|
I think we can all agree that Terminators 1 and 2 were brilliant in their own right and just leave it at that, right? Good? Good. So let's start out with Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. I contest that Terminator 3 was not a bad movie, and in fact, it's biggest "crime" was being the follow-up to T2 - one of the most iconic action movies of our generation. However, it is flawed. So let's unpack... THE BAD: The fact that the "Terminatrix" T-X was played by a super-attractive model was distracting as hell to me. The whole point of the terminators was to blend in to be able to infiltrate, and a woman who basically makes heads turn kind of goes against that. Also, she didn't seem nearly as menacing or as unstoppable as either of the previous terminators that we had seen (T-800 and T-1000) up to that point. There was nothing really "noteworthy" about her character. There were enough stupid/goofy moments that broke my immersion and yanked me right OUT of the movie: the expanding terminator boobies, the bounce house that made that cartoony "BOIIIIIINNG" noise during what would've otherwise been a pretty intense car chase scene, "talk to the hand" to name a few. THE GOOD: I thought Nick Stahl did a serviceable John Connor. Remember, this movie is supposed take place in between the periods where he's a great military leader and when he's a snot-nosed punk in a Public Enemy t-shirt blaring Guns 'n Roses out of his boombox. In that regard, I thought Nick Stahl played the balance of those two stages of John Connor's life pretty well. I liked the relationship between John Connor and Kate Brewster. I liked how Kate remembered John as being a "troubled" kid, and I liked the "fate" aspect of how they were (and are) meant to be together. The character of Kate Brewster (or maybe just Clarie Danes' portrayal of her) was utterly forgettable though. On that note, I liked the concept that Judgement Day was inevitable and that the events of T2 only served to postpone it. Like it or not, James Cameron made a very deliberate decision to NOT wrap up the events of T2 in a nice tidy bow (he talks about this in the T2 commentary). The door being left open was only possible because of his decision to do this. I liked that Syknet was "software" - a virus. I thought this was a nice modernization of the 1980s/1990s where it had to be a big "mainframe". And finally, I contend that the ending - where they threw "no fate" completely out the window - was great. When they discovered that the 1960s-era fallout shelter served only for them to survive - and not prevent - Judgement Day was an honestly chilling moment.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 14:50 |
|
|
Sasquatch! posted:THE BAD: Actually if youre sending a terminator to 2004 Los Angeles thats exactly what kind of terminator youd send
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Going off the software instead of hardware thing, I like that they took real life influences into account. Instead of going full retard with humanoid robots rolling off an assembly line, they opted for more specialized drones that were also obvious evolutionary stating points for the stuff we saw in the earlier movies (little air drones becoming the HK Aerials, T1s becoming the giant HK Tanks)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Another good thing about Terminator 3 was that it was one of the last action sequels of an R-rated franchise that never caved into the pressure of having a PG-13 rating by studios/modern film makers. The TX being female was a nice alternative to Arnold and Robert Patrick in the previous movies, too. The ending was solid. The thing that hit Terminator 3 pretty hard though was that Edward Furlong couldn't reprise his role as John because of drug addictions. Hamilton should've came back and at least died in a dramatic fashion rather then simply being written out altogether as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
Vaall posted:Hamilton should've came back and at least died in a dramatic fashion rather then simply being written out altogether as well. She had a messy divorce with Cameron 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:She had a messy divorce with Cameron Cameron didn't direct or write Terminator 3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
Terminator 3 had really great action scenes. Especially that crane scene god drat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
Have to say that while Terminator 3 wasn't as good as Terminator or T-2 it really was a pretty solid movie in its own rights. It had some good shots, solid action a couple of genuinely funny jokes (The shrink being my favorite) and tended to live up to the previous films even if it sort of distorted the overall message. It wasn't perfect by any means, but as a popcorn flick it didn't have to be. That said, Terminator Salvation is hot garbage, and I will knife fight anyone who says anything good about that movie apart the one scene at the very beginning where a damaged t-600 tries to kill John Connor with its bare hands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
