could hammer it out here. Glad to see this section has made a lot of progress! --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

And just to elaborate a bit, I added a few details about Io, while at the same time tightened up the rest of the summary. The word count has actually dropped from 640 to 636 despite the addition. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, first of all thanks for taking me into consideration. Really appreciated. I read your modifications and made some more changes.

Here's my explanations for them:

• I don't think mentioning Io as a successor to Zion is of any real value, just like we're not mentioning the Analyst is a successor to the Architect.
• Saying that the Analyst was "able to resurrect Neo and Trinity after their deaths" is kind of pointless. Not like he would be able to do so before their deaths. I reordered that sentence into something hopefully somewhat better.
• Changed the wording to say he resurrected them "to study them" to make it explicit that that was the reason to do so. Otherwise it sounds like he resurrected them with some other undisclosed purpose, and just studied them while he was at it.
• When describing the effect of Neo and Trinity's closeness on the Matrix, it's like increased stability was mentioned twice. Removing one.
• Being self-aware is something in itself. That's being aware of one's own existence. I don't think it's right to say Trinity became self-aware of her past.
• Removed "triumphantly" weasel word near the end.
• Removed remark that the ending mirrors that of the first film. There's countless scenes that mirror scenes from the other films. I don't think that a stylistic remark like this has any narrative significance that would make it worth mentioning in a plot summary that's meant to be as condensed as this one. We still do have a similar comparison made about the intro in a side note. Ironically, you seem to have removed a similar note I had added mentioning that Neo's deal with the Analyst ties into the agreement reached with the Architect at the end of Revolutions.

I lowered the word count somewhat again. I still do not like the part that begins with Neo's liberation destabilizing the thing, up until the end of that paragraph. Needless to say, feel free to keep editing. --uKER (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. As a side note, the page protection expired yesterday, so we're going to start seeing a lot more activity here from anonymous IPs. The "triumphantly" bit as well as the ending mirroring the 1st film were both added by an IP just before you edited. That's just the beginning I'm afraid... --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

That's the way it's always is. Let's just brace ourselves. :) Cheers! --uKER (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

We need to ban Imback.0000

For some reason, Imback.0000 claimed that the poster is an "official promotional theatrical release poster", despite the fact that the film was not only released in theaters but it also released in HBO Max as well. When the good editors replaced it with "Release poster", Imback.0000 became mad and not only edited back to "his own truth" but he even called everyone who removed his edits a Nazi as well as added nonsense facts. We need to stop his madness by banning him for good. 94-kun (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• By the time you posted this, Imback.0000 was already indefinitely blocked. Black Kite (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Good! At least we stop his madness. 94-kun (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Please update Nominations table

Please update nominations table to include BAFTA nomination for Visual Effects. Thank You--MKL123 (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Please remove BAFTA from the lead section, it was added[1] without any reliable sources. It should have first been added to the Accolades section first, and then maybe added to lead if editors thought it was WP:DUE. -- 109.78.200.214 (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2022

I request adding citations to several thoughtful reviews in the Critical Response section, end of 2nd paragraph and reference 127.

Elie Mystal in his commentary in Washington Post wrote “Resurrections” succeeds as a philosophical reflection on our present moment and “captures the real crisis of our post-truth era”. IndieWire rated the movie as A- calling it “The Boldest and Most Personal Franchise Sequel Since ‘The Last Jedi”. They write “At a time when Hollywood blockbusters can only seem to be about themselves, Lana Wachowski subverts that trend in extraordinary ways”. Wallaroo04 (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This has been open for a few days with no traction, and the section is already over 600 words. There's no need to include additional quotes from critics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Criticism by the Merovingian

Are we just going to ignore the satirical, extradiegetic criticism by the Merovingian? "Art, films, books were all better! Originality mattered! You gave us Face-Zucker-suck, and Cock-me-climatey-Wiki-piss-and-shit!" I think this needs commentary in the article. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)