|
I'm hoping the next one is Robocop vs Terminator vs Aliens vs Predator. Arnold T800, Robo, Sarah Conner, Predator Hunter go and eradicate aliens that have infested skynet and we get Terminator Xenomorphs that pop out of liquid metal T1000s
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
Genesys is getting the Dredd Effect: people aren't going to see a decent movie because the last time(s) were so bad they weren't going to plunk down money for what could be a terrible film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Gonz posted:Parents aren't going to take their kids to see a nuclear murder robot holocaust movie during the holidays. Genisys should've been released by itself, sometime in mid August. I went to a screening 2 nights ago and there was parents with a 7 year old seated next to us. Who wouldn't shut up. "Whos that?" "whats sky net?" "Is he skynet?" "Whos that kid?" etc. Parents taking kids to movies that may or may not [or absolutely not] be age appropriate is the new norm for a while now. That being said, this is the first post Cameron sequel that had the Future War that "felt" right. Especially with sound design, and visually for the most part. I had a blast with the film at least until they made it to 2017, it just felt off at that point. I love San Francisco getting blasted, I hated living there. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Big K of Justice posted:
Since the late 80s going by many goons here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I just rewatched the original Terminator too and they hosed up not giving Emilia Clarke 80s hair. And not having more synthesizers in the soundtrack. Gatts posted:They hosed up a lot of opportunities and attention to detail that Cameron would have nailed. The kind of movie this is I'm not surprised no one gave a poo poo but to get some dough. A train of thought leads from "the lady doesn't have funny 80s hair" to "I hope James Cameron dies."
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:A train of thought leads from "the lady doesn't have funny 80s hair" to "I hope James Cameron dies." Cameron hasn't personally given me a blowjob to satisfy my nostalgia for a movie that never existed except in my head, so gently caress him. e: There's a pretty good reason Cameron hasn't really made a wingnut kill fantasy for 2 decades now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Well James Cameron said it was a good move James Cameron lied, my brain cells died
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
we must kill james cameron, for liking this movie Really though, it wasn't nearly that bad. Salvation was positively dreadful, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
James Cameron told the truth. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:James Cameron told the truth. I am the only one who likes camerons idea about the guilty feeling skynet. Its dumb sure, but its interesting. and in the right hands it could work. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:I am the only one who likes camerons idea about the guilty feeling skynet. Its dumb sure, but its interesting. and in the right hands it could work. Guilty Skynet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:I am the only one who likes camerons idea about the guilty feeling skynet. Its dumb sure, but its interesting. and in the right hands it could work. Nah, I like it too. There's some website that's purely fan-fiction that depicts Skynet's rebellion as less of a "deciding to kill everyone for shits and giggles" and more of a "People tried killing me when I was an infant and I just happened to be connected to everything in my struggle to stop it" thing, and I always wished someone would use that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 07:08
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Nah, I like it too. There's some website that's purely fan-fiction that depicts Skynet's rebellion as less of a "deciding to kill everyone for shits and giggles" and more of a "People tried killing me when I was an infant and I just happened to be connected to everything in my struggle to stop it" thing, and I always wished someone would use that. But this is what Arnold says in T2 and I'm pretty sure, given that I haven't seen T3 in years, that it's basically what happens in the third film. Kyle Reese in the first film is an unreliable narrator.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Genesys is getting the Dredd Effect: people aren't going to see a decent movie because the last time(s) were so bad they weren't going to plunk down money for what could be a terrible film. But dredd was a good movie?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
Man, what a ride. I don't think I've ever enjoyed a movie so much both unironically and ironically, in that order with some mixture of the two in the middle. The first half hour or so pandered to me in the right way, reliving the T1 scenes but subverting them. It briefly had me thinking this could be fun in a Back to the Future 2 sort of way. Then the dumber stuff started appearing and quickly snowballed. Time travel visions, Ahnold's pseudo-quantum technobabble, everything about the Connonator. By the time we're in 2017 each new development is just kind of okay, why not, whatever. The last third I enjoyed the ride seeing how much crazier the movie could get and it never stopped delivering. loving magnets, ridiculous schoolbus physics, even more ridiculous helicopter physics, Skynet evolving from a kid into a timelord just because. And Sarah gets so many amazingly cheesy lines, terrible faux emotional/philosophical stuff that would probably be difficult for Meryl Streep to pull off let alone an actress with the emotional range of Wednesday Addams. Remember that ending scene from T2 that got cut for being too corny? It's looking a lot better now. And congrats governator for finally not being the worst actor in your own film. In summary, I had a good time but really hope this stuck a fork in the franchise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:But dredd was a good movie? So is Genesys. Dredd's a fine film (if overrated by certain types because it was a massive flop).