Terminator 3 is a lot of fun, I genuinely like it even if it obviously can't compare to Terminator and Terminator 2. Not being able to compared to Terminator and Terminator 2 is something that's true of most sci-fi action movies out there though. Salvation is such a waste. There is actually some incredible effects work in that movie. Michael Ironside is a human resistance general in it. It takes place entirely during the future war against the machines. And yet 3/4 of the film consists of Christian Bale and which ever other character is around at that time standing in a room arguing about nothing. It commits the worst sin of all by being BORING. I'm really excited about this new one from the trailer since, like, there's now a way it will be boring, it will either be rad or so bad it has to be seen to be believed. Salvation, man, gently caress that movie. Talk to the hand was the only funny moment in Terminator 3 that really got a chuckle out of me. The star glasses at the beginning was great in a theater opening night because everyone was hyped so everyone laughed but in general most of the humor fell flat. The amazing deleted Sgt. Candy scene should have been left in if they wanted to go a more comedic way with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Terminator 3 is a lot of fun, I genuinely like it even if it obviously can't compare to Terminator and Terminator 2. Not being able to compared to Terminator and Terminator 2 is something that's true of most sci-fi action movies out there though. I personally think Salvation's biggest problem is that it just makes zero loving sense. I watched the movie and came out of the theater like this.  - Eh, it wasn't really a great movie, but it wasn't bad. - Uh.. yeah it was. Just think about the plot for a second. - Why? What is wrong with the.... oh god.Queue six hours of angry ranting about how every part of that movie made no sense. I was up until four in the morning ranting and drinking with my friends because there were just so many things wrong. Why did Skynet keep Kyle Reese alive? Even if it was worried about the timeline being corrupted, why not keep him in a safe and secure part of the base instead of letting him literally walk out. Why does skynet put John Conner, its greatest enemy, in the room with a naked, unarmed t-800. Why not simply fill the room with deadly gas. Or a bomb. Or machine guns? Why does the terminator not break his loving neck instead of throwing him around the room for ten minutes. And on, and on, and on. How does Skynet know about Kyle reese... Oh god its happening again. gently caress you Terminator Salvation. I want to like Genesys. The new actress for Conner is such an amazing choice, and it looks... kind of good. But you beat me salvation, you beat me bad and I don't know if I can trust another terminator film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Caros posted:The new actress for Conner is such an amazing choice  
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
To clarify, I mean in terms of looks. I have no idea if she'll do a good job, but they actually picked someone with a reasonable resemblance and did a good job with the hair and makeup to evoke the original. While I loved Lena Hedley in the TV show I don't think she ever nailed the look.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 08:07
|
|
|
Lena Hedley never got the look. Had some of the mannerisms, but it was a crazy high bar to match how great Linda Hamilton was. It was never going to happen so wisely they took it is a slightly different direction. Not to mention Sarah was suppose to be "Shacking up" with anybody who was willing to give material support or training.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Lena Hedley never got the look. Had some of the mannerisms, but it was a crazy high bar to match how great Linda Hamilton was. It was never going to happen so wisely they took it is a slightly different direction. Not to mention Sarah was suppose to be "Shacking up" with anybody who was willing to give material support or training. Pretty much, yeah. By contrast:   Apart from the lack of 80's hair, she really does have a solidly similar look if perhaps a bit too young. Caros fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
So as I hate both these movies, I'm going to limit the scope of this post to discussing visuals. The opening of Terminator 3 is essentially a CG version of the classic Terminator 2 scene with the overrun future, only it looks much, much worse than something that was made over 10 years earlier. It's probably unfair to compare anyone's work to the effects team that worked on Terminator 2, but when you make a direct parallel like that, you're only inviting those comparisons, which leads me to believe that they really thought their CG Terminator army was an actual improvement to the practical effects, a kind of "look how rad the Terminators look when they're made with modern CG!" moment. It's just another thing in my increasingly long list of evidence that practical effects are inherently superior to CG. Now, onto Salvation. The entire look of this movie is wrong. I know that vegetation overrunning things and deserts and all that poo poo are acceptable ways to depict post-apocalypses, and it worked fine in I Am Legend, but the Terminator films established a very, very, VERY distinct look for the "Bad Future". Blue lighting, smoke, pavement, thunderclouds, and not a single goddamn sign of nature anywhere. It was a concrete nightmare world, where a machine symbolizing the most destructive aspects of modern civilizations had wiped out everything but those aspects. The fact that the film that we finally get that's set in this future looks nothing like the often-teased crazy post-apocalypse that's so iconic to the franchise shows contempt for the material. Even if the script and everything else had been good, it wouldn't have felt like a Terminator movie at all.