The Matrix Sequels were shit, why do we need another one?

The OP is correct. The sequels were shit, and the box office numbers prove it.
https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Matrix#tab=summary

The Matrix (1999) Opening Weekend: $28M Domestic: $173M Worldwide: $465M
Reloaded (2003) - Opening Weekend : $92M Domestic: $282M Worldwide: $739M
Revolutions (2003) Opening Weekend: $48M Domestic: $139M Worldwide: $427M

The original was the #4 worldwide grossing movie of 1999. It was a hit, but the fame of the Matrix grew through home video. It took 4 years to get a sequel. EVERYONE expected greatness.

RELOADED came out and did very well, Huge opening weekend, which then petered out as word of mouth spread. It sucked! For me, it was so bad that I have never seen REVOLUTIONS to this day.

REVOLUTIONS had half the opening weekend of RELOADED and then grossed less domestically and worldwide than the Original Matrix. This was then end of the trilogy. It should have made the most of any of them. It did not because people, like me, lost complete interest after wasting money on RELOADED.

Since 2003, the WACHOWSKI's have had flop after flop. Speed Racer, Cloud Atlas, Jupiter Ascending. Only proving that the Original Matrix was a fluke.

I have zero interest in this pointless project.

Your view is common, but I liked the sequels a lot, only slightly less than the original (like 8/10 vs 9/10).

To actually have a good sequel?

People took the first one too seriously, and when that happens, many are bound to consider the sequels shit.

Sorry if I'm reposting, looks like the first didn't save.

People took the first one way too seriously. Yes it's smart but some people act like it's the Bible or something. So expectations for the sequels are too high and people whine when it's not exactly what they wanted.

My problem is it looks like another case where it could be the end, but if/when its receipts are good, suddenly it's "the start of a new trilogy"