this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2024
706 points (98.6% liked)

196

16714 readers
2981 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Source

And for anyone who wants to check: US release of "The Matrix" was March 31st 1999

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 79 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Not sure why, would have been a pretty cool addition to the universe.

I can imagine nowadays people saying it's "too woke" though.

[–] Skullgrid 41 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Back then :

It won't bring in the same money, don't put your weird tranny shit

Now :

This is marketable in certain demographics, but we've already met the diversity quota, so no thanks. Besides, we don't want it to be too "political" and lose our dependable fanbase.

[–] Ultraviolet 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Ah yes, famously apolitical movie The Matrix in the entirely apolitical genre of dystopian sci-fi.

[–] Skullgrid 3 points 8 months ago

Dystopian? Ah yes, no one was turning a profit. Very sad.

Although that Cyrus character was quite the go getter.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I can think of one reasonable reason for it. They'd be harder to identify between the two versions. It makes some sense to not change the look that much (or the actor if that was the plan) to not confuse the audience.

[–] Mirshe 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Also have to pay and credit two actors for one role, which might get sticky, especially with awards.

[–] Wilzax 8 points 8 months ago

I mean you credit them as 2 different roles, Switch (In-Matrix) and Switch (IRL). Happens all the time for different ages of the same characters being portrayed by younger and older actors.