|
computer parts posted:TWD basically ran out of material after Season 1 though. If someone mentions the The Walking Dead, the correct response is to tell them to just skip season 2's 800 episodes of nothing entirely.
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:25 |
|
|
Waroduce posted:what about season 2 Season 2 was the best season until 4. When someone says they didn't like season 2 of The Wire, they don't really understand the show, is my anecdotal experience.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:If Terminator G spared me from having to watch the loving show, then I support it all the more. Water Sheep posted:What are you talking about of course the Terminator movies are humanist... Sarah Connor posted:The unknown future rolls toward us. I face it for the first time with a sense of hope, because if a machine, a Terminator, can learn the value of human life, maybe we can too. Sarah Connor posted:There are things machines will never do. They cannot possess faith. They cannot commune with god. They cannot appreciate beauty. They cannot create art. If they ever learn these things, they won't have to destroy us. They'll be us. Xenomrph posted:But that doesn't force you to watch things you don't like
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 17:47
|
|
No one is making you watch these movies
|
But Genisys was good, and a lot of people haven't seen the TVshow and should watch it. Like I seriously feel like I watched a totally different version of Genisys than most people on the planet, because the version I watched was entertaining as all heck, had great effects, took the themes and ideas of the first two movies in interesting new directions, had a kickin' rad Future War battle, remixed scenes from the it's movie in interesting ways, had a great soundtrack, and evolved Arnold's Terminator character in interesting and believable ways. It genuinely felt like the actors and filmmakers gave a poo poo about what they were doing, not just making a poo poo cash-grab to maintain the licensing rights or whatever. There's a ton of interesting attention to detail, a lot of which the movie doesn't draw the audience's attention to. It just doesn't feel like a movie that deserves a 25% on RT. I ordered the Genisys concept art book off of Amazon - there were plenty of cool designs in the finished film, I'm really interested to see what got cut or altered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Genesys does what nintendon't was largely an inferior retread of several of the most prominent themes and plot points of TSCC. On the other hand it did those things with a top flight budget...
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Of course you'd say that, you're a robot/program! He's a real human being, and a real hero.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Darko posted:When someone says they didn't like season 2 of The Wire, they don't really understand the show, is my anecdotal experience. More specifically it probably means they only watched the show once(and therefore don't really understand it). Most of these people will complain that they didn't like being ripped away from the cops vs. drug dealers storyline in order to watch a bunch of dockworkers. But when you rewatch the show, all the ways that the docks are connected to everything else become extremely clear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:But Genisys was good, and a lot of people haven't seen the TVshow and should watch it. It's just the same old poo poo repackaged again and again. It's boring as loving hell. The only good thing the movie had was the opening. That was alright.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:It's just the same old poo poo repackaged again and again. It's boring as loving hell. It's like when people say The Thing prequel is "exactly the same" as the 1982 movie - it objectively isn't, and it specifically goes out of its way to do things differently. I'd argue that people saying "it's the same thing" weren't paying attention and didn't pick up on what's different and why it's important.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
It's a story about John Connor, Sarah Connor, Kyle Reese, a Terminator, a T-1000, Skynet, Time Travel and a plot that will bring upon the machine apocalypse. You can switch around the plot, add some different lines, maybe a couple new action scenes too! But the ultimate result is the same story we've been presented since 1984. I don't care if you had a different T-800 show up to shoot the old T-800 in the face. It's still a Terminator fighting another Terminator again. They're still going after the same villain for the same reason, with the same characters. It's loving boring dude. I literally do not understand why people think this story is interesting enough for 5 loving movies. 2 was pushing it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:It's a story about John Connor, Sarah Connor, Kyle Reese, a Terminator, a T-1000, Skynet, Time Travel and a plot that will bring upon the machine apocalypse. You can switch around the plot, add some different lines, maybe a couple new action scenes too! But the ultimate result is the same story we've been presented since 1984. why are you even here? you're acting upset about not getting why a bunch of nerds would be in to a big budget action franchise about time traveling death robots ushering in the apocalypse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:It's loving boring dude. I literally do not understand why people think this story is interesting enough for 5 loving movies. 