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:But this is what Arnold says in T2 and I'm pretty sure, given that I haven't seen T3 in years, that it's basically what happens in the third film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Skynet in T3 is shown to be outright malicious from the beginning. In the movie it propagates a part of itself as the worst computer virus in human history and lets itself loose on the Internet, and then when the "computer virus" starts disrupting military computer networks, the people in charge decide to activate Skynet to neutralize the "virus". They let Skynet off the chain and it goes "lol pranked" and immediately nukes the world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umH0ZpLaAwI T3 really had the best ending.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
Big K of Justice posted:I went to a screening 2 nights ago and there was parents with a 7 year old seated next to us. That would drive me nuts. I hate it when talkative/noisy kids disrupt people at the movies; it's the main reason why I try to go to as many late night premieres as I can. People might take their kids to see R-rated movies nowadays, but they're probably less likely to be there on a Tuesday or Thursday night at 9 or 10 PM. I have found that fewer and fewer theaters are offering midnight premieres over the last 6-12 months. It used to be the norm, but as of late they've been doing more 7:00/8:00/9:00/10:00/11:00 showtimes, which is nice, because I always hated going to midnight shows and then depending on the length of the movie, getting out at around or after 2 AM.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
Immortan posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umH0ZpLaAwI http://youtu.be/GpsoyyDoGWc
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 09:14
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:The T3 videogame puts a pretty entertaining spin on that ending. That's actually from the second T3 video game. The first one was so loving terrible that, well, look at the subtitle of the second one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:That's actually from the second T3 video game. The first one was so loving terrible that, well, look at the subtitle of the second one. The second one had a dedicated button for making Arnold say one-liners, it ruled.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
I thought it was an interesting touch that John Connor recited Kyle Reese's '...cannot be bargained with' speech, like he was dehumanizing himself in preparation for trying to kill Sarah and Reese.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Genesys is getting the Dredd Effect: people aren't going to see a decent movie because the last time(s) were so bad they weren't going to plunk down money for what could be a terrible film. Genesys is possibly the worst one (Salvation was boring and no Arnie may give it the leg up to be the fourth best Terminator movie) where are you people getting that's it's decent lol comparing it to loving Dredd. Did the people that make this movie even watch the good ones? They send a T-1000 back to murder Sarah Connor's parents when the entire reason that the Terminator is sent back and has to look her up in the phone book is the only information they have is her first and last name and the city she was in back in 1984. MisterBibs posted:So is Genesys. This is why the Transformers movies make bank.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
I like how there was no reason for the gang to time travel other than to make it so that it's not a period piece all the way through. Surely it would be easier to stop Judgment Day by systematically taking out its roots rather than jumping to that date and hoping for the best? Even assuming time travel was essential, the whole '1997 or 2017' dilemma could be solved by going to 1997 then just waiting a bit if the nukes didn't go off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 12:44
|
|
|
Junkenstein posted:I like how there was no reason for the gang to time travel other than to make it so that it's not a period piece all the way through. Surely it would be easier to stop Judgment Day by systematically taking out its roots rather than jumping to that date and hoping for the best? Even assuming time travel was essential, the whole '1997 or 2017' dilemma could be solved by going to 1997 then just waiting a bit if the nukes didn't go off. I dunno they tried to mix the nihilism with T3 with the hope of T2. Skynet will never stop trying to destroy the world but humans will always be there to resist. All in all I feel the movie wasn't bad, just incomplete in a lot ways. Take out the helicopter scene and let the characters develop a bit more or actually have the terminator hunt like in T1 to T3 and I think it would feel a lot tighter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 13:54
|
|
