|
Christ, the Capri-Sun guy is a magic liquid robot. That's really all that matters.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
LesterGroans posted:Christ, the Capri-Sun guy is a magic liquid robot. That's really all that matters. Will admit I ended up down a bit of a rabbit hole trying to argue what seems like a pretty basic point. Appologies for the derail. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
I have brought great evil to this thread I will not apologize
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
I enjoyed that derail more than I enjoyed watching Terminator Salvation in the theater.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:The first example that springs to mind is Ian Banks' Culture books. 'Memory forms' are innocuous items that if manipulated the right way change into something else. Such as an implanted tooth pulled out unfurling into a pistol. Didn't realize you just meant the basic fact that it was a shapeshifter. Thanks for the response.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Fanwank handwave: it mimics biological tissue well enough to "fool" the time machine. The real villain is actually the time machine?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:The real villain is actually the time machine?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:In what way? It allowed the Terminator franchise to happen. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:
Does Mercury cause autism? Because you know what the T-1000 looks like...
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:18
|
|
autism levels critical
|
Xenomrph posted:It's evident without needing dialogue in the scene to spell it out. I see what the T-1000 does, and even if the movie had never said the phrase "liquid metal", I'd say "oh that's a bunch of nanomachines, that's obvious". And even when the movie does say "liquid metal", my mind says "that's a nonsense phrase so a 10-year-old can grasp what's going on, but it's still obviously nanomachines". It's self evident. Xenomrph posted:"Liquid metal" is convenient 1991 shorthand for audiences who don't know what a nanomachine is, especially when within the story you've got a character trying to convey the concept to a 10-year-old as simply as possible. And incidentally, the T2 novelization outright calls it a nanomachine. I'm someone who generally agrees that T1000 being made up of molecule-sized micro-machinery makes the most sense from a real-life modern-day technology perspective, but: - Constantly describing "liquid metal" as "nonsense" irks me, not for the least of which because liquid metal exists, and because I get the impression that it not making sense to us is supposed to be a problem or somehow not preferable. - Saying the T-1000 is not liquid metal because it's made up of nanomachines to me is like saying water isn't a liquid because it's made up of molecules. The T-1000 is a liquid and it's made out of metal. I'd say 'liquid metal' is a pretty darned accurate description even if it is (or may be) a bit of a shorthand. - I, uh, really don't think the idea of nanobots is really all that more mainstream now than it was in 1991, aside from maybe the "nano-" suffix itself being more recognized thanks to the iPod and such. We still had imaginations back then and microscopic (and smaller) robots weren't an incomprehensible idea to us for a sci-fi movie. - Speaking of imaginations, I think arguing so resolutely how a fantastical fictional machine works shows a rather appalling lack of one, to be perfectly frank. It might be safe for me to assume the view screens in Star Trek are pretty similar to our real-life modern-day TV/monitor/screen technology, but I wouldn't try arguing so because how the gently caress would I know and also it would be way more interesting and exciting if it were some kind of awesome, way more advanced screen tech that we wouldn't even understand. - Building on that thought, casting aside that it makes sense the T-1000 would be made out of microbots, and how presumptuous to then just conclude of course that must be the case, why would you WANT the T-1000 to make sense to us? Part of what makes future tech of sci-fi so compelling is the idea that there are advances ahead that are so far out there they'd appear as magic to us. In this case, the T-1000 is meant to be a terrifying concept, and only gets more terrifying the more baffling and alien it is to us. It looks like it probably works through nanobots... but WHO KNOWS, and that's the scary and fun and interesting part. TL;DR - I think you're being rigid and closed-minded in your insistence--you have a right to that, but the way you were actively trying to argue away the mystery and wonder out of the movie to others I found (for lack of a less drama-queeny term) offensive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
In The Abyss: "They must've learned how to control water... I mean at a molecular level. They can plasticize it, polymerize it... whatever. Put it under intelligent control." Replace 'water' with 'metal'. Same deal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:In The Abyss: "They must've learned how to control water... I mean at a molecular level. They can plasticize it, polymerize it... whatever. Put it under intelligent control." When I asked for examples of a similar effect, this was the first example I thought of, and was wondering if people had assumed that was also nanotech somehow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
