|
LaughMyselfTo posted:Also, establishing Miles as a sympathetic human character with a family before Sarah tries to kill him is kinda fuckin' important. You get that during the scene she tries to kill him.
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
I like the extra little bits of the T-1000 malfunctioning in the refinery both because they look really cool, and I think at the time it was actually not communicated as well by the few remaining glitch shots that the T-1000 was significantly damaged/hindered by being freezed and shattered. Disclaimer: at the time I was 9 and the last 20 minutes was  at a drive-in
McSpanky fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Dec 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Skeesix posted:Wait, the directors cut of daredevil was good? Allow me to apologize right now for suggesting that the Daredevil movie is good in anyway. That said, the director's cut does address the bizarre climax of Kingpin being arrested because he lost a fight to Daredevil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted: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. I liked it a lot to. The Terminator is a love story above all else, and I kind of missed that aspect in T2. Also why don't people understand that their is no paradox? John Connor's father is not important. Sarah is the strong one who raises her son to be a fighter, and a leader. If it wasn't Reese's sperm, it would just be some douchebag that she met at a bar. Sarah is the key, not John. In the original timeline Sarah meets a guy, gets pregnant and raises her son to be a brave and fearless man. John survives Judgment day, and rallies others to rebel against the machines. The events of Terminator 1 happen, and John has a new father, but his mother remains the same and that's all that matters. I think Skynet realized this as well which is why they tried to go after Sarah first, instead of John.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Pops Ghostly posted:I liked it a lot to. The Terminator is a love story above all else, and I kind of missed that aspect in T2. Also why don't people understand that their is no paradox? John Connor's father is not important. Sarah is the strong one who raises her son to be a fighter, and a leader. If it wasn't Reese's sperm, it would just be some douchebag that she met at a bar. Sarah is the key, not John. In the original timeline Sarah meets a guy, gets pregnant and raises her son to be a brave and fearless man. John survives Judgment day, and rallies others to rebel against the machines. The events of Terminator 1 happen, and John has a new father, but his mother remains the same and that's all that matters. I think Skynet realized this as well which is why they tried to go after Sarah first, instead of John. Or T1 is a closed loop and Reese is always the father because he has always been the father. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 02:02
|
|
WarLocke posted:Or T1 is a closed loop and Reese is always the father because he has always been the father. It's obviously this.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:Or T1 is a closed loop and Reese is always the father because he has always been the father. That's impossible. Time Travel is somewhat feasible, but the closed loop theory is not. I don't understand why people can't seem to grasp this simple fact. We all love Reese, but his sperm is no different than anyone else's. Sarah was destined to be a single mother, whether it was Reese being killed by a Terminator, or original timeline baby daddy being killed by a drunk driver. Sarah Connor is the real hero, not Reese, not John.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Time traveling into the past is not feasible since there's nothing to travel to and thus it's impossible (you could only travel into the future if at all). You just have to accept that Kyle Reese was always his dad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 02:10
|
|
Pops Ghostly posted:That's impossible. Time Travel is somewhat feasible, but the closed loop theory is not. I don't understand why people can't seem to grasp this simple fact. Please tell us more, Doctor Time Travel. 
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
The Terminator franchise intended to use the closed loop concept during Terminator 1, and then decided not to during Terminator 2. This is pretty obvious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Kyle Reese is still always his dad. I mean the end of T2 means the future war never happened but that doesn't mean Kyle never came back or nothing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Kyle Reese is still always his dad. I mean the end of T2 means the future war never happened but that doesn't mean Kyle never came back or nothing. No he is not. Ultimately Kyle was just one soldier of many. If he didn't get the assignment, it would have been someone else. Maybe they would have fallen in love, maybe not. But Sarah would have had sex and given birth eventually. Even if she just went around having one night stands in order to get pregnant. Cameron is a feminist. He understands the power of womanhood and celebrates it. Sarah is the true hero of the Terminator franchise. Cameron understands that humanity's salvation lies in the hands of women, not men or cyborgs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Pops Ghostly posted:No he is not. Ultimately Kyle was just one soldier of many. If he didn't get the assignment, it would have been someone else. Maybe they would have fallen in love, maybe not. But Sarah would have had sex and given birth eventually. Even if she just went around having one night stands in order to get pregnant. Cameron is a feminist. He understands the power of womanhood and celebrates it. Sarah is the true hero of the Terminator franchise. Cameron understands that humanity's salvation lies in the hands of women, not men or cyborgs. John Connor sends Kyle back in time because he knows Kyle is his dad, then Kyle knocks up Sarah, who has John, she tells John that Kyle's his dad, then John sends Kyle back in time because he knows he's his father, Kyle knocks up Sarah, Sarah tells John that Kyle is his dad...
