Same-year 'Matrix' sequels: Smooth move?

By Andy Seiler
USA Today

The third installment of the "Matrix" will be released a few months after the sequel has been played in theaters.

But now things are switching into overdrive. Warner Bros. will release the next two (possibly final) "Matrix" movies in the same year. "The Matrix Reloaded "is scheduled for release in May 2003, while "The Matrix Revolutions" is tentatively scheduled to follow a few months later. Teaser trailers in theaters already are tantalizing fans of the science-fiction franchise.

There haven't been two movies in the same series released in a single calendar year since Dean Martin twice played secret agent Matt Helm in "The Silencers" and "Murderers Row". And that was 36 years ago. More recently, the second and third" Back to the Future" films and first two "Pokemon" movies came out within a year of each other, though not literally in the same year.

"After the success of the first "Matrix", we felt confident that audiences would welcome the chance to see the next two "Matrix" episodes in a single year," explains Dan Fellman, president of domestic distribution for Warner Bros., which also distributes the "Harry Potter" films. "The recent response to our trailer for the two upcoming movies has been tremendous and indicates that we're on the right track."

That track could well be headed to Hitsville, according to the Internet Movie Database (imdb.com), which indicates that "Reloaded "is next year's most inquired-about sequel; " Revolutions" ranks fourth.

Fans are definitely fired up.

"I am very excited about it because the previous film will be fresh in my mind when I see "Revolutions"," says Jon Cline, 25, of Pasadena, Calif., the owner and editor of fan site thematrixonline.com. "People emulate this concept by watching the DVD of a film before watching its sequel."

Adds Brian Linder, 26, from Columbia, S.C.: "I don't think fans could stand it if the filmmakers waited any longer." As editor of the site IGN FilmForce, he monitors "Matrix" fans and is one himself.

"My wife and I saw "Attack of the Clones" on opening night, and the crowd just went insane when the "Matrix" preview played," Linder says. "The only thing that drew audible disappointment was the 2003 release date at the end. We're ready for these sequels "now"."

As a result, the accelerated release plan promises a gigantic payoff, says Tom Borys, president of box office tracker Nielsen EDI. And he doesn't forsee any plausible pitfalls. "If the second leads right into the third, why not put them together for momentum and continuity?"

There actually is a good reason, says Russell Schwartz, president of domestic marketing for New Line Cinema. The studio wanted the "Rings" films to come out each year. ("It's actually one movie in three parts, so it didn't make any sense to sit on them," he explains.) But the studio decided that releasing two in the same year would be going too far.

"We briefly discussed it, but when you factor in the video release, you're on top of yourself," Schwartz says. "Where is Warners going to put the "Matrix" video? Is it a three-month window?" In order to make sure that "Rings" had its moment in each format, Schwartz says, a year break between films was the minimum.

If the "Matrix" films do well individually, other studios will nevertheless try the unorthodox approach, predicts Barnaby Dorfman, a trend tracker for IMDb. He says it's an idea that peaked in the '40s with frequent appearances of Charlie Chan, Sherlock Holmes, The Saint and Tarzan.

"The studios will be watching the box office results very closely," Dorfman says. "There is a certain logic that spacing a film by six to nine months allows you to keep the marketing and publicity spin up, bridging the two releases."

Borys agrees that other studios will do it if they can — but he doubts that many can. "It's an enormous logistical challenge to pull it off," Borys says. "It requires that they are made at the same time. You need all the people to stay together a long time to make it."

Furthermore, Borys says, Hollywood honchos are rarely so confident about a movie that they would greenlight the movie and its sequel at the same time. They need to wait for box office results. (The "Rings" trilogy and the current "Star Wars" trilogy are the rare exceptions.) Even shooting the second and third sequels at the same time requires a lot of confidence and a lot of time, Borys says.

However, Bret Ratner, the red-hot director of "Rush Hour 2" as well as the upcoming Hannibal Lecter prequel "Red Dragon", says the "Matrix" matrix has its advantages.

"When I did the first" Rush Hour", I ended it so the plane was headed for Hong Kong," Ratner says. "If it worked, the plane would land in Hong Kong (at the start of a sequel)."

It worked. But "Rush Hour "was history by the time Ratner got the go-ahead to make the sequel, so he had to start all over again.

"I would love it if I could make" Rush Hour 3" and "4" back to back," he says. When you're on a roll, it's easier to keep going instead of starting up again."

That doesn't mean Ratner would want the movies to come out the same year. Some sequels are more likely to work if audiences have to wait awhile to see them — whenever or however they were shot.

In other words, how can movie fans miss a franchise if it won't go away?

And then there's one other little problem with the dream scenario of sequel after sequel, Schwartz says.

"There will come a time when the sequels will go out of favor," he says. "I have no doubt about it.

"And suddenly, everyone is going to wake up."