|
Hockles posted:But what about Dalton Abbott or Michael Edwards? Michael Edwards was Priscilla Presley's live in boyfriend while Elvis was still around, case closed.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Yes it is because they won. At the conclusion of T2 the war is won, Skynet will never be. Unfortunately, Cameron didn't end T2 with that message. He ended it with a "Well, the war might be over, but  if it really is!"I think I said it in the Gen thread before Terminatortalk got transfered here: whatever ill will we have for later Terminator films being what they are, at least some of the blame lands at Cameron's feet. Not only did he had a well-heres-an-opening-for-more-stories just by making T2, he deliberately removed the ending to T2 that could've sealed up the series with a concrete happy ending where Skynet was defeated afterall. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
No that isn't the end at all. The ending is incredibly upbeat - there will be no Skynet, there will be no Judgment Day, there will be no end to mankind, and those things are no longer fated to happen. The message is that our fate is now in our hands and we'll learn to value life as the machine designed specifically for killing does. The other ending was trash. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Terminator Salvation has this image of 3-dimensional recognition software accidentally generating an image of a big human heart labelled "vulnerability". That's why it owns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 23:16
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:It definitely didn't but John becoming a homeless guy with borderline PTSD after the events of T2 and living with his survivalist mother isn't a stupid conclusion to that story arc. It doesn't make for a very compelling main character, though.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
I'm watching T1 and noticing all the awesome poo poo this thread has pointed out and it's making the experience very enjoyable. Like Arnie's changing hair, I never noticed it before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Terminator is a really good movie and it's a good thing that Terminator 2's massive success means it won't be forgotten anytime soon.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Terminator 1 has the best song ever in it, in the form of Burning In The Third Degree. Not mentioned enough. Edit: Jesus, I forgot how close Sara gets to bring killed in the first movie at times. Edit2: Oh my giddy aunt, this stop motion REALLY does not hold up, and the practical full-body Terminator barely does when it's supposedly walking. Looks nice, but really doesn't convey motion very well. Edit3: Waitaminute, I distinctly remember a scene before Reese dies where, to motivate him to get up and keep walking, she points out that he's the father of John. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Man, the loss of eyebrows and burned hair really does enhance the creep factor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Stahl gets a bad rap but he's a pretty great actor. Sadly his demons seem to be winning these days. Yeah, Stahl was pretty great in Carnivale and considering how cringeworthy some of the performances in Sin City were he did alright.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Man, the loss of eyebrows and burned hair really does enhance the creep factor. Eyebrows are a major defining facial feature because we used them a lot in identifying faces and measuring emotions. You're more likely to identify, if all you can see is the center portion of their face, a person by their eyebrows than you can by their eyes. Removing completely kinda androgynizes the face as well, since you can tell the sex and age of most people by the distance from the eye, the shape, and the density of their eyebrows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Edit3: Waitaminute, I distinctly remember a scene before Reese dies where, to motivate him to get up and keep walking, she points out that he's the father of John. Going purely by memory here, but I've only ever seen the "Move it Reese. On your feet Soldier. On your FEEEEEET!!" version. That said, my DVD was a little different to what I grew up with. They changed the sound of Arnie's gun when he executes the wrong Sarah from the Dirty Harry "PYOW!" sound to a more modern, realistic one. Different cut maybe? Young Freud posted:Eyebrows are a major defining facial feature because we used them a lot in identifying faces and measuring emotions. You're more likely to identify, if all you can see is the center portion of their face, a person by their eyebrows than you can by their eyes. Removing completely kinda androgynizes the face as well, since you can tell the sex and age of most people by the distance from the eye, the shape, and the density of their eyebrows. One of the reason why gingers are not to be trusted. Some of us have eyebrows so pale they border on creepy terminator faces.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
Does this mean Matt Smith is a Terminator in the new film?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 14:41
|
|
Party Boat posted:Does this mean Matt Smith is a Terminator in the new film? Every character in the new film is a terminator with different levels of deep cover programming. The finale is everyone realizing this and spending several minutes awkwardly shuffling their feet and coughing before just kicking judgment day off a few decades early.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Dog_Meat posted:Going purely by memory here, but I've only ever seen the "Move it Reese. On your feet Soldier. On your FEEEEEET!!" version. It's the damndest thing because while I distinctly remember the vague push of the scene, I can't remember the specifics. I think it's either in that scene or around it; Reese groggingly implores Sara to run /leave him to take out the Terminator with him / find the guy who'll father John, and she says something to the extent of "Reese, don't you get it? It's you!" Just saying it right makes me doubt my own memory, because she prolly wouldn't know she's preg at the time. I'm also the guy that remembers the LoneStar/DarkHelmet fight in Spaceballs start with "Hey! Yours is bigger!" and people think I'm making it up.
MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Unfortunately, Cameron didn't end T2 with that message. He ended it with a "Well, the war might be over, but Basically the war is always gonna happen, skynet will lose at one point ending by sending a terminator back to kill one of the conners. First time line, skynet killed a bunch of humans, about to lose it started terminator 1. End of terminator 1 Sarah knows about the future robot war goes crazy preparing for it. Skynet is created again, then when it is about to be defeated boom terminator 2 to kill John as a kid. John leaves that town at the end never meeting his future wife right away. Skynet is created again, when it is about to be defeated boom terminator 3 to kill all John's lieutenants before the war. End of the movie skynet has come and the robot war had started. Termintor 4 is basically the start of the robot war. One more movie covering up to the complete defeat of skynet/sending kyle reese back in time and they can wrap the whole story up and start remaking it from the start. Every movie changes time drastically. Every time skynet basically a different thing in a way, and it most likely doesn't even know it has tried to kill John Connor before since it never contacts itself or completes any of these attacks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:3 to kill all John's lieutenants before the war. End of the movie skynet has come and the robot war had started.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
It was like the start of the war, no one would believe he was fighting time traveling terminators as a kid even if there was a great robot war happening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:I don't know why this never connected to me until just now, but is it explained in Salvation (I've only seen it once) that the reason why John is "a" leader and not actually "The" leader because his (future) lieutenants were killed off in T3? Nah it's because the people that made Salvation were dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Also because he probably ended up an entitled poo poo person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
John is "a" leader because he's just a homeless guy with dubious future-predicting abilities and little fear of death.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Salvation had the most 'open for a sequel' ending I'd seen in a while. I think they talked about making it a trilogy at first - so having the hero be fairly unremarkable in the first act is a fairly common trope. Unless you only make one part, then your main protagonist just looks bizarrely ineffectual in his own movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
I watched T2 the Director's Cut for the first time the other night. Am I nuts or was the Kyle Reese scene not in the theatrical version?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
It is not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:I watched T2 the Director's Cut for the first time the other night. Am I nuts or was the Kyle Reese scene not in the theatrical version? It was not in the theatrical version. For good reason too, it felt cheaply made (like, made for tv) and slowed things down overall.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
I had a VHS of T2 back in '93 or so but I don't remember it clearly so I was puzzled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
roybot9000 posted:It was not in the theatrical version. For good reason too, it felt cheaply made (like, made for tv) and slowed things down overall. I'm kind of sick of this idea that showing hypothetical images (ie, dream sequences of various kinds) makes film less professional. It's one of the bigger things dragging blockbusters down, IMO, if you don't get into the deeper underlying factors like "the producers have no idea what the gently caress they're doing".
