|
I watched, for the first time in a long time, The Terminator 2 last night. But, my girlfriend asked me a question that I couldn't answer, and I thought I would relay it to the SA Forums, which I assume is a place containing many Terminator scholars. Why did Arnie need to die at the end? My answer was that he now exists in that timeline, and the movie isn't clear as to how he was getting back home. So, he would destroy himself as a precautionary measure. It was difficult to answer, because both of the first two Terminators never seemed to concern itself with the science aspect of the manipulation of time, as it's just understood as "it happens." Also, she asked me how The Terminator 3 factored into the whole thing, but I told her those movies don't exist to me.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:28 |
|
|
Twin Cinema posted:I watched, for the first time in a long time, The Terminator 2 last night. But, my girlfriend asked me a question that I couldn't answer, and I thought I would relay it to the SA Forums, which I assume is a place containing many Terminator scholars. The answer is easy as a Terminator can not go back home. As Terminator 2 shows the technology from the Terminators lead to Judgement day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2011 22:33
|
|
|
Twin Cinema posted:I watched, for the first time in a long time, The Terminator 2 last night. But, my girlfriend asked me a question that I couldn't answer, and I thought I would relay it to the SA Forums, which I assume is a place containing many Terminator scholars. The events in Terminator 2 (and, indeed, Skynet itself) only happened because the T-800 tech wasn't fully destroyed at the end of the first film. They were attempting not to repeat this mistake.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2011 22:35
|
|
|
So, the answer is that the T-800 can't travel back home, and he needs to fully destroy himself to make sure that these events don't happen again. Alright, I was clearly over-thinking it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
Twin Cinema posted:So, the answer is that the T-800 can't travel back home, and he needs to fully destroy himself to make sure that these events don't happen again. Did you watch the first one? Reese goes into a rant how he can not go home.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2011 22:39
|
|
|
Twin Cinema posted:Why did Arnie need to die at the end? Because he's a killer robot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2011 22:44
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Did you watch the first one? Reese goes into a rant how he can not go home. I have, but it's been over a year since I last watched it. Actually, now that I think of it, that was the first time that I fully watched the film. Previously, I had only seen parts of it. Thanks for the help though. HINDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Because he's a killer robot. But he's so nice now. He was the father figure that John never had. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2011 22:44
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:The events in Terminator 2 (and, indeed, Skynet itself) only happened because the T-800 tech wasn't fully destroyed at the end of the first film. They were attempting not to repeat this mistake. Yeah, this is very explicit in the dialogue: "It's over." "No. There is one more chip and it must be destroyed, also."
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2011 22:45
|
|
|
I'm not sure why my earlier question deserved a snarky answer, but I'll ask it again, how do they set people on fire? I have heard that there are gels and suits that stuntmen use, but I figure those are fairly recent developments, so I am also curious how they did that effect in the past, or did they always have them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 06:04
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I'm not sure why my earlier question deserved a snarky answer, but I'll ask it again, how do they set people on fire? I have heard that there are gels and suits that stuntmen use, but I figure those are fairly recent developments, so I am also curious how they did that effect in the past, or did they always have them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 07:18
|
|
|
mexicanmonkey posted:So what you're saying here is that you believe in the olden days before fancy gel and fireproof suits they didn't just set people on fire. Yes that makes perfect sense. Um, I'm asking how they did that effect. I'm not sure why that's getting snarky answers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 07:20
|
|
|
"Fireproof" or fire-protection suits have been around for a time- at least in very crude ways. For something like The Thing From Another World, I think it was just putting the stunt man under a lot of padding, and not filming for very long. Whatever fabric they were using would burn slowly enough that there was relatively little chance of it burning through.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 07:36
|
|
|
A small stuntman, a big padded suit, a little fire, a short shot, a bunch of people with fire extinguishers, and faith in the retardant qualities of densely layered fabric.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 08:02
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:A small stuntman, a big padded suit, a little fire, a short shot, a bunch of people with fire extinguishers, and faith in the retardant qualities of densely layered fabric. I'm sure a lot of effects and stunts in the early days of films had a lot of faith involved. I remember watching something about Tarzan movies, and how they just hoped the actor could swing from vine to vine, with a circus net just off camera in case they fell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 09:44
|
|
|
I'm assuming they would have used asbestos suits for setting people on fire back in the day, before the dangers became known.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 10:19
|
|
|
Isn't it common to have someone on fire walking/moving to direct the heat from the flames away from them? While watching Stagecoach for the first time a year or so ago it dawned on me that those stunts are all practical and how much that changes the tension. I know no one is going to slip between those horses and get crushed but man, it could happen and there's no CGI or model work involved. ONE YEAR LATER fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Nov 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 14:00
|
|
|