So from the past page or two I've learned that goons enjoy T2 but get hung up on the idea of one of the robots from the future. In a movie with another robot from the future, time travel in general, and advanced AI far beyond anything we have today, much less 20+ years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:When I asked for examples of a similar effect, this was the first example I thought of, and was wondering if people had assumed that was also nanotech somehow. Metal Gear taught me that everything goes back to nanomachines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
liquid metal is a substance that only existed in the early 90s because computers could do it and it made a cool effect, it made no sense but was used extensively in a bunch of media.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Shut the gently caress up about nanomachines you unimaginative piece of poo poo The t-1000 is liquid metal because that's what it's called in the movie and how its portrayed. You only think its nanomachines because some nerd on the internet in the 90s said it was because he obviously knew better than the people making the movie and thought nanomachines are cooler, much like the bizarre idea that han solo flew some crazy path through black holes instead of being a backwater huckster trying to sucker some kid and an old man into paying off his debts. You know what else is as unrealistic as programmable liquid metal? Nanomachines, which work nothing like what scifi acts they do. Also, time travel. Time travel isn't real.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:When I asked for examples of a similar effect, this was the first example I thought of, and was wondering if people had assumed that was also nanotech somehow. The point in both films is that they're made of CGI. Through the basic metaphor, CGI is 'like water': changing water from a cylinder to a flat plane is as easy as pouring it out of the glass. (Both films were likely inspired by the short story Polywater Doodle, about a small creature made purely of water.) The point with the T1000 - what sets it apart from popular depictions of nanomachines - is that it's pure surface. Underneath the detailed film of skin that contains it, it's just a single undifferentiated mass of polymer that reacts to electrical currents and whatever. That's why it can't make a working gun: it can't do internal mechanisms. The real question with the bullshit science is how it can (and can only) copy what it touches. I'm sure it's possible to bullshit an explanation about electric fields or whatever, but the point is the tactility. It copies how a substance feels, then gives it a high-res texture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:When I asked for examples of a similar effect, this was the first example I thought of, and was wondering if people had assumed that was also nanotech somehow. The point in both films is that they're made of CGI. Through the basic metaphor, CGI is 'like water': changing water from a cylinder to a flat plane is as easy as pouring it out of the glass. The point with the T1000 - what sets it apart from popular depictions of nanomachines - is that it's pure surface. Underneath the detailed film of skin that contains it, it's just a single undifferentiated mass of polymer that reacts to electrical currents and whatever. That's why it can mimic the look of a human eye, but can't make a working gun: it can only do photorealistic surfaces. The real question with the bullshit science is how it can (and can only) copy what it touches. I'm sure it's possible to bullshit an explanation about electric fields or whatever, but the point is the tactility. It copies how a substance feels, then gives it a high-res texture - but it's fundamentally just a crude blob.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
There's clearly far more though going into the timelines, continuity and explanations than anyone post James Cameron ever put into the Terminator films.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:Shut the gently caress up about nanomachines you unimaginative piece of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I'm sure it's possible to bullshit an explanation about electric fields or whatever How's that for a bullshit explanation?  One thing I forgot about, could it copy the voice from contact (...somehow?) or did it need to hear the subject for that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
japtor posted:Once in contact it can conduct a field around the body for a surface scan to recreate the shape/look and feel, otherwise it'd have to figure all that poo poo out from visually looking at the subject from all around and constructing a (likely imperfect) composite image using a bunch of assumptions to fill in blanks. Skynet's greatest achievement was installing flawless dragonspeak software on everything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:Shut the gently caress up about nanomachines you unimaginative piece of poo poo Chill out, dickwad. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