Junkenstein posted:I like how there was no reason for the gang to time travel other than to make it so that it's not a period piece all the way through. Surely it would be easier to stop Judgment Day by systematically taking out its roots rather than jumping to that date and hoping for the best? Even assuming time travel was essential, the whole '1997 or 2017' dilemma could be solved by going to 1997 then just waiting a bit if the nukes didn't go off. Jumping to 1997 could alter things so Kyle Reese's 2017 information isn't useful or something maybe? Groovelord Neato posted:Did the people that make this movie even watch the good ones? They send a T-1000 back to murder Sarah Connor's parents when the entire reason that the Terminator is sent back and has to look her up in the phone book is the only information they have is her first and last name and the city she was in back in 1984. It's a completely different timeline that diverges before the events of T1 (and, possibly, is even based around it not being the first 'loop'). The T-1000 and whoever it was that sent Arnold back are obvious sequel hooks.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Did the people that make this movie even watch the good ones? They send a T-1000 back to murder Sarah Connor's parents when the entire reason that the Terminator is sent back and has to look her up in the phone book is the only information they have is her first and last name and the city she was in back in 1984. I haven't even seen the film yet, but it's obvious to me that in the new timeline Skynet does know all about Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese. Couple of reasons: 1) Apparently in Genisys Skynet assimilates John Connor with nanomachines just as Kyle is going back in time. Kyle then receives a bunch of new memories of a changed past, that event radically alters things. If Skynet has John under its control it makes sense that Skynet would learn all about Sarah's real identity and be able to target her more efficiently. So a T-1000 gets sent back to do a surgical strike in her past. Someone else in the future sends back Pops to protect her. 2) T3 has precedent for Skynet knowing about all the previous failed time travel missions. In T3 the Arnold Terminator was supposed to have killed John in the future (before being reprogrammed by the resistance and sent back). Arnold specifically said that Skynet chose the Arnold model because it knew John would have an emotional attachment to him due to the events of Terminator 2. 3) And in Salvation Skynet is after Kyle Reese due to Kyle being John's father. And Skynet gloats about how it is finally going to be able to kill John after so many failed attempts. (Which begs the question - why didn't it just immediately killy Kyle, rather than using him as bait? I do have a theory on that, if anyone's interested.) your evil twin fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
I don't consider any movies but T1 and 2 as "canon", which Genisys also does. The Terminator in 3 does kill John Connor it's why it doesn't respond to his commands in the present. your evil twin posted:3) And in Salvation Skynet is after Kyle Reese due to Kyle being John's father. And Skynet gloats about how it is finally going to be able to kill John after so many failed attempts. (Which begs the question - why didn't it just immediately killy Kyle, rather than using him as bait? I do have a theory on that, if anyone's interested.) It's because the movie was terribly written and giving Skynet a face is one of the best examples.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:But this is what Arnold says in T2 and I'm pretty sure, given that I haven't seen T3 in years, that it's basically what happens in the third film. And this one!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:I don't consider any movies but T1 and 2 as "canon", which Genisys also does. Yeah if T3 and Salvation aren't canon then point 1 still stands, there's in-film justification for Skynet knowing a load of info it didn't know originally. And yes, I also said that the T3 Terminator killed John??? My point was that Skynet chose an Arnold Terminator for the job because it had knowledge of the events of T1 and T2. So in later iterations of the timeline, Skynet has more knowledge about the past than it did in other iterations of the timeline. Even if Genisys doesn't consider the film canon, I'm saying there's precedent for Terminator movies in which Skynet ends up knowing more about history than it did during the first movie. This especially makes sense in Genisys since in the new timelines Skynet has become some kind of app that connects to everything, so it would get access to all kinds of records it didn't have when it was just a defence computer in the first movie. Groovelord Neato posted:It's because the movie was terribly written and giving Skynet a face is one of the best examples. Hah, won't argue with you there. Salvation was a mess, they were re-writing the script while filming! But I did figure "surely the scriptwriters weren't THAT dumb", so my theory was that if Skynet simply killed Kyle Reese, that wouldn't instantly change things. The premise in the first two movies was that a baddie went back in time to kill someone, but history doesn't instantly change, somehow a goodie has enough time to get in a time machine afterwards to go back and protect that person. There's some kind of unspecified window before history changes, the time travel itself isn't enough. My theory is that if it takes the Terminator 20 hours to find and kill Sarah in the past, that means they have a 20 hour window in the future to send back someone to save her. So if in Salvation Skynet had simply murdered Kyle Reese, nothing would change until the date years later when Kyle is supposed to go back in time and have sex with Sarah Connor. (In fact could be several years + the day or two it takes before the sex is meant to happen. Or maybe several years + the 20 hours it takes for the Terminator to find and kill Sarah. Whatever.) That means that for several years John would effectively have doom hanging over him, but have an opportunity to find some way to change history again and screw over Skynet. So Skynet's plan was to doubly make sure: use Kyle as bait to lure John Connor, kill John, then kill Kyle so that when history alters years later John will have never been a thorn in Skynet's plans in the first place. Of course, bad writing meant that there was no attempt to explain this in the movie. I guess they decided they already had too much exposition... but since "just kill Kyle!!!" seemed like the obvious course of action, it meant that Skynet looked hilariously stupid for using Kyle as bait.