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:So as I hate both these movies, I'm going to limit the scope of this post to discussing visuals.  Holy poo poo look how wrong you are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CyWHpGs3IkBasically everything in Terminator 3 was practical. The robots in the future, the metal TX, the flying models, the rolling T1 models that destroy Robert Brewsters headquarters, they even built an animatronic Arnold with half his face blown off that could move. This isn't even getting into the action scenes. The company that did the effects on T2 also did the effects on T3 and they make the former look pretty dated. That said, talk to the hand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 09:25
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Now, onto Salvation. The entire look of this movie is wrong. I know that vegetation overrunning things and deserts and all that poo poo are acceptable ways to depict post-apocalypses, and it worked fine in I Am Legend, but the Terminator films established a very, very, VERY distinct look for the "Bad Future". Blue lighting, smoke, pavement, thunderclouds, and not a single goddamn sign of nature anywhere. It was a concrete nightmare world, where a machine symbolizing the most destructive aspects of modern civilizations had wiped out everything but those aspects. I'm not too sure you can call it contempt. You could pull off the Bad Future in T2 because it's on a controlled set, where every rock is a prop. You can't do that on an actual live setting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I'm not too sure you can call it contempt. You could pull off the Bad Future in T2 because it's on a controlled set, where every rock is a prop. You can't do that on an actual live setting. No plasma guns in the 40 Watt range.  The landscape might be forgiven if everything else was in line with T2 bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I'm not too sure you can call it contempt. You could pull off the Bad Future in T2 because it's on a controlled set, where every rock is a prop. You can't do that on an actual live setting. The apocalyptic future in T3 was done by models, miniatures, and clever uses of depth perception. Six years later, if the producers of Terminator Salvation wanted to achieve that same look they definitely had the means to do it with combinations of live sets, models & miniatures, CGI, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
Vaall posted:The apocalyptic future in T3 was done by models, miniatures, and clever uses of depth perception. Six years later, if the producers of Terminator Salvation wanted to achieve that same look they definitely had the means to do it with combinations of live sets, models & miniatures, CGI, etc. I'm just not convinced, given the scope and scale they were trying for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 10:56
|
|
|
Are we not having a thread for Terminator 5? I refuse to call it by its ridiculous subtitle. Name aside, I have to admit that the trailer looks pretty entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
Vaall posted:
Those T-800's in the beginning are absolutely CGI. As are the flying ships, the TX...pretty much everything was CGI except for a few shots, and the T1. They may have done some practical stuff, but it looked like it ended up mostly covered up later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I'm just not convinced, given the scope and scale they were trying for. The technology used for Avatar was available at the time so I beg to differ. CelticPredator posted:Those T-800's in the beginning are absolutely CGI. As are the flying ships, the TX...pretty much everything was CGI except for a few shots, and the T1. They may have done some practical stuff, but it looked like it ended up mostly covered up later. It was a mixture of the models and CGI by the same company just like T2 only better. Obviously you didn't watch the special features or that video. The argument was that all these were entirely digital which is false.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 11:14
|
|