I legitimately enjoyed the film, which surprised me, despite having a lot of issues with a lot of things in it. All in all, I think maybe it sort of fails (or works) in part because it feels like the the modern Marvel-styled comic book version of the Terminator franchise. It also has another issue that I think sort of hurts and helps it that it feels like a 'sampler pack' of Terminator themes, too. You've get a little taste of something worth delving into more, but then it's gone and you're on to the next one. A few kids and teenagers I hear who have seen the movie seem pretty supportive of it, so it might be a bit interesting if it being a big gun filled action movie with a PG-13 ends up giving it some legs for the next few weeks this Summer. Outside of Arnold, though, almost no one in the film really works for me in their roles. I don't know what young female actresses out there would have been better for Sarah, but a comparable actor they probably could have gotten for someone like John Connor that might have been able to fill the boots could be someone like Chris Meloni or Ben Browder. Jason Lee or even Matt Smith on the other extreme. It's pretty much a one and done role, I feel, so it's not like they'd have to be married to continuously reusing the same actor. After it was said and done though, I think I sort of see why Cameron was a bit supportive of the movie. It's got elements to it that seems like things he might have taken the same general story of and done a major rewrite on the script to focus in on certain arcs and tones. Things like the new Sarah/Kyle relationship, Pops and Sarah, Sarah and John, etc. I think just the suggestion of these new directions could have sparked his imagination a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
/\/\/\ All your picks for Connor are awful. Jason Clarke is adorable in this movie when he is giggling about what a waitress is, or the bit with the handcuff key. His charisma is just wasted when he has to be a completely single minded Terminator. He is actually pretty okay as John otherwise. My friend was shocked the T-1000 died so easily and kept waiting for him to return in 2017. Missed opportunity, I think. What if when they cut to 2017 and they think it's Pops, but it's actually Chinese Nanomachine Liquid Metal Guy. Firstborn fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Lizzy Caplan would make a pretty good Sarah Connor. I thought of that as a joke. But I think there might be something there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Firstborn posted:/\/\/\ All your picks for Connor are awful. I still think Chris Meloni could have pulled it off, same with Browder, as take-charge military leads. Jason Lee could have maybe pulled off the Steve Jobs-styled John Connor and the Kyle and Sarah interaction stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Considering everyone but Arnold is a TV actor, sure, get Chris Meloni in a bad hair piece in this bitch. Jason Lee can just come on set dressed as Earl or whatever. Just switch out the actors when 2017 comes into the story.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Cute and charming, all she needed was some Ace bandage and she could've played the 9 year old Sarah Connor they kept referring to. Judakel posted:Her face is child-like and her demeanor is too soft to play a woman who has been preparing for war since was a child. The complete lack of grime or never having anything as much as a hair out of place really added to the effect. If they'd just given her some bags under her eyes and some smudged dust from running around sewers and whatever, she'd have looked much more adult and less like an underage wannabe soldier girl. LesterGroans posted:Christ, the Capri-Sun guy is a magic liquid robot. That's really all that matters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Firstborn posted:Considering everyone but Arnold is a TV actor, sure, get Chris Meloni in a bad hair piece in this bitch. Jason Lee can just come on set dressed as Earl or whatever. Just switch out the actors when 2017 comes into the story. Pretty much that's why I was choosing actors who had been in TV more than movies so it was a more comparable acting switch. Jason Clark might have worked better as the ultimate voice/face of Skynet than John Connor. The John Connor of Genisys just doesn't feel like he's a battle-hardened, inspiring leader of the Resistance, and his attempts to buddy up to Kyle and to connect with Sarah just didn't work for me. I don't know if it's a fault of the actor not being right for the role or the character just not working for me. I get the feeling, though, that when this thing hits home video there's going to be a lot of deleted material and trivia included that address some of my other issues with the film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:Pretty much that's why I was choosing actors who had been in TV more than movies so it was a more comparable acting switch. Jason Clark might have worked better as the ultimate voice/face of Skynet than John Connor. The point of this particular film (retconning 3 & 4) is that Connor is a fraud. He's a not bad guy, but he's nonetheless the badguy. Jason Clarke plays him as half naive and half huckster - like a more ingratiating version of Michael C. Hall in Gamer, or a post apocalyptic George W. Bush.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
