|
Also there is literally nothing interesting about the great white male version of Revelations Jesus who had to become part machine to rule the post-Rapture future nuclear wasteland for 1000 years.
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
ruby idiot railed posted:Also there is literally nothing interesting about the great white male version of Revelations Jesus who had to become part machine to rule the post-Rapture future nuclear wasteland for 1000 years. He doesn't become a machine at all in the true timeline. computer parts posted: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! I know your gimmick is being stupidly contrarian but the future they show in Salvation is nothing like what T1 shows or Reese talks about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:
No one cares about any future that's talked about in a 30 year old movie, they care about the picture inside their head. It's a guarantee that any depiction is not going to fulfill that picture for a large number of people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
What if the picture in their head is the stuff from the 30 year old movie like it probably is for a bunch of us?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:He doesn't become a machine at all in the true timeline. Then how could Jesus Christ and his disciples and priesthood rule the world for 1000 years?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:What if the picture in their head is the stuff from the 30 year old movie like it probably is for a bunch of us? It's not, just like how nerds got mad about "The Clone Wars" not being what they pictured despite the fact that it was one line in the first Star Wars movie and then never mentioned again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
The movie is really good, and the tomato website is lying to you. The reasons for the film being 'bad' are standard stuff along the lines of "it's not the same", "it's not canon", etc. There's the pointless easter-egg hunt for 'dealbreakers' (Sarah must have funny 80s hair! If she has different hair, it's a dealbreaker. You cannot give Skynet a face! If skynet make a face it's a dealbreaker. You cannot show a robot touch a person! If a robot touches a person, that's a dealbreaker. And so-on, and so-on.) There's same empty reassertions that "T2 is an absolute masterpiece", because "I watched it and had fun". We're talking On Cinema At The Cinema here. Let's talk about how much money it made. Let's talk about wookiepedia. In the rush to have an opinion, people skip the process of actually forming an opinion. So while it's clear that many are cross about something, nobody has a clue what they're cross about. Then it becomes a game of amplification: "you guys are Crazy! My dad walked out of the theatre after Ten Minutes! Metatomatoes dot com gave it a Three Minus!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
ruby idiot railed posted:Then how could Jesus Christ and his disciples and priesthood rule the world for 1000 years? Regular exercise and a balanced diet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The movie is really good, and the tomato website is lying to you. None of these are why it's bad. Actually the Skynet has a face is a lovely thing but it's bad for a score of other reasons. computer parts posted:It's not, just like how nerds got mad about "The Clone Wars" not being what they pictured despite the fact that it was one line in the first Star Wars movie and then never mentioned again. This is a really lovely example to use.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
quote:Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:None of these are why it's bad. Correct, because it isn't. The film is really well shot and edited.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's not, just like how nerds got mad about "The Clone Wars" not being what they pictured despite the fact that it was one line in the first Star Wars movie and then never mentioned again. The difference, you inglorious turbonerd, is that the Clone Wars was an off hand mention that lasted all of five second for one line in one movie. The Future War was literally the extended opening of the second movie where we got a very clear look at how it was, with lots of lasers and fields of skulls and blackened, charred earth. And that was backed up by the even earlier nightmares of the future war from the FIRST movie. If we only had Reese talking about them, you'd have something resembling a point. We don't however. We've SEEN what they apparently originally looked like. And they were a great deal more interesting than the brown and gray boring as hell version we got in Salvation. If you're going to have a future war, go balls out and give us the giant purple laser spewing death tanks, please
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
How the guy who made those good posts about lovely framing/cinematography in Avengers can continue to defend poorly acted, written, and edited films is beyond me.Burkion posted:If we only had Reese talking about them, you'd have something resembling a point. We don't however. We've SEEN what they apparently originally looked like. He still wouldn't have a point because based on what Reese tells us humanity is pretty much on its last legs and people are being murdered en masse in a very obvious Holocaust parallel and his breakout is an allusion to the uprising at Sobibór extermination camp. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Terminator Genysis has better cinematography and editing than every Marvel film released, to date.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:This is a really lovely example to use. There's a pretty consistent trend in a lot of media to start with a "cool" (appealing, etc) concept and then overexpose it to banality with sequels or extended universe material. You also see a similar idea with horror monsters, where the less you see of it, the "cooler" (in this case scarier) the monster is. Burkion posted:
More to the point, "purple laser spewing death tanks" have nothing to do with the Terminator franchise thematically. It's fanwank.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There's a pretty consistent trend in a lot of media to start with a "cool" (appealing, etc) concept and then overexpose it to banality with sequels or extended universe material. The Future War has nothing to do with the Terminator Franchise. If you're making a Future War movie, it already invalidates it as a straight up Terminator movie. At that point it's just a movie that takes place in the Terminator universe. So why not go all out and give us the most visually interesting take on it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:More to the point, "purple laser spewing death tanks" have nothing to do with the Terminator franchise thematically. It's fanwank. Exactly: time travel doesn't exist. The 'future war', in every film, is a hallucinated version of our present-day reality. One should distinguish simple technological impossibility from fantasmatic falsity: time-travel is (probably) impossible, but fantasmatic scenarios about it are nonetheless 'true' in the way they render libidinal deadlocks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Burkion posted:The Future War has nothing to do with the Terminator Franchise. It's fanwank.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:where are you people getting that's it's decent lol comparing it to loving Dredd. Because Genesys is a solidly entertaining film that suffered from the word-of-mouth being so tainted by previous inferior movies. Dredd is a lesser-but-still-solidly entertaining film that suffered from the word-of-mouth being so tainted by a previous inferior movie. Groovelord Neato posted:This is why the Transformers movies make bank. You speak as if that's a problem. Movies that appeal to a broad audience tend to enjoy broad audience success. A car-based movie where the cars turn into robots and punch each other does better than a car-based movie where they drive in the desert for two repetitive hours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's fanwank. You're not even trying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Burkion posted:You're not even trying. My thesis originally is that Future War movies are Bad and won't live up to audiences' expectations. Your interpretation seems to be that there's a "right" way to make Future War movies, and people just haven't done that (instead, they do Salvation et all). This is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:He doesn't become a machine at all in the true timeline.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Also worth pointing out is the idea that "this actually happened so just film it like it happened" is dumb as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:A train of thought leads from "the lady doesn't have funny 80s hair" to "I hope James Cameron dies." Not saying I want James Cameron to die. I'm saying I hope the film rights stay with him and dies with him when he goes. As in he keeps it. He's one of the few who would do justice and make a good capstone or movie if he wanted to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
quote:There's the pointless easter-egg hunt for 'dealbreakers' (Sarah must have funny 80s hair! If she has different hair, it's a dealbreaker. You cannot give Skynet a face! If skynet make a face it's a dealbreaker. I liked the movie you idiot. It wasn't a "dealbreaker". I even thought Clarke did a good job as Sarah Connor. They got the stuff down to the shoes Kyle grabs right even, I thought they should have made her look more like Hamilton did to an extent. She didn't look like she was from the 80s at all, something they remembered to do with the CGI Arnolds. e: I mean, she acts like a halfway point between Sarah in T1 and Sarah in T2, she should look more like that as well. quote:More to the point, "purple laser spewing death tanks" have nothing to do with the Terminator franchise thematically. It's fanwank. Those giant death tanks were around in T1. Kyle has ptsd dreams over it. RBA Starblade fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Since all previous Terminator films are about different modes of perceiving the present day, this film's innovation is the sheer number of modes. No 'actual' time-travel ever occurs (or has ever occurred). What is happening, instead, is that each jump through the time-hole alters Reese as a character, so that he perceives the world in a different way. It is not that he travels to 2017, but that he realizes it's where he's always been. In Terminator 1, there's a complexity to the romance that people overlook. Nobody has ever been given a photograph of a person from 100 years ago, and then traveled backwards in time to meet that person - yet the love story is relatable. This is because time travel is simply a metaphor. Reese falls in love based on a photograph, that he, essentially, saw in a dream. When we see the ending of the film, with the photograph 'actually' being taken, the point is not to try and solve the paradox. The point is Sarah's newfound awareness of her freedom - and the terrible weight of responsibility.  The kicker is that it's not the same photograph. It looks identical, but check the white border. The one from 'the future' is much thicker. "John Connor gave me a picture of you once. I didn't know why at the time. It was very old - torn, faded. You were young like you are now. You seemed just a little sad. I used to always wonder what you were thinking at that moment." The idea is that Sarah has no special qualities, and Reese falls in love with her for no reason. Sarah then struggles to live up to what Reese saw in her, knowing that she is actually merely a waitress. "Love is not love for the properties of an object, but for the abyssal X, the je ne sais quoi, in the object." And this is precisely what Genysis explores, but in an opposite way: you have Connor as clone, reaching out to be loved, but something is missing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:My thesis originally is that Future War movies are Bad and won't live up to audiences' expectations. Your interpretation seems to be that there's a "right" way to make Future War movies, and people just haven't done that (instead, they do Salvation et all). This is wrong. Yeah, I don't think a Future War movie could at all be really good- the Future War is a lot better when it's kind of a dreamlike nightmare- the shock is that John Connor actually won it. The movie doesn't really explain how, but it's not really necessary. Future War is great in little snippets and vignettes- it is not a good concept for a full blown movie. You can dig into some 80s dreck if you really