|
Speaking of Terminator 2, why does the T-1000 show up naked? His clothes are made from his body.
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:Speaking of Terminator 2, why does the T-1000 show up naked? His clothes are made from his body. And if the T-800 can smuggle a metal skeleton inside a flesh body, why didn't it bring back some guns stuffed inside a pig carcass?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 20:26
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:And if the T-800 can smuggle a metal skeleton inside a flesh body, why didn't it bring back some guns stuffed inside a pig carcass? Maybe the flesh has to be living?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 20:31
|
|
|
The T-1000 is liquid metal though, no living parts. So how did it come back at all?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
Organic metal, duh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
He came back enclosed in living flesh and tore out of it Alien-style after the camera cut away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 21:12
|
|
|
Fayez Butts posted:Maybe the flesh has to be living? If Skynet can make human clones that can can live while having a robot inside them, I'm sure Skynet can make living pig suitcases.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 21:35
|
|
|
The rules of time travel simply allow for the fact that an intelligent, self-aware robot is alive while a gun isn't. The "field" generated by a living creature, what's said to make time travel possible, is, of course, a soul. Reese's statement that the T-800 can time travel because it's "surrounded by living tissue" is nothing more than a guess put forward by a clearly-exasperated man who, when pushed on how future technology works, responds "I don't know tech stuff." You can't just shove a gun up a pig's rear end because the gun still isn't going to be part of the pig anymore than your clothes are part of you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
I think the real answer is that it's a Hollywood big-budget action movie that you're not supposed to think about that deeply.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:I wish I could see Terminator 2 for the first time again. If I saw it now for the first time it probably wouldn't be as impressive. Fayez Butts posted:Maybe the flesh has to be living? Then bring back a live pig temporarily fused with the T-800?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
When I rewatched T2 for the first time in maybe like 10 years, I was shocked at the scene where Sarah Connor assaults Dyson's home. It completely comes off as a white power militia fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 01:16
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Then bring back a live pig temporarily fused with the T-800? "Your bacon. Give it to me. Now."
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 02:20
|
|
|
Zogo posted:If I saw it now for the first time it probably wouldn't be as impressive. Maybe not the CG alone, but as an action movie it hasn't been topped in 20 years. And I'm sure the moment when the T-1000 walks through the barred door would still be absolutely mindblowing- not because of the visual effects, but because of the way his gun getting stuck sells it perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 06:51
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:I think the real answer is that it's a Hollywood big-budget action movie that you're not supposed to think about that deeply. Ding ding ding ding. Analyzing the science in a movie series predicated on the fact that a man sent his own father into the past to gently caress his mom so he could be born to send his dad into the past to gently caress his mom is kind of an insane and useless idea. T2 is an action movie with some sci-fi trappings, much like the original is a horror movie with action and sci-fi trappings. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:When I rewatched T2 for the first time in maybe like 10 years, I was shocked at the scene where Sarah Connor assaults Dyson's home. It completely comes off as a white power militia fantasy. I can see where that would come from, especially since it's a white person living on the fringe of society breaking into a white-collar black man's backyard with what would be (in practically any era) an illegal weapon with their only intent to be: destroy. It's funny, because apparently James Cameron's quite an anti-gun guy. I suppose the fact that she ends up coming to her senses at the end of the scene, once she realizes he's a human being with a family and a life that she just nearly stopped cold over something he hasn't even done yet supports that. It's also weird how, twenty years later, Miles Dyson is still somewhat of a rarity in mainstream action cinema: he's a character who happens to be black, rather than being a black character. I still remember being called a misogynist for noting that this particular scene is a bit of a jump for her character, who for the entire movie predicates every word and action she makes on the potential harm or protection it can give to her child. It's not that I don't see the grander scheme in her head - kill Dyson > stop Cyberdyne from creating Skynet > change the future so John never has to fight - but for someone who was breaking out of an asylum (after essentially debasing herself and the reality she knows is coming to pass didn't work) just so she can see, be with, and protect her son, her taking off on her own just strikes me as incongruous with what Cameron had written her as.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 07:02
|
|
|
Don't if this the right place to ask this. Never got around to watching Alice in Wonderland from last year. I really wanted to watch it since it had Johnny Depp and Crispin Glover but never got around. Is it worth watching? as far as remakes go...