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 06:53
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:I'm kind of sick of this idea that showing hypothetical images (ie, dream sequences of various kinds) makes film less professional. It's one of the bigger things dragging blockbusters down, IMO, if you don't get into the deeper underlying factors like "the producers have no idea what the gently caress they're doing". I don't mind the scene but, really, it doesn't add anything to the film. It's maybe the only scene from the Director's Cut that I think you could leave out with no ill effect. We already know that Sarah wants to get out and find John - we don't really need her hallucinating Kyle Reese, even if it is a nice moment. Dream sequences don't really tend to tell the audience anything new.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
I liked that scene for the same reason Cameron says he likes it in the commentary: it's a window into the fact that part of Sarah is still that waitress that just wants to be in love with Reese.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:I'm kind of sick of this idea that showing hypothetical images (ie, dream sequences of various kinds) makes film less professional. It's one of the bigger things dragging blockbusters down, IMO, if you don't get into the deeper underlying factors like "the producers have no idea what the gently caress they're doing". The new trend for things (at least probably on TV) is instead of dream sequences characters now have 'imaginary' head characters that they semi-interact with all the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
Dog_Meat posted:That said, my DVD was a little different to what I grew up with. They changed the sound of Arnie's gun when he executes the wrong Sarah from the Dirty Harry "PYOW!" sound to a more modern, realistic one. Different cut maybe? The movie was originally only mixed in mono. For the DVD release they did a new 5.1 surround mix which is almost completely different. The DVD release also comes with the mono mix if you want to compare them. For anyone who wants to check out the differences, here is a nice video I found: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xykcul_the-terminator-1984-original-mono-audio-track-vs-remixed-audio-track_shortfilms EDIT: Apparently the BluRay doesn't have the mono mix, which is pretty dumb. The new mix is better in basically every way but it always annoys me when they don't include stuff like that. SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 12:20 on Dec 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 12:00
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:The new trend for things (at least probably on TV) is instead of dream sequences characters now have 'imaginary' head characters that they semi-interact with all the time. Six Feet Under & the Sopranos did that, what, fifteen years ago now? Not saying TV writers don't love to use that trope, but it has been a thing for a pretty long time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:It's maybe the only scene from the Director's Cut that I think you could leave out with no ill effect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Several of the scenes are extraneous - the T-1000 running its hands along John's walls and looking at the dog's collar. Even the activation of the neutral net processor is extraneous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Several of the scenes are extraneous - the T-1000 running its hands along John's walls and looking at the dog's collar. Even the activation of the neutral net processor is extraneous. The Miles Dyson scene tells us that the CPU is revolutionary, that Miles works too much, and that he loves his family or whatever, all of which are indirectly shown in other scenes. Plus it's super boring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:I'm kind of sick of this idea that showing hypothetical images (ie, dream sequences of various kinds) makes film less professional. It's one of the bigger things dragging blockbusters down, IMO, if you don't get into the deeper underlying factors like "the producers have no idea what the gently caress they're doing". I honestly thought the sequence just didn't work. Michael Biehn is an awful actor unless he's playing "twitchy bad rear end". There's nothing wrong with dream sequences being used. In fact, the dream of Sarah watching herself as a waitress in the child's playground worked amazingly well. But the scene with Reese felt awful and TV movie-ish. There was also too much dialogue with 'head Kyle' somehow knowing that John was in danger again. It was a good call by Cameron to cut it out. The same goes for the deleted scene in T1 where Kyle is breaking down over all the green and beauty in the world before the war. You can almost imagine Cameron watching the scene and looking uncomfortably at the team making cut throat gestures. I agree with most the cuts from T2 now I can better appreciate film making, but I still always watch the full T-1000 edition. Extra scenes are cool to discover when you're a huge fan and know the film inside out, but usually the theatrical cut is better (unless it's something like DareDevil or Kingdom of Heaven).
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:Six Feet Under & the Sopranos did that, what, fifteen years ago now? Not saying TV writers don't love to use that trope, but it has been a thing for a pretty long time. BSG did it a decade ago too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Dog_Meat posted:(unless it's something like DareDevil or Kingdom of Heaven). Wait, the directors cut of daredevil was good?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
It's not GOOD, but it has a couple of extra good scenes with Daredevil, one of which basically involves him throwing someone in front of a train because they were found not guilty even though he knew they did it. So some fans have hailed it as excellent of course for the restored attempt at grimdarkness. Kingdom of Heaven on the other hand is like night and day. And is very weird because watching it, I can totally see some scenes that you COULD cut out if you were worried about the running time, but the theatrical cut is total trash. Like Orlando Bloom's familial relation to other major characters is never mentioned, or how he was an engineer in the king's army when on duty. The theatrical cut makes it like he's just some random dude that is chosen to help lead a the third crusade and design siege weapons out of nowhere, it's a seriously bizarre cut of the movie. david_a posted:I thought the Miles Dyson scene with his kids talking about going to Raging Waters or whatever was completely extraneous. The only extra thing from this scene that's kind of cool is how Dyson is specific about Skynet's purpose and how it's not a computer meant to control nuclear weapons. It dovetails with the T-800's explanation of how Skynet acted out of self defense and then Sarah flipping out about how men only know how to make stuff that's destructive. I love the processor switch scene though for the aforementioned reasons and the trick with the "mirror" to have it all happen on screen is really awesome. 
Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Dec 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
Also, establishing Miles as a sympathetic human character with a family before Sarah tries to kill him is kinda fuckin' important.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 22:13
|
|