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 02:22
|
|
Pops Ghostly posted:No he is not. Ultimately Kyle was just one soldier of many. If he didn't get the assignment, it would have been someone else. Maybe they would have fallen in love, maybe not. But Sarah would have had sex and given birth eventually. Even if she just went around having one night stands in order to get pregnant. Cameron is a feminist. He understands the power of womanhood and celebrates it. Sarah is the true hero of the Terminator franchise. Cameron understands that humanity's salvation lies in the hands of women, not men or cyborgs. "The audience has to want to gently caress her."
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:John Connor sends Kyle back in time because he knows Kyle is his dad, then Kyle knocks up Sarah, who has John, she tells John that Kyle's his dad, then John sends Kyle back in time because he knows he's his father, Kyle knocks up Sarah, Sarah tells John that Kyle is his dad... Your making things more complicated than they have to be. What does it matter who Johns father is? He dies before the war, and Sarah raised John by herself. John never met his father and he still became the John Connor. Sarah taught him how to fight, how to lead, how to love. Reese does not matter. What if the resistance sent back a fat guy, a gay guy, a black guy, or whatever. Sarah is the key, and the father of her child could be a turkey baster and it would make no difference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Pops Ghostly posted:Your making things more complicated than they have to be. What does it matter who Johns father is? He dies before the war, and Sarah raised John by herself. John never met his father and he still became the John Connor. Sarah taught him how to fight, how to lead, how to love. Reese does not matter. What if the resistance sent back a fat guy, a gay guy, a black guy, or whatever. Sarah is the key, and the father of her child could be a turkey baster and it would make no difference. Exactly. There's no need to invent a string of fathers, since Reese fits the narrative set in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Pops Ghostly posted:Your making things more complicated than they have to be. What does it matter who Johns father is? He dies before the war, and Sarah raised John by herself. John never met his father and he still became the John Connor. Sarah taught him how to fight, how to lead, how to love. Reese does not matter. What if the resistance sent back a fat guy, a gay guy, a black guy, or whatever. Sarah is the key, and the father of her child could be a turkey baster and it would make no difference. Terminator 2... In DA HOOD!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 02:45
|
|
WarLocke posted:Exactly. There's no need to invent a string of fathers, since Reese fits the narrative set in the movie. One wonders how Sarah would have raised John to be set for the future war when I don't see how a waitress in LA would have the right skills or knowledge.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Pops Ghostly posted:In the original timeline Sarah meets a guy, gets pregnant and raises her son to be a brave and fearless man. John survives Judgment day, and rallies others to rebel against the machines. The events of Terminator 1 happen, and John has a new father, but his mother remains the same and that's all that matters. Milky Moor posted:One wonders how Sarah would have raised John to be set for the future war when I don't see how a waitress in LA would have the right skills or knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Sasquatch! posted:Reese or no Reese, this is really a bigger open-ended question: Would the "first" iteration of Sarah Connor raise her son to be a warrior and a leader, or did the "first" John just grow into that role naturally on his own? The first John was not the second John. The very first John got to be human resistance leader 'naturally', as in he was not pushed into it by Sarah. He could have been conceived with a guy she meets at her waitressing job, a one night stand or whatever. He could have been a natural jock at school, not the hacker nerd shown in T2. He could even be older or younger than First John. Completely different DNA, hair color, whatever. Doesn't matter. The second John was steered into being resistance leader, the question you should be asking is is the second version better than the first. Skynet could have made John either less effective or more effective at fighting it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Sasquatch! posted:Reese or no Reese, this is really a bigger open-ended question: Would the "first" iteration of Sarah Connor raise her son to be a warrior and a leader, or did the "first" John just grow into that role naturally on his own? But there is no 'first John' or 'second John'. That's the whole point of a closed loop. All of it has happened before and will happen again - it's the same John every time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:One wonders how Sarah would have raised John to be set for the future war when I don't see how a waitress in LA would have the right skills or knowledge. She didn't raise him to fight a future war. She instilled in him the importance of courage under fire, perseverance, and the will to do what's right. If aliens took over, before skynet, John would still be resisting and encouraging others to do the same, because that is the type of man Sarah Connor raised.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
But as a counterpoint, the film series has shown there are multiple timelines that exist due to time travel shenanigans. Despite the consistent occurrence of JDay, they've pushed the date back to different times, they've gone into future with more/less resources at their disposal, etc. I don't find the idea that there is/was an original timeline where Kyle wasn't the father inconceivable (no pun intended).