2 was pushing it. I have to agree with this. T2 worked because Arnold was such a gigantic star at the time, Hamilton's Sarah Connor was absolutely fantastic, and one of the best action directors of all-time made it. The development of the Sarah Connor character in T2 is the last interesting thing to happen in the franchise, and since then its all felt pretty pointless and unnecessary. Entertaining at times, but not enough so that I wouldn't rather just be watching a new sci-fi film with original ideas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Parachute posted:why are you even here? you're acting upset about not getting why a bunch of nerds would be in to a big budget action franchise about time traveling death robots ushering in the apocalypse. I'm allowed to be in the Terminator 3 and 4 thread to talk some poo poo about Terminator 5.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I have to agree with this. T2 worked because Arnold was such a gigantic star at the time, Hamilton's Sarah Connor was absolutely fantastic, and one of the best action directors of all-time made it. The development of the Sarah Connor character in T2 is the last interesting thing to happen in the franchise, and since then its all felt pretty pointless and unnecessary. Entertaining at times, but not enough so that I wouldn't rather just be watching a new sci-fi film with original ideas. CelticPredator posted:It's a story about John Connor, Sarah Connor, Kyle Reese, a Terminator, a T-1000, Skynet, Time Travel and a plot that will bring upon the machine apocalypse. You can switch around the plot, add some different lines, maybe a couple new action scenes too! But the ultimate result is the same story we've been presented since 1984. If you guys didn't like the movie then whatevs I guess, I thought there was a ton of interesting things going on. v  v
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, I felt Genisys brought plenty of new stuff to the table and did plenty of new and interesting things with "those same characters". Kyle Reese has an actual character arc, both between him and Sarah and between him and Armold. Arnold's depiction as a fatherly figure is markedly different from his "stoic badass" of T2 and his borderline-slapstick "beep boop I am a machine, I do not understand humans" of T3. John Connor gets more personality than in any of the prior movies, and unlike salvation, you see his interactions with his soldiers and why he's a leader they look up to, as well as the dynamics of his relationship with Kyle. The way "the twist" was played was great, because when Arnold shoots John, you totally buy the idea that Kyle was right and deep down Arnold had buried programming to kill John Connor at any opportunity. It's an actual moment of conflict for Sarah because her apparent guardian just straight up blasted her son. I think a lot of this stuff would have been interesting enough to hold my interest had the parts not been played by Courtney and Clarke. As I said, so much of what makes T2 worthwhile is the performance of Linda Hamilton and Cameron's direction. There's no performance even close to that level in Terminator 3, Salvation, or Genisys. If I were to list the problems I have with Genisys, the script wouldn't really be one of them, I think the story itself was pretty solid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
You can dig the movie, just don't start off your review with "gently caress THE HATERS". It just seems petty and dumb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
I agree that Linda Hamilton's acting was a huge part of what made T2 great, especially when showing her character changes from the first movie. And I agree that what we got in Genisys couldn't hold a candle to her performance in T2, but I feel Clarke and Courtney's work accomplished what it needed to. Clarke was a younger, less-hardened but still battle-ready version of T2 Sarah Connor. She's not a paranoid, self-trained maniac like Linda Hamilton was, but her character didn't need to be because she has a literal indestructible death robot watching over her at all times. She lacked the full-bore intensity of Linda Hamilton's portrayal, but I felt it made sense given the character's age and comparative circumstances. Kai Courtney's Kyle Reese was different from Michael Biehn, but the character was also different and the opening of the movie sets that up. I still felt he gave the character plenty of emotional range given what happens over the course of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
I too, think gently caress THE HATERS!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:You can dig the movie, just don't start off your review with "gently caress THE HATERS". It just seems petty and dumb.  gently caress the haters who don't like the phrase "gently caress the haters", though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
gently caress the Terminators.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I thought there was a ton of interesting things going on. v I'm not sure you really have a leg to stand on here, though, considering if it has the Alien, Predator or Terminator name on it, you'll lap it up and find "interesting things going on."