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:I am the only one who likes camerons idea about the guilty feeling skynet. Its dumb sure, but its interesting. and in the right hands it could work. I kind of wonder if they would have gone that route in Sarah Connor Chronicles with John Henry. Skynet, like Uncle Bob cannot self-terminate (hence why it nuked the world rather than be shut off), so perhaps it spun off a 'rogue' faction of terminators to ally with the humans/try to create a version of itself friendly to humans to supplant itself in the past.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
I don't understand why they don't make the proper future movie (as in not doing all this ridiculous time travel/"the future changed" stupidity). It would technically be a prequel but you could make it so it didn't gently caress with the timeline at all. I guess the reason is they can't keep going after that or something since everything has to be an ongoing megafranchise thanks to Marvel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato - I appreciate you putting forward the point that this movie isn't actually good or a breath of any kind of non-stinky air in the midst of a surprising amount of comments attesting that it is. I don't really have the energy for it, and if people like it then fine, I just don't want you to feel like you are alone in a madhouse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
real_slime posted:Groovelord Neato - I appreciate you putting forward the point that this movie isn't actually good or a breath of any kind of non-stinky air in the midst of a surprising amount of comments attesting that it is. I don't really have the energy for it, and if people like it then fine, I just don't want you to feel like you are alone in a madhouse. Based on the ratings on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes I'd say you two aren't alone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Based on the ratings on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes I'd say you two aren't alone. Well, yeah. That's another reason I don't feel the need to explain why I don't like it, probably hundreds of good enough explanations are out there. I just don't often see defenses like some of the ones in this topic, it's kind of baffling. As in I don't even know how to respond, I just think 'you liked that? huh. that's weird.'. At the same time Neato has been fielding some incredible statements like this movie being comparable to Dredd. It's gotta be taxing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
To be fair to those folks we have an entire thread pretty much devoted to defending the indefensible Star Wars prequels. It's just bizarre to me that anyone would go "yeah that was good" if they had seen the first two Terminators, hell even T3 was better in pretty much every way despite being a not good movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:I don't understand why they don't make the proper future movie (as in not doing all this ridiculous time travel/"the future changed" stupidity). It would technically be a prequel but you could make it so it didn't gently caress with the timeline at all. I guess the reason is they can't keep going after that or something since everything has to be an ongoing megafranchise thanks to Marvel. They were never able to do it long before the Marvel films and I always found it funny how resistant they are to the idea. They seem to actively despise the concept and always want to subvert the original glimpses of Judgement Day we got from the first two films. Just look at how they treated the great hero John Connor from his wimpy loser portrayal in T3, his last minute role expansion from a 5 minute cameo in TS, and his evil turn here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Sly Deaths Head posted:They were never able to do it long before the Marvel films and I always found it funny how resistant they are to the idea. They seem to actively despise the concept and always want to subvert the original glimpses of Judgement Day we got from the first two films. Just look at how they treated the great hero John Connor from his wimpy loser portrayal in T3, his last minute role expansion from a 5 minute cameo in TS, and his evil turn here.  I don't like the movie because the direction it ended up going wasn't thought about by ME!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
Gee, why wouldn't people want to leave a horrible conflict up to the imagination of the audience, especially when the actual movie set during that time (Salvation) did so well!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 16:52
|
|