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:But as a counterpoint, the film series has shown there are multiple timelines that exist due to time travel shenanigans. Despite the consistent occurrence of JDay, they've pushed the date back to different times, they've gone into future with more/less resources at their disposal, etc. I always took T2 and beyond as a single timeline, but each movie changes it (typically pushing the date of Judgement Day back). TSCC runs with the actual multiple timelines stuff more than the movies, IMO. But none of that is relevant if you're only considering T1. The original is a classic closed loop paradox.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
If T2-T3-Salvation never existed, i could see the whole thing being more definitely excused as a closed loop. On the other hand, since the franchise has had events occur that have changed the future rather than reinforce it, I think it has inspired a lot more debate on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
I consider T2 the end of the story because it's much better than what came after, and it actually doesn't leave anything open since you're supposed to understand Skynet never comes into being and the war isn't going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:If T2-T3-Salvation never existed, i could see the whole thing being more definitely excused as a closed loop. On the other hand, since the franchise has had events occur that have changed the future rather than reinforce it, I think it has inspired a lot more debate on the subject. They didn't exist when T1 was made. T2/T3/Salvation are basically retcons of the original premise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:I consider T2 the end of the story because it's much better than what came after, and it actually doesn't leave anything open since you're supposed to understand Skynet never comes into being and the war isn't going to happen. I agree. And the entire message of the film is that their is no such thing as fate or destiny. It's about the choices we make and what values we hold dear. The fixed time loop theory goes against everything T2 stands for. Skynet understood that it was Sarah who instilled the values and personal code of conduct that John relied on in order to rally mankind and rebel against skynet. That's why she was the first target. If they had killed John first, Sarah may have had another child, and he would have been a natural leader like John.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Wasn't the plot to one of the Terminator comics that 'John' ended up being born a girl, and somehow it caused such a massive change to the timeline that everything reset itself in some way?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Pops Ghostly posted:The fixed time loop theory goes against everything T2 stands for. More like T2's ending goes against the original one. If you want to get semantic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
The fixed time loop theory goes against everything T2 stands for because T1 doesn't stand for the same things. T1 presented one cosmology and take on time travel, T2 presented another.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:I like the extra little bits of the T-1000 malfunctioning in the refinery both because they look really cool, and I think at the time it was actually not communicated as well by the few remaining glitch shots that the T-1000 was significantly damaged/hindered by being freezed and shattered. The funny thing about the removal of those scenes is that there's still one in the theatrical version: an upward ripple effect that goes over its full body. It was years before seeing the extended scenes that clarified the effect as an example of a glitch; as a kid I just assumed it was a "Well, we were just in a bunch of solid pieces there for a minute, let's just refresh my entire matrix" thing instead of a glitch. Pops Ghostly posted:Time Travel is somewhat feasible, but the closed loop theory is not. Terminator 1 is implicitly a closed loop. Hell, it's almost as if like Cameron predicted a sequel would be made, because Reese mentions all the later training Sarah would undergo that is later cited in T2. Pops Ghostly posted:The fixed time loop theory goes against everything T2 stands for. Terminator 2 really brings up an interesting thing with me. I love it as a movie, but its very nature kinda screws up the narrative. The first Terminator is a dark movie that ends with someone knowing that in a few years, the world is going to be destroyed and there's nothing she can do about it. Then along comes T2 and it's a much lighter we-can-prevent-it film. It's kinda why I like Terminator 3: it actively throws away T2's cheery feelings and reminds the audience gently caress you, this series started and ends on a down note.