ONE YEAR LATER posted:While watching Stagecoach for the first time a year or so ago it dawned on me that those stunts are all practical and how much that changes the tension. I know no one is going to slip between those horses and get crushed but man, it could happen and there's no CGI or model work involved. Yakima Canutt did it in a few other movies, but no other stuntman has been able to pull off the Stagecoach stunt. Terry Leonard got badly hurt trying to recreate it in The Legend of the Lone Ranger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 17:12
|
|
|
Not having seen Stagecoach I was unfamilier with the stunts you were talking about so I looked it up on youtube. That poo poo is really impressive. This video shows his stunts in stagecoach and a really insane one from Zorro's Fighting Legion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
Never heard of this guy before, but that was INSANE.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Never heard of this guy before, but that was INSANE. Ya know how so many movie punches have one guy in the foreground and the other guy back a bit, so they can swing without connecting or pulling the punch, and it looks like a solid hit? Yakima Canutt INVENTED that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 23:40
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Never heard of this guy before, but that was INSANE. The last bit where he appears to slide between the horses, under the stagecoach, then catching the back of it and hopping on was incredible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 00:05
|
|
|
What's incredible is that he loving SOMERSAULTED under a bunch of horse rigging and somehow survived at the end instead of turning into a human pretzel. Seriously, how the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 02:45
|
|
|
According to Wikipedia, the only injury sustained during the making of Ben-Hur was his son Sam cutting his chin during a chariot jump shot. Because he didn't follow his father's instructions to tie himself down. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 02:48
|
|
|
I like the Western Genre more than any other genre. I've seen most Ford's, most Leone's, most Eastwood's in addition to more unique Westerns like The Proposition and Dead Man. I've only taken a handful of film classes and only read a few books on cinema. Q: What is so great about Unforgiven? Overall I enjoyed the film but never understood why it is so universally praised (extremely high praise at that).
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 10:30
|
|
|
BRB MAKIN BACON posted:I like the Western Genre more than any other genre. I've seen most Ford's, most Leone's, most Eastwood's in addition to more unique Westerns like The Proposition and Dead Man. I've only taken a handful of film classes and only read a few books on cinema. But don't take my word for it! http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020721/REVIEWS08/207210301/1023
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 15:26
|
|
|
BRB MAKIN BACON posted:I like the Western Genre more than any other genre. I've seen most Ford's, most Leone's, most Eastwood's in addition to more unique Westerns like The Proposition and Dead Man. I've only taken a handful of film classes and only read a few books on cinema. It's just a great dark revisionist Western, up there with High Plains Drifter and the aforementioned The Proposition. Also the last 10-15 minutes are just perfect, one of my favorite scenes in any Western.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 15:36
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:It's just a great dark revisionist Western, up there with High Plains Drifter and the aforementioned The Proposition. Also the last 10-15 minutes are just perfect, one of my favorite scenes in any Western. It also has one of my favorite lines in a movie. Deserve's got nothing to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 18:07
|
|
|
Unforgiven was a big deal because it was Eastwood coming back to the genre that made him famous for a sort of finale to that part of his career. It's a pretty solid movie on its own too but you know, the years of context make a difference to how people receive things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 18:30
|
|
|
I wrote this about Unforgiven:quote:There have been other, more recent movies made about the west, but Eastwood’s incomparable 1992 classic Unforgiven is the last Western. It completes the work John Ford started with in his self-critical westerns. The cowboy, that lone rider sowing the seeds of civilization, has by the film’s end unequivocally lost his moral superiority. He becomes what he always was – a drunken murderer, no better than anybody else in the corrupt pigshit towns in the territory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
I've read it mentioned a couple times but never spelled out clearly. Does an actor sign away the chance to refuse participating in their character getting killed off in a series or movie? Sometimes I'll read how a tv or film actor is very angry that their character dies but they still film the scenes anyways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
Mouser.. posted:I've read it mentioned a couple times but never spelled out clearly. Does an actor sign away the chance to refuse participating in their character getting killed off in a series or movie? Sometimes I'll read how a tv or film actor is very angry that their character dies but they still film the scenes anyways. What would the alternative be? Not film the scene, not get paid for it (since you don't do it) and still never get to play the character again?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
Thanks everybody. penismightier posted:I wrote this about Unforgiven: "Eastwood’s incomparable 1992 classic Unforgiven is the last Western." What? "The closest was There Will Be Blood, which brought us a whole new perspective on the settlements, but it shot itself in the foot in the final moments." What is wrong with the ending of TWBB? I can't tell if this is good-analysis or pretentious bullshit. I'm not being facetious and that's not a slight against you Penismightier. I appreciate your response to help answer my question. The problem is, relatively to the people in this thread, I'm vastly under-educated on film analysis writing (outside of the aforementioned ~3 film classes, which I'd estimate to be less than adequate preparation for the purposes of this discussion). I think films such as The Prop, TAOJJBTCRF and others all offered at least something new to the Western Genre. Is the criticism against these films structural in nature or more about how they don't change the genre/industry? I don't understand why "The Western" stopped after Unforgiven. Also what are the best recommended documentary, print or web resources for film analysis? p.s. thanks for responses