Well, that was fun, it's bad enough to be sort of good. It isn't a good Terminator movie, but a drat sight better than Salvation. Conner is fine if he wasn't the leader of the Resistance or homicidal, almost makes me miss Bale's Conner. Kyle was just NO, good god, they couldn't find anyone else for this? Is there a massive discount when you buy bland? Sarah could have worked had they not destroying her defining character traits by turning her into a school girl. Maybe they could have cast someone else. JK is great and he had the some of the best lines out side of Arnold. Arnold is still awesome.  Young Arnold looked great. The action was generally pretty good and had some good visuals with some stinkers like the helicopter sequence. The level of violence felt really low and blood was non-existent. The music was forgettable. The dialogue was really awkward when they get "Serious" and you really aren't going to get any classic one liners since almost all the dialogue is oddly long. Was there a lack of swearing? We did get plasma rifles and a alright future war. Lack of skulls is disappointing. The marketing for this was a crime that did more damage than the movie that could have done for itself and bringing in James Cameron was a misstep that made it look desperate. Watch this for Arnold and nothing else or you will be in for some pain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 12:49
|
|
|
It's been a while since I've seen T1, but it seems like Sarah of Genisys is the Sarah that Kyle sort of imagines or expects her to be(come) in T1. The great soldier, etc. Why immediately jump to the future in the first place to stop Skynet? Why not spend the last half of the 80s wrecking the heck out of Cyberdyne and killing off future engineers and CEOs and hope and plan that Skynet just never develops in the first place. Maybe this was done but just not mentioned? A fanficky request, I guess, but I sort of would have liked to have maybe seen some almost imaginary version of Sarah, Kyle and Pops gradually aging through a reset timeline of the 80s/90s to secretly derail the development of Skynet in a world where Kyle lived, Cyberdyne never found the T-800 parts, maybe John never being born, etc. Tenzarin posted:The real villain is actually the time machine? I think a sort of interesting thing to note with this is that it's not just Terminators/Skynet technology showing up before their time in the past this go around as in previous films, but the time travel tech, too. We have a time machine as a last-ditch effort in the first film and seems to be more casually used in future films and TV series as a means of going back in time. Prior to the TV series, it felt like the time displacement stuff was a late-stage and experimental thing. Here, though, the Skynet-controlled massive time machine is pretty much more or less built up and functional before Skynet/Genisys is even fully online and complete.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:I think a sort of interesting thing to note with this is that it's not just Terminators/Skynet technology showing up before their time in the past this go around as in previous films, but the time travel tech, too. We have a time machine as a last-ditch effort in the first film and seems to be more casually used in future films and TV series as a means of going back in time. Prior to the TV series, it felt like the time displacement stuff was a late-stage and experimental thing. Here, though, the Skynet-controlled massive time machine is pretty much more or less built up and functional before Skynet/Genisys is even fully online and complete. Every time judgement day gets later so technology gets more advanced.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
I like the part when Arnold looks at naked Jai Courtney and runs dickjoke.bat I would've liked to have seen his choice of responses like the "gently caress you, rear end in a top hat" from T1. Kyle Reese, your penis is 3.2 inches from an acceptable success ratio. Those odds suck. Stand down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:Why immediately jump to the future in the first place to stop Skynet? Why not spend the last half of the 80s wrecking the heck out of Cyberdyne and killing off future engineers and CEOs and hope and plan that Skynet just never develops in the first place. Maybe this was done but just not mentioned? .Course I figure a quick strike would be easier to pull off than going on a killing spree of the entire tech industry over the span of 20-30 years. And you end up with the same conflict of T2 with Dyson basically, thinking about killing someone for their part in the future while they're technically still innocent. quote:I think a sort of interesting thing to note with this is that it's not just Terminators/Skynet technology showing up before their time in the past this go around as in previous films, but the time travel tech, too. We have a time machine as a last-ditch effort in the first film and seems to be more casually used in future films and TV series as a means of going back in time. Prior to the TV series, it felt like the time displacement stuff was a late-stage and experimental thing. Here, though, the Skynet-controlled massive time machine is pretty much more or less built up and functional before Skynet/Genisys is even fully online and complete.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:Why immediately jump to the future in the first place to stop Skynet? Why not spend the last half of the 80s wrecking the heck out of Cyberdyne and killing off future engineers and CEOs and hope and plan that Skynet just never develops in the first place. Maybe this was done but just not mentioned?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Everyone shut up something important just happened! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXJiSZhA5cg
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
So has anyone ever figured out what the gently caress "BOL L GOL" means?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 20:44
|
|