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:The funny thing about the removal of those scenes is that there's still one in the theatrical version: an upward ripple effect that goes over its full body. It was years before seeing the extended scenes that clarified the effect as an example of a glitch; as a kid I just assumed it was a "Well, we were just in a bunch of solid pieces there for a minute, let's just refresh my entire matrix" thing instead of a glitch. T3 is not cannon. The only thing that matters are the first two films. Whatever Cameron intended with the T1, he had a different outlook with T2. That's all that matters. And I don't remember Kyle mentioning anything about Sarah training to fight. He just said John was a strong person who rallied others to rebel against the machines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:The fixed time loop theory goes against everything T2 stands for because T1 doesn't stand for the same things. T1 presented one cosmology and take on time travel, T2 presented another. Yes, the objection is that he took the stance that T2 is the one we should be judging by, and not the original movie. T1 set up the 'rules', and then T2 changed them. Therefore T2 goes against T1 because T2 is about different things. T1 doesn't 'go against' anything because it set the whole groundwork - there was nothing to 'go against' before it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
I've always seen it as a series of branching timelines as opposed to 'alternate'. But Terminator 1 always happens. Kyle is always John's father. Speculating about an unknown Connor father is kind of ridiculous.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Pops Ghostly posted:T3 is not cannon. The only thing that matters are the first two films. Whatever Cameron intended with the T1, he had a different outlook with T2. That's all that matters. Terminator 3 strength is that it reinforces the original completeness of Terminator 1. For all its strengths, Terminator 2 is a cash-in of a movie; a rejection of the core theme of its original in order to make another. Fundamentally, the story of Terminator is one of inevitability. And I'm not usually That Guy when it comes to this, but it's canon, and you keep using the wrong version of their. Pops Ghostly posted:And I don't remember Kyle mentioning anything about Sarah training to fight. He just said John was a strong person who rallied others to rebel against the machines. "A chance to meet the legend. Sarah Connor. Who taught her son to fight, organize, prepare from when he was a kid. When you were in hiding before the war." MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Dec 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Terminator 3 strength is that it reinforces the original completeness of Terminator 1. For all its strengths, Terminator 2 is a cash-in of a movie; a rejection of the core theme of its original in order to make another. Fundamentally, the story of Terminator is one of inevitability. If it aint Cameron, it aint Terminator. As far as that quote, you have to remember that the war did not start immediately. Skynet nuked the planet, and those that survived went underground. Skynet began manufacturing the cyborgs so they could engage the human survivors on a personal level. Some were put into camps, and others were killed on the spot. When Kyle says that Sarah trained John before the war, he didn't mean she had prior knowledge of Judgment Day. He meant that after the nuclear holocaust Sarah went underground with her son, and taught him to be a survivor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:You get that during the scene she tries to kill him. But you don't get the idea that he was an optimist. That he looked at it, and all he could see was the good. It just adds a nice "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" element.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Pops Ghostly posted:If it aint Cameron, it aint Terminator. It's Cameron himself that got us into the timeline chicanery in the first place by  ing his shoulders and tossing away the "the world is hosed, deal with it" tone from the first film in order to justify a second movie's existence.Pops Ghostly posted:As far as that quote, you have to remember that the war did not start immediately. Skynet nuked the planet, and those that survived went underground. Skynet began manufacturing the cyborgs so they could engage the human survivors on a personal level. Some were put into camps, and others were killed on the spot. When Kyle says that Sarah trained John before the war, he didn't mean she had prior knowledge of Judgment Day. He meant that after the nuclear holocaust Sarah went underground with her son, and taught him to be a survivor. I think you're reaching really hard here. Based on Terminator 1, there has never been a John Connor, trained by his mother, that wasn't sired by Reese.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
Pops Ghostly posted:If it aint Cameron, it aint Terminator. Are you going into the new Star Wars movies with the same opinion? This mindset is almost as childish as xenomrph's "EVERYTHING IS CANON AND ANYTHING WITH TERMINATORS/ALIENS/PREDATORS IS A DIAMOND IN THE ROUGH, INCLUDING MY SELF-INSERTED SLASH FIC AND THE BIG TITTY ANIME STATUES WITH TERMINATOR/ALIEN/PREDATOR HEADS SWAPPED ONTO THEM WHICH ADORN MY SINGLE BEDROOM APARTMENT."
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 06:57
|
|