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 08:14
|
|
|
Ulio posted:Don't if this the right place to ask this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 08:17
|
|
|
mexicanmonkey posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fi0U-_YjEA
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 08:32
|
|
|
Ulio posted:Don't if this the right place to ask this. No. God no.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 08:58
|
|
|
The Cameo posted:I still remember being called a misogynist for noting that this particular scene is a bit of a jump for her character, who for the entire movie predicates every word and action she makes on the potential harm or protection it can give to her child. It's not that I don't see the grander scheme in her head - kill Dyson > stop Cyberdyne from creating Skynet > change the future so John never has to fight - but for someone who was breaking out of an asylum (after essentially debasing herself and the reality she knows is coming to pass didn't work) just so she can see, be with, and protect her son, her taking off on her own just strikes me as incongruous with what Cameron had written her as. In reading this, a thought occurred to me. For the sake of not confusing this, I'm pretending that the Terminator series stopped with T2. Theoretically, shouldn't Arnold cease to exist as soon as they drop the hand and the microchip into the molten steel? He points out that there's still one chip left in his head and he has to be destroyed too, but that chip would never have been created in the first place if the original hand and chip hadn't survived - and since they're now destroyed, his existence in their time period should not be possible anymore. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 15:33
|
|
|
Time in the Terminator universe doesn't work like time in the BTTF universe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 15:36
|
|
|
Encryptic posted:In reading this, a thought occurred to me. For the sake of not confusing this, I'm pretending that the Terminator series stopped with T2. Time isn't a loop, when you send someone back into the past they don't go to your past, they go to a new past that now has them in it. You can't change the present, just someone else's future. -The Terminator Show
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 16:03
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Time isn't a loop, when you send someone back into the past they don't go to your past, they go to a new past that now has them in it. You can't change the present, just someone else's future. Thanks - I'm still turning it over in my mind but that's a pretty solid explanation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 16:36
|
|
|
Encryptic posted:Thanks - I'm still turning it over in my mind but that's a pretty solid explanation. The show put way more thought into it than the movies ever did. There's a scene at one point where two time-travelers who both thought they knew each other in the future realize they came back from different timelines, and their shared memories no longer match up. The one that came back first changed the one that didn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 16:47
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Time isn't a loop, when you send someone back into the past they don't go to your past, they go to a new past that now has them in it. You can't change the present, just someone else's future. So how does that line up with Kyle Reese? Did John Conner have a different dad in some alpha-timeline that exists before the movies?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 16:56
|
|
|
I have been thinking about something to myself over the past few days. It's about a film that I can't put my finger on if I should give it a 10/10 or an 8 or 9/10. The other night I saw Irréversible and I found it to be hands-down the most disturbing, uncomfortable and effective film I've ever seen. I mean, I've before had films that had a pretty profound effect on me, and I rank those as my favourite films, but the feeling I've had after seeing this film has been an uncomfortable one, and it has lingered with me for days. I've never experienced quite so strong an effect before. However, I would feel really weird to say that Irréversible is one of my favourite films, because I doubt I will ever watch it again. So when I was - as I usually try to do - trying to rate it after seeing it, I couldn't decide whether it was an 8 or 9 out of 10, or a 10 out of 10 due to it's effect on me. tl;dr: Can I call a film I'd never watch again a 10/10?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 16:56
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Time isn't a loop, when you send someone back into the past they don't go to your past, they go to a new past that now has them in it. You can't change the present, just someone else's future. This is sort of a theory I had with the Terminator TV show. We base a lot of stuff on what Cameron, Derek and to an extent Cromartie show and tell us. My theory has been that when they did the jump-forward in the pilot episode, they accidentally created a timeline that existed where there was no John Connor in the future, only to have that timeline reset the moment that the emerged back in 2007 or so. So, it's possible that there were several T-888s that were traveling into the past from this 'short-lived' Connor-free future who have zero interest in John Connor because to them he's a nobody and instead are focusing on the leaders that eventually rose to assume his role in the Resistance. I thought it would have been sort of funny to think of Cromartie as the single 888 who was still following this 'Kill John and Sarah Connor' protocol while every other 888 he met was like, "Who the hell is John Connor?" VVV edit: I remembered that bit, but I was sort of hoping for a big unintentional timeline screwup thanks to everything that had happened where John was no longer relevant as the savior of the human race. You know, see a few Resistance members come back from alternate futures who are following orders from someone else, they don't even know John Connor, etc. Essentially, the timeline has gotten so polluted with machines and men coming back from alternate timelines to the same era that they're all creating wildly branching off futures, resulting in more and more travelers, and more and more problems they're trying to each fix, with each solution creating a new problem down the road. JediTalentAgent fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Aug 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 17:48
|
|
|
That is how it worked, but not because of time fuckery. It was explained at one point (probably near the end of the pilot) how all the "covert" terminators worked. They had all been given missions that had nothing to do with John Connor; being terminators they pursued these missions with singleminded focus so they didn't put any effort into hunting him like the assassin terminators in the movies did. John is only in danger when he puts himself between a terminator and its target, and then only because he is an obstacle, not the future leader of the resistance. The other terminators probably know who Connor is as a concept, but to a terminator there is no such thing as a target of opportunity, and anyway Skynet doesn't know what he looks like as a child or teenager.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