want to see dudes with rayguns shooting robots shooting rayguns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Yeah, I don't think a Future War movie could at all be really good- the Future War is a lot better when it's kind of a dreamlike nightmare- the shock is that John Connor actually won it. The movie doesn't really explain how, but it's not really necessary. Future War is great in little snippets and vignettes- it is not a good concept for a full blown movie. You can dig into some 80s dreck if you really want to see dudes with rayguns shooting robots shooting rayguns. Even if the struggle takes place in the "real reality", the key fight is to be won in the Matrix, which is why one should (re)enter its virtual fictional universe. If the struggle were to take place solely in the "desert of the real", it would have been another boring dystopia about the remnants of humanity fighting evil machines. To put it in the terms of the good old Marxist couple infrastructure-superstructure: one should take into account the irreducible duality of, on the one hand, the "objective" material socio-economic processes taking place in reality as well as, on the other hand, the politico-ideological process proper. What if the domain of politics is inherently "sterile", a theatre of shadows, but nonetheless crucial in transforming reality? So, although economy is the real site and politics a theater of shadows, the main fight is to be fought in politics and ideology. -Slavoj Zizek SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Besides, doesn't Genisys start with literally 20 minutes of Future War with endoskeletons and aircraft shooting purple plasma beams? (Haven't seen it yet.) I've always wanted to see more of the future war, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to be happy with 20 minutes of it. Dunno if you need a whopping 2 hour movie. Also there have been a bunch of videogames set in the future war such as the old DOS PC games Terminator Future Shock and its sequel/prequel Terminator Skynet, and the PS2/Xbox Dawn of Fate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
your evil twin posted:Besides, doesn't Genisys start with literally 20 minutes of Future War with endoskeletons and aircraft shooting purple plasma beams? (Haven't seen it yet.) Pretty much, along with a chopper assault and the giant tank things. You don't need any more than what they already showed unless you really want that same thing spread out over an hour and a half.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Terminator Genysis has better cinematography and editing than every Marvel film released, to date. Sure, OK. Does that make it good? I just sat through A Most Wanted Man the other night and it had really cool shot composition but also Phillip Seymour Hoffman doing a really bad German accent and a really slow plot even by Le Carre standards. I enjoyed Terminator 5 but I enjoyed it in spite of Kyle Reese being cast really badly and his zero chemistry with Emilia Clarke/Sarah Connor. That's justifiably enough to kill it for some people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The idea is that Sarah has no special qualities, and Reese falls in love with her for no reason. She's the mother of the man who liberated him from an extermination camp (and trained him to be who became after Judgment Day) and is also physically attractive. There's even a scene where he explains why he loves her. Xenomrph posted:Worth pointing out that the phrase "true timeline" is meaningless, especially in the context of the Terminator series. The Terminator series is two films, though you're still right. The only timeline now is the one where Skynet is never created and John Connor goes on to live a normal life. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:She's the mother of the man who liberated him from an extermination camp (and trained him to be who became after Judgment Day) and is also physically attractive. these concepts are foreign to smg
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:She's the mother of the man who liberated him from an extermination camp (and trained him to be who became after Judgment Day) and is also physically attractive. And those things all 'happened' because he fell in love with her. The point of the film, as in reality, is that you can't manufacture 'love' by putting the right two bugs in a jar and shaking it. In this film, the photograph from T1 is replaced by the set of 'impossible memories' in the mind of the younger, alternate Reese. So, Reese kills Connor and delivers the photograph to himself. It's like the end of Superman: what happens is patently impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
MinibarMatchman posted:these concepts are foreign to smg "Love is evil."
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:The Terminator series is two films Don't do this, it's childish.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Not saying I want James Cameron to die. I'm saying I hope the film rights stay with him and dies with him when he goes. As in he keeps it. He's one of the few who would do justice and make a good capstone or movie if he wanted to. There's only one way for this to end. Cameron has to close the loop. Coming in 2021, Terminator:Reboot. "Come with me if you want to come with me"
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:"Love is evil." Correct. That's why Skynet sent a robot to prevent it from happening.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:Don't do this, it's childish. Just slapping the name on don't make it a Terminator film. SuperMechagodzilla posted:In this film, the photograph from T1 is replaced by the set of 'impossible memories' in the mind of the younger, alternate Reese. So, Reese kills Connor and delivers the photograph to himself. It's like the end of Superman: what happens is patently impossible. The original film is a closed loop it was always impossible. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:The original film is a closed loop there is no alternate Reese. Genisys is also a closed loop. It looks like you didn't understand either film. Terminator 1 isn't about a guy who thinks his friend's mom is hot. It's about a guy whose love for a mere waitress is so great that it breaks spacetime. It works the same way as in Interstellar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:27
|
|