|
I am getting a little concerned about how lame 1,000 tiny terminators in the shape of John Connor will be as a foe for Arnold. The police scene coupled with that parking lot scene makes it look like he's always in the vicinity of the players but not on a murderous Terminator rampage until the moment of "OMG, it's a terminator". I don't care for that actor much either. He sucked in that Chicago PD TV show. Hoping I am wrong as usual. 
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
The busted leg from T1 was a career ending wound. He's a security guard at Cyberdine in T2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:Okay, I can't fault the cinematography or effects work. God drat that Young Arnold is spot on. I remember how they explained away the "Arnold" in Salvation. They basically put 1984 Arnold's face on the body of a bodybuilder/actor (this dude). But this, maybe the best CGI I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 04:27
|
|
WarLocke posted:I could have sworn T2 did, because the same cop from T1 (and apparently Genysis now) was in the scene and freaks out that it's happening again. That was T3.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:I could have sworn T2 did, because the same cop from T1 (and apparently Genysis now) was in the scene and freaks out that it's happening again. He comes back in T2 as a psychologist at the mental hospital where Sarah Connor is being held, and then cameos in T3.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:Okay, I can't fault the cinematography or effects work. God drat that Young Arnold is spot on. Something about that whole scene feels really off to me, though. It sort of feels like the digital aspects are really popping out to me. However, maybe this is a matter of my monitor and the resolution I'm watching it at, too. I've noticed I can watch some things in theaters or on BD that look really good and feel more realistic, but the divide between actors and effects stand out a lot more at lower resolutions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:Not going to lie, I got a really stupid grin on my face during that second clip. It's a shame the three actors are pretty drat bad, although out acting Bill Paxton was always going to be a tall order. This movie might actually be stupid enough to be worth a watch. JediTalentAgent posted:Something about that whole scene feels really off to me, though. It sort of feels like the digital aspects are really popping out to me. However, maybe this is a matter of my monitor and the resolution I'm watching it at, too. I've noticed I can watch some things in theaters or on BD that look really good and feel more realistic, but the divide between actors and effects stand out a lot more at lower resolutions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:I think the line is that Skynet sent the T-800 and T-1000 back at the same time, to two different points in the past. So if the T-800 fails you still have the T-1000 arriving years later to try again. Makes you wonder what the T-1000 would have done, had the T-800 succeeded. Imagine Robert Patrick arriving in the 90s all ready to kill John Connor, but he just can't find him, ever. edit: or does time travel not work like that? Man, gently caress time travel, gives me a headache.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 10:57
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Makes you wonder what the T-1000 would have done, had the T-800 succeeded. Imagine Robert Patrick arriving in the 90s all ready to kill John Connor, but he just can't find him, ever. Pure fanwank here, but I can only imagine that both models would have sub-missions like the ones in TSCC where upon completing their primary objective they could do little bits and bobs to help in the future war or help Skynet or whatever. If you want to read more please follow my fan-fiction account at https://www.tumb...
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
The problem being, how would the T-1000 know that the T-800 succeeded in its mission? Or was the T-800 programmed to hang around until the T-1000 arrives and then go on wacky adventures with him?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
Actually I could have sworn that in the original time line, all Skynet could muster was a single T-800. Then things changed, Skynet got WAY more advanced, because it got ahold of the original T-800 chip and arm, and it was able to create the T-1000 in a revised timeline and send THAT back instead, so knowing a regular human wouldn't be able to do the job, they reprogrammed a T-800 to try to save the past. At least that's how I always thought it worked. Splintering timelines all the way down
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Its hard to combine Terminator and T2 like that because one is written as a closed loop and the other is more of an open-ended free-for-all. If you try to read Terminator as anything other than a closed loop then you have to get into the genetics of John Connor and that he must have had a father other than Kyle Reese in the "original" timeline.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Its hard to combine Terminator and T2 like that because one is written as a closed loop and the other is more of an open-ended free-for-all T1 isn't a closed loop, it's a predestination paradox. Skynet creates itself and John Connor. The timeline is getting just as trashed as in a free-for-all like Looper, just in a more subtle way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:T1 isn't a closed loop, it's a predestination paradox. Same thing, really. At least as far as armchair movie talk is concerned. But yeah, T1 is fundamentally different from the rest of the franchise in that it is totally self-contained and stands alone. I'm going to see Genisys anyway because who are we kidding, it's a goddamn Terminator movie. I'm just trying my best not to get hyped about it because the last two were total wet farts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:T1 isn't a closed loop, it's a predestination paradox. Skynet creates itself and John Connor. The timeline is getting just as trashed as in a free-for-all like Looper, just in a more subtle way. How so? As far as I remember nothing about the timeline changes in T1. Skynet is created by humans, John Connor leads the resistance, Skynet sends Terminator back in time to kill his mother but instead ends up directly causing him to be born. That's it. If you're referring to the chip that they find in T2, that's not established at all in T1.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