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Timby posted:I'm not sure you really have a leg to stand on here, though, considering if it has the Alien, Predator or Terminator name on it, you'll lap it up and find "interesting things going on." Hell, this is the thread where SMG defends the AvP movies (and especially AvPR), and even I'm willing to admit that those movies have serious problems, even if I still enjoy them on a base guilty-pleasure level. But none of this applies to Genisys because it isn't a bad movie. It seems the public at large is picking up on this, too, based on the movie's user ratings climbing on Amazon and IMDb post-DVD release.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Oh my god, genisys was awful and 100% carried along on life support via Arnold's still unstoppable screen presence and charisma. Courtney and Clarke were both laughs of bad. It had the aesthetic of a rich high school putting on an amateur production. Like a bunch of kids stomping around in their parents' oversized shoes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
I had more of a problem with Clarke than Courtney, and I didn't expect that going in. I was just not buying anything she was saying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Ronda Rousey said I'LL BE BACK the other day and I made a pretty good joke about how if there's any female fighters named Sarah Conner they should be loving worried but nobody got it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
It didn't take Arnold 6 months to get back up.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:It didn't take Arnold 6 months to get back up. Ha!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I think a lot of this stuff would have been interesting enough to hold my interest had the parts not been played by Courtney and Clarke. As I said, so much of what makes T2 worthwhile is the performance of Linda Hamilton and Cameron's direction. There's no performance even close to that level in Terminator 3, Salvation, or Genisys. If I were to list the problems I have with Genisys, the script wouldn't really be one of them, I think the story itself was pretty solid. Hamilton's version of the character died in 1997. It's time to let go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:It didn't take Arnold 6 months to get back up. No, it took him 10 years. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Hamilton's version of the character died in 1997. It's time to let go. Hell yes countdown to Terminator fans hate The Terminator.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Hell yes countdown to Terminator fans hate The Terminator. We reached that point a long time ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
In the context of the entire series, the least Terminator-y movie is actually Terminator 2: Judgment Day. It's a perfectly ok movie, but it has the least interesting variation on the time-travel theme. Terminator 1, 4, and 5 are all about equally fantastic. 3 is the only bad entry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:In the context of the entire series, the least Terminator-y movie is actually Terminator 2: Judgment Day. It's a perfectly ok movie, but it has the least interesting variation on the time-travel theme. What T-2 may lack as far as an "interesting variation on the time-travel theme", it makes up for with great action, excellent acting, a menacing villain, and a non-stop pace that makes the film exhilarating to watch. The others don't have all that stuff going for them in my opinion, even if they may be more creative with how they use time travel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Yeah, it's Cameron's direction, especially his excellent timing and skill at structuring an action sequence, that make the first two great above the sum of their base plots and themes. These aspects gradually get worse over the series. The show had SOME interesting stuff in it because, while you sacrificed the interesting direction, you had more actual -time- to deal with subplots that took some of the themes in interesting directions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:What T-2 may lack as far as an "interesting variation on the time-travel theme", it makes up for with great action, excellent acting, a menacing villain, and a non-stop pace that makes the film exhilarating to watch. In every other Terminator film, those things elucidate the time-travel theme. In just a basic sense, Kyle Reese's nighmare of having his truck blown up by the drone ship 'becomes real' when he and Sarah are chased by the huge semi, so Sarah is being pulled into his world and begins seeing things his way. We also get a different outcome because, rather than just seeing a photograph, the actual Sarah pulls Reese from the fire. That's to say that the action scenes and other visuals provide both characterization and philosophical points about man's relation to the universe and whatever. I like the image of the campfire built inside a TV. In Terminator 2, things are much murkier. I don't think anyone's noted that Sarah becomes the Reese character, who has the apocalyptic dreams from the future. But Sarah didn't actually go to the future, so we already have our first break from the logic of Terminator 1 (where, as in Prince Of Darkness, nightmares are actually a glimpse into another dimension). Sarah really is 'just dreaming', and we lose the future-war scenes. The nuke stuff is impressive, but not as evocative. T2 is essentially a Matrix movie without the 'real-world' scenes. Compounding this, you have two other Reese stand-ins with Robert Patrick and (after the twist) Arnold. It's another thing that people don't really talk about, but where do these robots come from? And I don't mean in literal plot terms, but thematically - given that the original robot emerged from Sarah and Reese's mutual insanity, from where does this 'good robot' emerge? The only thing that really makes sense in T2 is this idea that Sarah failed. In destroying Cyberdyne, a worse Skynet is unleashed, and that is the origin of the liquid terminator. Connor is then forced to build a perfect replica of Arnold and send him back from the future. So Arnold is a manifestation of Connor's childhood imagination (Connor dreams of having a robot guardian, and this dream 'comes true' as a result of time fuckery), while Robert Patrick is a manifestation of Sarah Connor's ideological failure. Hence, the basic twist that Robert Patrick is not the resistance hero from the future. Sarah's dream of 'bringing back Reese' is John's nightmare. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Nov 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Well NOW I really want to see a John Carpenter Terminator movie SMG thanks
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Ah, poo poo, that's like the Bad Father in Jumanji.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Burkion posted:Well NOW I really want to see a John Carpenter Terminator movie SMG thanks Well good news! Halloween, The Thing, and They Live are all basically Terminator films. Cameron owes a lot to Carpenter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Well good news! Halloween, The Thing, and They Live are all basically Terminator films. Cameron owes a lot to Carpenter. I was about to say the same thing. Terminator feels like a Carpenter film in a lot of ways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:25 |
|
|
I'm giving you a choice: either come with me if you want to live, or start eating that submachinegun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 18:36
|
|