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
Mouser.. posted:I've read it mentioned a couple times but never spelled out clearly. Does an actor sign away the chance to refuse participating in their character getting killed off in a series or movie? Sometimes I'll read how a tv or film actor is very angry that their character dies but they still film the scenes anyways. Two words: contractual obligations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
BRB MAKIN BACON posted:"Eastwood’s incomparable 1992 classic Unforgiven is the last Western." Its a deconstruction of western tropes and cliches staring a huge star of those very same westerns. I think the author doesn't imagine there is much else to do with a genre that has had one of its biggest stars make a movie that breaks apart so much of the fundamental tropes of the genre. I mean, that is of course, just his opinion, you don't have to agree. I don't think anything ever really 'ends' but apparently he thinks Unforgiven will be a hard act to follow and would be a fitting capstone on the genre. I think thats a bit defeatist, but to each his own. The stuff about TWBB is just wrong though. Totally wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
BRB MAKIN BACON posted:Thanks everybody. You probably have to read the whole thread. The whole point is that the western as a genre was ABOUT something. It was an exploration of good and evil through the role of the heroic gunslinger, who represented many things in many movies, but was conceived as a figure of absolute good. Look at Shane, or My Darling Clementine, or any of the poverty row oaters. As time went on, films like The Naked Spur and the Searchers began to question to that - they wondered how a character whose life is predicated on violence and isolation can be a true force of good. The spaghetti westerns went further - they established him as good only inasmuch as he wasn't actively BAD. So for 90+ years, filmmakers were chipping away at the idea of the heroic gunslinger. Unforgiven, in its last act, takes the final steps and makes him into a to-the-bone villain. And by framing it as a story about a man's return to his roots and showing him against the flag, Unforgiven tells us that in a way, the heroic gunslinger always WAS a villain. Later westerns like, for example, Tombstone are fine movies but don't have any mythic qualities, because they've stopped believing in the defining ethos of the genre. I singled out There Will Be Blood because along with a few others (No Country, The Proposition) it seemed to be reaching a new myth, but I think it fell short in the end because it didn't have any conviction. Does that clear it up any? penismightier fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Nov 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 21:24
|
|
|
Polaron posted:Two words: contractual obligations. In other words, you would be sued out your rear end if you refused.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
I'd like to know what specifically about the ending of TWBB you feel neutered the rest of the film, penismighter. I know it's a very polarizing ending and I'm not sure what I myself think about it. All I know is that it really worked for me on an emotional level. I'd love to hear someone more well-written and experienced discuss it a bit in the context of Western films.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 21:56
|
|
|
penismightier posted:You probably have to read the whole thread. Huh, that's pretty interesting. When I watched the film, I didn't get the sense that Will Munny represented the myth of the gunslinger, I took the story to be about how overzealous and misguided enforcement of the law (Hackman) can cause former criminals to turn to crime again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
the Bunt posted:I'd like to know what specifically about the ending of TWBB you feel neutered the rest of the film, penismighter. I haven't seen it since theaters so I'm a little fuzzy, but it doesn't work as a way to revive the western because it shifts the focus to another era too thoroughly. There's a lot of rumbling in the genre now. It's waiting for a Stagecoach or a Fistful of Dollars. There Will Be Blood came as close as anything so far, but it shifted gears at the end. That's far,far less important than the fact that I just don't like it as an ending, period. Anderson had a great thing going stylistically. He had established a beautiful look - a style of inhospitable locations and strong camera movement that was unique. The ending scene self-consciously apes Stanley Kubrick so aggressively that it can't help but exist in the shadow of better films, and it throws away all that was unique about the rest of the film. Like, it works thematically, I guess, but I don't think it's emotionally satisfying (or even unsatisfying in an interesting way) to end your character-driven epic with a big cinephile homage to A Clockwork Orange.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:28 |
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Huh, that's pretty interesting. The strange thing about Unforgiven, for me, is that Gene Hackman's sheriff has become more and more sympathetic for me over time. It could just be that he gives one hell of a performance. If we go beyond that: - Running with penismightier's theme, Unforgiven shows that the gunfighters are villains. Hackman knows that. He might not be fair, and he is most definitely cruel, but he is trying to fight against the villainy of the west. He wants to keep violence out of his town and out of those people's lives. Whether or not he solved the whore-slicing correctly, he did try to solve it with justice rather than vengeance. - He just wanted to build a house - much like Clint. Both had seen horrible times, and had left their former lives to try and find safety, and salvation. I don't want to play into any Christ references (they abound in the film, and not always coherently), but despite Hackman's methods I do believe he was trying to bring order and happiness to the town's population as a whole. - While he may have ultimately succumbed to the lust for fame with the writer, it appeared that Hackman, like Clint, knew exactly how unheroic it was to be a gunfighter, let alone good at it. Just from the small details of his stories you know he had a life that would have been Wyatt Earp level epic for a western mythology. His rejection of the lifestyle, and the myth, is right in line with the movie's entire ideology of deconstruction - except he doesn't get his final coda of badassness to ride out on. - He beat the poo poo out of Richard Harris, that no good, limey, Duck of Death. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 22:23
|
|
