|
Just a heads up, some Cinemark theaters are going to be showing The Terminator on the 14th.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
I don't think Connor being a terminator is a "plot twist" to get upset about trailers spoiling. The trailers clearly aren't making any effort to hide it and leaks earlier in the thread said Connor gets turned into a terminator within the first ten minutes of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Every one of the movies I listed is a "franchise" movie, and is outright better than earlier movies in the franchise. Saying "every franchise inevitably nosedives and never recovers" is objectively false, not to mention it's a meaningless logical fallacy anyway. Except for TF4. It was hard but they managed to take the franchise to a new low with that film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Except for TF4. It was hard but they managed to take the franchise to a new low with that film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, I felt TF4 was a huge step up from 2 and 3. Non-repulsive protagonist, Autobots with distinct personalities and actual screen time and dialogue, easy to follow action, three distinct villains each with their own easy to follow, interesting agendas... I absolutely thought the 4th movie was a major improvement, and I'd go as far as to say it's the best Transformers movie to date. DOTM had Spock. I rest my case
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Why are we arguing about what varying levels of trash The Transformers movies are?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
James Cameron apparently saw an early screening of Genisys and appears to be saying it should be considered as the "third" terminator film. I find this amusing since he praised Terminator 3 back in 2003 as in "one word: great". Terminator 3 is a solid action flick IMO. The car chase, the T-800 vs TX fight, even some of the dialogue/plot were good, and in the last 3 minutes of the film where John and Catherine realize that the Bunker is for surviving Judgement Day rather than stopping it was genuinely  when I first saw it in the theater. Terminator 3 was R and used mostly practical effects and stunts as well. Genisys looks like its going to be the opposite of that along with a PG13 rating. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 09:00
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:You might not be aware of it, but neither of those comments actually refuted anything I said. I think the response was to things like you picking Freddy vs Jason as better than the first movie instead of, you know, Dream Warriors. I like Freddy vs Jason quite a bit, but no way in hell is it better than Dream Warriors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
I just saw the trailer at the cinema and is it just me or are all the endoskeleton (or whatever they're called) robot parts cgi instead of prosthetics? Like even the stuff on Arnie's face?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 12:33
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:I think the response was to things like you picking Freddy vs Jason as better than the first movie instead of, you know, Dream Warriors. I like Freddy vs Jason quite a bit, but no way in hell is it better than Dream Warriors. It's not even really better than 4 (4, while silly, fully embraced the wave of popularity the series was at the time and added to 3 with even more excess and creativity when it came to powers/deaths). As far as all the movies go, I'd probably say (N = nightmare, F=Friday): N3, N1, N4 = F2 = NN, F6 = F4, FvJ...
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Kin posted:I just saw the trailer at the cinema and is it just me or are all the endoskeleton (or whatever they're called) robot parts cgi instead of prosthetics? If I was like 65 years old and still the driving force behind a massively popular movie franchise, I'd use my leverage to avoid sitting in a makeup chair for 4 hours every morning too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, I felt TF4 was a huge step up from 2 and 3. Non-repulsive protagonist, Autobots with distinct personalities and actual screen time and dialogue, easy to follow action, three distinct villains each with their own easy to follow, interesting agendas... I absolutely thought the 4th movie was a major improvement, and I'd go as far as to say it's the best Transformers movie to date. It shouldn't surprise anyone here that you loved TF4 which was loving terrible trash. A spastic mess of action and jumping around the world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Kin posted:I just saw the trailer at the cinema and is it just me or are all the endoskeleton (or whatever they're called) robot parts cgi instead of prosthetics?  If this is true. Maybe it's so all of the effects mesh better on screen? I feel like the Terminator face damage thing is so iconic that they could have easily done it with make up and no one would have cared/it may have looked better. Maybe for PG-13 purposes there are limits to how "bloody" make up could be and they could do it cheaply and more easily this way?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:
I hate to repeat myself but I really think you're underestimating how much Arnold is probably done with sitting through several hours of prosthetic work before a long day of shooting. I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that he went out of his way to decree there will be no long make-up sessions this time around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:I think the response was to things like you picking Freddy vs Jason as better than the first movie instead of, you know, Dream Warriors. I like Freddy vs Jason quite a bit, but no way in hell is it better than Dream Warriors. Vintersorg posted:It shouldn't surprise anyone here that you loved TF4 which was loving terrible trash. A spastic mess of action and jumping around the world. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Only the finest taste of movies can grace my eyes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I hate to repeat myself but I really think you're underestimating how much Arnold is probably done with sitting through several hours of prosthetic work before a long day of shooting. I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that he went out of his way to decree there will be no long make-up sessions this time around. I doubt that. http://www.theterminatorfans.com/exclusive-schwarzenegger-terminator-genisys-battle-damage-make-up/