A little topic change here - more credits questions. How come sometimes when they list the writers of the movie they are listed as "Bob Smith and Mike Jones & Joe Thompson". Why are they seperated with the word "and" and also an ampersand? Is it simply so they don't repeat the word "and" because it looks silly?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
Mr Bike posted:A little topic change here - more credits questions. How come sometimes when they list the writers of the movie they are listed as "Bob Smith and Mike Jones & Joe Thompson". Why are they seperated with the word "and" and also an ampersand? Is it simply so they don't repeat the word "and" because it looks silly? An ampersand implies that the two wrote the script together, while "and" is probably the result of one writer rewriting the other's work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 18:30
|
|
|
Power of Pecota posted:Deep Blue Sea immediately comes to mind. What happened with Deep Blue Sea? I'd love to know, it's one of my favorite bad movies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
Gaggins posted:What happened with Deep Blue Sea? I'd love to know, it's one of my favorite bad movies. Originally I believe LL Cool J is killed and Saffron Burrows lives. However audiences hated Burrows so much they decided to alter the end of the film and kill Burrows instead. To be fair she does come across thoroughly unlikeable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 19:51
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:Originally I believe LL Cool J is killed and Saffron Burrows lives. However audiences hated Burrows so much they decided to alter the end of the film and kill Burrows instead. To be fair she does come across thoroughly unlikeable. LL Cool J surviving until the end propels the movie into Slither or Tremors quality. One of the few monster movies really, truly worth watching. The test audience made the right decision.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
Klungar posted:So how does that line up with Kyle Reese? Did John Conner have a different dad in some alpha-timeline that exists before the movies? Terminator and Terminator 2 are two different movies, with separate plots where time travel works differently in each. It's fiction so we'll let them away with that. It's only a plot issue if you're contradicting yourself within one story, not two stories made five years apart. In T1 it's all an issue of predestination, history cannot be changed. There was never a timeline where Reese was not Conner's father any more than there can possibly be a timeline where Skynet doesn't go mental. "A storm is coming." In T2 history can be changed. Kill Skynet in the past to save the future. The issue of Conner's parentage isn't really a factor in this plot, so let's ignore it. "The only fate is what you make." (There are no other Terminator movies, etc)
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
Encryptic posted:In reading this, a thought occurred to me. For the sake of not confusing this, I'm pretending that the Terminator series stopped with T2. You can just look at it as this: As long as the T-800 is around, there is a possible timeline in which his exoskeleton is used by a company - not Cyberdyne anymore, but now a different company - and ends up creating Skynet. When he lets himself be terminated, he closes off those possible timelines, and instead creates a series of new ones that Sarah and John no longer know the path of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
I watched Children of Men last night, and was wondering what movie holds the record for the longest scene without cuts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 21:12
|
|
|
KillRoy posted:I watched Children of Men last night, and was wondering what movie holds the record for the longest scene without cuts? Off the top of my head, I'd guess Russian Ark (99 minutes, no cuts) edit: Bela Tarr's Macbeth has 67 minutes without cuts FitFortDanga fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Aug 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 21:14
|
|
|
KillRoy posted:I watched Children of Men last night, and was wondering what movie holds the record for the longest scene without cuts? They cheated with CGI effects, so it may not count.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 21:17
|
|
|
Each Terminator movie(that deals with time travel) supports a different theory on how time travel works. Since there is no "Doc Brown" character who would be an established and reliable expert in this franchise, anything any character has said on the subject is suspect at best. If there is another Termiator film made, I suspect it will support the same time travel theory as the Planet of the Apes series and Dragon Ball Z. Although, one could argue that The Sarah Conner Chronicals supported(by which I mean it didn't contadict) this theory.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 22:27
|
|
|
The Cameo posted:I still remember being called a misogynist for noting that this particular scene is a bit of a jump for her character, who for the entire movie predicates every word and action she makes on the potential harm or protection it can give to her child. It was interesting when I realized that my three favorite action/sci-fi films were The Abyss, The Terminator and [The] Alien. They all have strong female lead characters. I don't know if this is just coincidental or is part of the recipe that makes them interesting to me. csidle posted:tl;dr: Can I call a film I'd never watch again a 10/10? On my scale and line of thinking I wouldn't. One of the tenets for my tens is that I'm extremely compelled to rewatch them. But I don't think your thoughts are invalid. I'm stingy with 10s but not to the point that they only exist on the theoretical level (I have seen this view espoused).
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
Ninja Gamer posted:If there is another Termiator film made, I suspect it will support the same time travel theory as the Planet of the Apes series and Dragon Ball Z. Planet of the Apes and Dragonball Z have different time travel models. PotA is essentially, "whatever happened, happpened." You can't change history with time travel, period. DBZ's model is that you can't change history in your timeline but you can change it in an alternate one. (Why you can't just stay in the new timeline and not travel back to the hosed up one isn't explained.) BTTF is completely hosed up since you have alternate timelines, but they have to converge eventually allowing some paradoxes, but not others.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 23:21
|
|