It's actually impressive how closed T1 is. They filmed scenes of Cyberdyne employees recovering the arm/chip and even scenes of Sarah/Kyle discussing fate and planning to blow up Cyberdyne but these were wisely excised for a tighter film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:How so? As far as I remember nothing about the timeline changes in T1. Skynet is created by humans, John Connor leads the resistance, Skynet sends Terminator back in time to kill his mother but instead ends up directly causing him to be born. That's it. It actually is established that the T1 Terminator is responsible for Cyberdyne, in the shooting script. The big reveal was that the factory at the end of the film was Cyberdyne Systems. But it doesn't matter. Just the existence of Connor alone blows up the whole thing and is a huge change to the timeline. But just assume for a second that there's no John Connor. Then there's no resistance, Skynet wins, Skynet doesn't have to send anything back anywhere. But John Connor does exist, so Skynet loses, so it must send back a Terminator and Connor must send back Reese, who fathers Connor, which means that John Connor does exist, so Skynet loses... Think of it this way: I create a time machine. At the moment I do so, a version of myself appears from 5 minutes in the future. "Take this watch," I say, handing myself a watch. "In 5 minutes, come back and hand me this watch and say these words." Of course, I do so. Don't want to blow the timeline to poo poo. Which means...that watch just appeared out of nowhere. Nobody made it and it just got conjured into being. And if you say "oh there's an "original" loop where I quickly ran out and grabbed a watch or something" then what you're actually saying is that there is multiple timelines and we're in the exact same territory as Looper or T2. "There was someone else that fathered Connor the 'first time'" is just a variant on this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
I had no idea T-800s could run like that. But hey.... NEW TIMELINEZ
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Think of it this way: I create a time machine. At the moment I do so, a version of myself appears from 5 minutes in the future. "Take this watch," I say, handing myself a watch. "In 5 minutes, come back and hand me this watch and say these words." Of course, I do so. Don't want to blow the timeline to poo poo. Which means...that watch just appeared out of nowhere. Nobody made it and it just got conjured into being. And if you say "oh there's an "original" loop where I quickly ran out and grabbed a watch or something" then what you're actually saying is that there is multiple timelines and we're in the exact same territory as Looper or T2. "There was someone else that fathered Connor the 'first time'" is just a variant on this. Eh, not really. Since time travel is purely fictional it can work however the plot deems it to work. If the plot says that there's only ever one timeline, and time travel changes that timeline, then that's what happens in that particular media. Not that it's all that relevant to Terminator, since T1 doesn't address it (and is a closed loop by default) and T2+ go their own way. But off the top of my head I can think of at least one example, the James P. Hogan book Time and Time Again works this way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:
Unless I'm misunderstanding you(shooting script aside, lets talk about what made it into the film), we seem to agree that T1 is a closed loop. The portion of your post that I quoted is precisely what happens in the movie, and its a closed loop. There is no alternate timeline where John Connor doesn't exist, he always exists and Skynet always causes him to be born.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Unless I'm misunderstanding you(shooting script aside, lets talk about what made it into the film), we seem to agree that T1 is a closed loop. The portion of your post that I quoted is precisely what happens in the movie, and its a closed loop. There is no alternate timeline where John Connor doesn't exist, he always exists and Skynet always causes him to be born. His initial objection was that the above is a predestination paradox, not a closed loop. But the terms are often used interchangeably.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:His initial objection was that the above is a predestination paradox, not a closed loop. But the terms are often used interchangeably. Ok well I guess I have to admit my ignorance then, I don't understand what the difference is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Thanks to all the sequels to T1, though, it seems like there are a lot of established alternate timelines despite the attempts of T1 to suggest the idea that there is an single repeated one. Unless the events of the films are eventually established to do something like 'reset' the timelines back to a point where the T1 loop gets reset, which in turn resets the T2, T3, etc. cycles. It''s a damned Rube Goldberg rollercoaster of a space-time mechanics!