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I doubt that. Arnold is a cool dude. I'd be so done with this poo poo by now if I was him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Arnold is a cool dude. I'd be so done with this poo poo by now if I was him. It helps that he's totally embraced the ridiculousness of his life and is a super fun man via social media. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaGk2_frk_s
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:You might not be aware of it, but neither of those comments actually refuted anything I said. I'm sorry but the idea that Terminator is "subversive" of anything is laughable. quote:Every one of the movies I listed is a "franchise" movie, and is outright better than earlier movies in the franchise. Saying "every franchise inevitably nosedives and never recovers" is objectively false, not to mention it's a meaningless logical fallacy anyway. I will take your word for it that Transformer 4 is better than Transformers 1. The franchises you listed are almost all so utterly terrible to begin with that it hardly matters whether some of the sequels are marginally better than their predecessors. The existence of these billion dollar franchises just illustrates how terrible 'franchise starter' movies usually turn out to be. They're made based on the calculation that nerds will keep paying to see one bad movie after another as long as it has the correct branding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I will take your word for it that Transformer 4 is better than Transformers 1. The franchises you listed are almost all so utterly terrible to begin with that it hardly matters whether some of the sequels are marginally better than their predecessors. The existence of these billion dollar franchises just illustrates how terrible 'franchise starter' movies usually turn out to be. They're made based on the calculation that nerds will keep paying to see one bad movie after another as long as it has the correct branding. Every single big budget movie is made based on the calculation there will be a market for it. You seem to want to make it an internet thing or a nerd thing but its simply the way the movie industry is, and always has been. Its a business, people don't lay out millions and millions of dollars without expecting a return on the investment. The list of "franchises" that have latched onto a safe formula and ran it into the ground is endless. It happened to Batman twice before the internet was a thing, it happened to James Bond, Dirty Harry, Rambo, Rocky, Lethal Weapon, and on and on. Its just not something that's worth spending time worrying about, all you can do is go to the movies you want to see an stay away from the ones you don't. Even without a gigantic budget, "branding" has always been a concern. Christopher Lee openly talked about how he wanted to quit playing Dracula, but the producers would come to him and explain that the movie wouldn't get greenlit without him attached, and all the people working on it would be out of a job. Nobody seemed to care that Lee barely appeared in the later entries, they could put him on the poster and attract an audience based on his presence alone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
There is absolutely nothing subversive about a Terminator film retconning 'canon.' That has been a part of the series since the very beginning where Skynet intended to do so and failed and where everyone has been attempting to do it in every film since. Terminator 2 already presents a theoretical diversion from the expected timeline it is just that we didn't SEE the original timeline except in brief flashbacks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
No one can possibly defend Saw 6
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Well, it's not Saw 4/5. Also, Hoffman killing all of those cops in the police station was pretty brutal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I'm sorry but the idea that Terminator is "subversive" of anything is laughable ImpAtom posted:There is absolutely nothing subversive about a Terminator film retconning 'canon.' That has been a part of the series since the very beginning where Skynet intended to do so and failed and where everyone has been attempting to do it in every film since. Terminator 2 already presents a theoretical diversion from the expected timeline it is just that we didn't SEE the original timeline except in brief flashbacks. We don't know how it'll play out, and frankly that makes me excited to see what they do with it. Much more excited than I was with the plots of T3 or Salvation, for sure. vainman posted:No one can possibly defend Saw 6 And yeah, it's a colossal step up from 4 and 5.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
vainman posted:No one can possibly defend Saw 6 Saw 6 is amazing.  - "I call this the shotgun trap. You will have to minorly injure yourself to save two people from dying. The other four will be shot in the head so you can learn a lesson. Oh and at the end you will also die. Because you denied me experimental cancer treatment that probably wouldn't have done poo poo."Its right up there with the machine gun trap from the last one in terms of What the fuckedness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
vainman posted:No one can possibly defend Saw 6 It's not as good as the first two, but it's better than 3, and beats the gently caress out of 4, 5, and 7.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Yeah, for the sixth sequel in a horror franchise that had been sharply declining since the third one, Saw 6 is way, way more competent than it has any right to be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Saw 6 straight up forgot the plot of the previous movies
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Like whatever you like, I guess, but the only thing competent about Saw 6 was the camera was on
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