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Ok well I guess I have to admit my ignorance then, I don't understand what the difference is. The point is that predestination and grandfather paradoxes are both wrong - they are both equally nonsense and don't work logically. Yet people always seem ok with predestination paradox...I think because it's subtler. At first glance, everything works. Just live by Austin Powers rules, I say. Relax, and enjoy yourself. Is it wrong that I kinda want to watch Genesys when it comes to Redbox just for that flawless 1984 Arnold work? I feel like if they got that part so right it has to be a sign of something good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The point is that predestination and grandfather paradoxes are both wrong - they are both equally nonsense and don't work logically. Yet people always seem ok with predestination paradox...I think because it's subtler. At first glance, everything works. But both of those paradoxes could be considered "closed loops" right? I'm just confused as to what exactly you disagreed with in my original post. You also said the timeline in T1 gets "just as trashed" as something like Looper, which I'm not seeing at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:But both of those paradoxes could be considered "closed loops" right? I'm just confused as to what exactly you disagreed with in my original post. You also said the timeline in T1 gets "just as trashed" as something like Looper, which I'm not seeing at all. Yes they are both basically the same thing, and so combining them is easy. "It's a new timeline and no the other poo poo didn't make any sense either." No worries dude I expressed myself extremely poorly. Edit: When I say "the timeline gets trashed" I mean it gets massively changed, and it does. Just because the paradox resolves itself into a stable chain of causality doesn't erase the fact that it's a paradox and nonsense. It's still nonsense. It's just nonsense that you can trace in a circle from A -> B -> A -> B ... Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Edit: When I say "the timeline gets trashed" I mean it gets massively changed, and it does. Just because the paradox resolves itself into a stable chain of causality doesn't erase the fact that it's a paradox and nonsense. It's still nonsense. It's just nonsense that you can trace in a circle from A -> B -> A -> B ... Ah, yea ok that's the part I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that a timeline is established, and then later on in the film that timeline is changed. Agreed that all time travel in fiction is nonsense when you really analyze it. Edit: Ehhhh actually maybe I still have no idea what you're saying. I'll just drop it and move on, this is probably boring everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Ah, yea ok that's the part I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that a timeline is established, and then later on in the film that timeline is changed. Agreed that all time travel in fiction is nonsense when you really analyze it. And I realized that you were saying that it's not possible to combine the structure of the time travel narrative in T1 (with it's stable, repeating causality) with the Wild-West "gently caress it we changed the future and let's see what happens" style of T2. And you're right! Everyone is right, what a great day for CineD discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Stugazi posted:Arnold vs Arnold  Also Brian Thompson would have made an awesome Terminator
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
david_a posted:Also Brian Thompson would have made an awesome Terminator He plays a pretty drat good one in The X-files for several seasons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:You're thinking of Dr Silberman. He's the criminal psychologist who interviews Reese at the precinct in the first movie, and brushes shoulders with Arnold on his way out of the police precinct just before Arnold shoots the place up. He was also the focus of one of the best episodes of TSCC, where he's become a Judgement Day truther after finding out that Sarah Connor was right thanks to experiencing all the poo poo he does in the movies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
david_a posted:Hmm, are these supposed to be different punks because of timeline wankery? They didn't try to match the looks that well. I'm surprised they even included them and didn't have old Arnold try fighting the Terminator immediately as he appeared, like the trailer implied. david_a posted:
He kinda had that role on the early seasons of the X-Files, playing the Bounty Hunter aliens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Genisys is getting unanimously panned in early reviews.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Immortan posted:Genisys is getting unanimously panned in early reviews. Not a surprise, never thought this was going to be good. My only hope has been that it's ridiculous and fun like Jupiter Ascending was. But don't worry it must be amazing, after all as James Cameron has said this is ***THE REAL TERMINATOR 3***
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Immortan posted:Genisys is getting unanimously panned in early reviews. Well of course otherwise they wouldn't have had to get james cameron to say it's good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Well of course otherwise they wouldn't have had to get james cameron to say it's good. I was on hand for a half hour Ubisoft keynote once where the ENTIRE HALF HOUR was just James Cameron and Freddie Lounds talking without pause about how visionary and outstanding Ubisoft's Avatar: The Game as going to be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
david_a posted:Hmm, are these supposed to be different punks because of timeline wankery? They didn't try to match the looks that well. Isn't one of those original punks Gary Oldman?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Myrddin_Emrys posted:Isn't one of those original punks Gary Oldman? Quoting for history books. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Myrddin_Emrys posted:Isn't one of those original punks Gary Oldman? No. The three punks are Bill Paxton, Brad Rearden, and Brian Thompson.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
Myrddin_Emrys posted:Isn't one of those original punks Gary Oldman? The guy with the blue spiky hair is Bill Paxton. The other two are Brian Thompson and Brad Rearden.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 21:29
|
|