vainman posted:Saw 6 straight up forgot the plot of the previous movies I mean, given that the plot in question disappeared entirely up its own rear end very quickly I think it kinda works in the movie's favor.  e: like, don't get me wrong, 6 is no great shakes and doesn't match the first two, but after 4 and 5 it was a loving oasis in the desert. Literally the one good thing about 4 was that it brought X Japan partly out of retirement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
The "genius" of the Saw series is I very quickly forget which one is which, but I know there are one or two solid entries in there somewhere. This, combined with my movie-OCD leads to me rewatching the entire drat series just to get them straight in my memory again. Like, I know there was a sequel that I thought was really good, but I can't remember if it was 5, 6, or 7.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The "genius" of the Saw series is I very quickly forget which one is which, but I know there are one or two solid entries in there somewhere. This, combined with my movie-OCD leads to me rewatching the entire drat series just to get them straight in my memory again. Like, I know there was a sequel that I thought was really good, but I can't remember if it was 5, 6, or 7. 3 & 4 take place simultaneously, and they bring back Detective Matthews |(briefly and hilariously) which is great, but they both have a lot of the Jigsaw backstory stuff which I thought was kind of lame.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
I love how the Terminator thread has turned into a discussion about the Saw movies. Is that how much people are anticipating Genisys?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
I'm reasonably hyped but think it's crap they gave away so much in the trailer unless it's, like someone joked, the first 30 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Gatts posted:I'm reasonably hyped but think it's crap they gave away so much in the trailer unless it's, like someone joked, the first 30 minutes. If leaks are accurate, the trailers have shown almost literally the entire film in terms of set pieces, as well as how the T-Connor dies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Timby posted:If leaks are accurate, the trailers have shown almost literally the entire film in terms of set pieces, as well as how the T-Connor dies. ...gently caress THIS MOVIE...gently caress THE STUDIO....gently caress IT ALL AND BURN EVERYTHING TO THE GROUND
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
It's doesn't have an R rating so gently caress this. Terminator III at least kept the violence and profanity from the first two films. The action sequences look like they'll be some weightless marvel poo poo as well. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
Rewatched all four Terminator movies recently. What stands out is how badass Linda Hamilton was in T2. If you watch T1 and T2 back to back her physical changes are dramatic. Her PTSD kept things moving and created urgency prior to the terminator fireworks. Other thoughts: Furlong was pretty bad. Stahl was pretty good. T3 is not bad and T4 is not good. T4 had a few good scenes and potential. The fatal flaw in T4 was having a human terminator vs a terminator that looks like a human. That didn't work. It fell flat. I never cared what happened to Marcus. I was left waiting for the cat / mouse game with terminator vs human that drove the first two films. Instead we had a hodgepodge of random human vs machine that never developed the same drama. The Mad Max car chase began to build up some old Terminator feel but once Reese was jailed the film lost momentum (and the motorcycle terminators were kinda dumb and Transformer-ish) and honestly Bale was so bad I was hoping he would get killed. Despite T4's other flaws, that scene is when it truly committed the worst sin, it got boring. Christian Bale's hoarse shouting archetype is awful and inexcusable for him and the Director. How do you get a lead role based on that horrible characterization? Bale ruined Dark Knight and T4 with that crap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Every single big budget movie is made based on the calculation there will be a market for it. You seem to want to make it an internet thing or a nerd thing but its simply the way the movie industry is, and always has been. Its a business, people don't lay out millions and millions of dollars without expecting a return on the investment. I think the big difference here is that the franchises you listed (with the exception of the Hammer era Dracula) started out movies that were intended to succeed on their own terms. After their initial successes they degenerated more or less quickly into tired old franchsies that relaibly cranked out sequels until they became unprofitable but the initial movies that started these genres were written and directed on their own terms. It feels as though in contemporary Hollywood there's much more pressure to have every intellectual property be or immediately turn into a major franchise that accomplishes a checklist of elements. It feels as though movies of the past, while still very derivative, tended to provide more space for directors and writers to experiment or try new things. Ironically it would be much harder to greenlight the original Terminator in today's Hollywood universe because it wouldn't be plugging into a pre-existing franchise. It's fair of you to point out that most of what I'm complaining about predates the internet or modern fan culture so I guess I should revise my claim to say that these things really haven't helped the quality of movies (which, if you were a naive observer, you might think that they would) even if they can't specifically be blamed for causing movies to be so lovely much of the time. Xenomrph posted:Why? Because it's a branded product created to deliver a predictable amount of profit to it's investors. It's like saying that Vanilla Coke is "subversive" because it breaks with the old assumptions about Coca Cola's brand as a universal expression of American values that would be equally enjoyed by all without any variations in flavor. I mean yeah, in some very trite and irrelevant way you could claim that T2 is "subversive" toward T1 because the villain returns as the hero, but once you've used that maneuvere once that's it - repeating it again and again is not subverting anything, it's just a way for the producer/director/script writer to stimulate the audience in the pursuit of a proper return on investment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 20:34
|
|