Vaall posted:It was a mixture of the models and CGI by the same company just like T2 only better. Obviously you didn't watch the special features or that video. The argument was that all these were entirely digital which is false. Actually my argument was that there was a bunch of bad looking CG terminators in the opening and it looked worse than the practical stop motion version of the same scene in T2 by a mile. A big dumb CG terminator walks right up to the screen and it looks awful. Apparently you took that to mean that I thought there were no practical effects anywhere in the film? I guess I can see how my post could read like that. If you're stupid.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Actually my argument was that there was a bunch of bad looking CG terminators in the opening and it looked worse than the practical stop motion version of the same scene in T2 by a mile. A big dumb CG terminator walks right up to the screen and it looks awful. Apparently you took that to mean that I thought there were no practical effects anywhere in the film? I guess I can see how my post could read like that. If you're stupid. I guess I can't make you watch the special features. If you're stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 11:20
|
|
|
Vaall posted:I guess I can't make you watch the special features. If you're stupid. He's right about that shot though. While most of the film is practical, that specific shot is CG and looks pretty crummy. Kind of a small thing to get so hung up on though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 12:23
|
|
Bugblatter posted:He's right about that shot though. While most of the film is practical, that specific shot is CG and looks pretty crummy. Sorry if I gave the impression that I was. I just mentioned it because it's the opening of the film and it already looks worse than T2, and I'm just saying that's a bad move on the film's part, doing a parallel to such a famous scene and having it look worse 12 years after the original. I did state that my post was gonna just talk about visuals.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
The practical effects in T3 are really goddamn good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
terminator 3 is bad because it made firing a shotgun look really impotent when in the other 2 it was the most powerful thing ever you go from "Get down" to arnold looking like a dumbshit in a parking lot
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
Admiral Bosch posted:Are we not having a thread for Terminator 5? I refuse to call it by its ridiculous subtitle. Name aside, I have to admit that the trailer looks pretty entertaining. This is the thread that T5 deserves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
Sasquatch! posted:The fact that the "Terminatrix" T-X was played by a super-attractive model was distracting as hell to me. The whole point of the terminators was to blend in to be able to infiltrate, and a woman who basically makes heads turn kind of goes against that. Also, she didn't seem nearly as menacing or as unstoppable as either of the previous terminators that we had seen (T-800 and T-1000) up to that point. There was nothing really "noteworthy" about her character. I'd argue a 6 foot+ tall man with a bodybuilder physique and a ridiculous accent is way more noticeable then a pretty lady.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
No Terminator movie will ever top T-2 simply because it has Robert Patrick as T-1000. He's weirder and much scarier than Arnold was in Terminator, and the T-X in the third movie obviously was nowhere close to that level. He carries the whole movie in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The practical effects in T3 are really goddamn good. They really are, particularly the crane chase. There's one really dodgy CGI shot in that whole sequence, but the vast majority of it is excellent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
A few people have mentioned Terminator Salvation. Caros, no need to knife me - that movie WAS poo poo. But let's unpack WHY it was poo poo (and if there was anything good about it): Terminator Salvation THE GOOD: It was set it post-apocolyptic "future war", which everyone was looking forward to seeing. Seeing the T-600s was good and creepy. (Although this kind of ties into the above point I guess?) Anton Yelchin rocked. I thought that his take on Kyle Reese was amazing, and one of the few bright spots of this movie. THE BAD: The plot made no goddamn sense: Did Skynet send (or influence) terminally-ill Helena Bonham Carter to get Marcus Wright to sign his body over to Skynet?? And for what purpose? So that they could create an even-more-advanced terminator model IN THE PAST to...somehow lure John Connor to Skynet HQ?? The acting was loving terrible in this movie. Christian Bale was either boring or screaming, Michael Ironside was so over-the-top cliche. Sam Worthington's Marcus character was completely unbelievable. Moon Bloodgood's charater was equally unbelievable. Again, only Anton Yelchin was any good. The characters were dumb: Marcus Wright was supposed to have a moving "redemption" arc, but it was bland. John Connor wasn't a "leader" at all. Moon Bloodgood's Blair character had no good motiviation to do anything. And WTF was Helena Bomham Carter again?? One of my biggest complaints: They personalized Skynet. The reduced Skynet to a "character" that took on a persona that taunted and gloated to Marcus and John. What made Skynet so menacing was explained in T1 with the Kyle Reese line "It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear." Skynet didn't have a personal hatred or vendetta against mankind; it saw humanity as a threat to its own existence and concluded that it needed to be eradicated. That's much more haunting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
That personalizing of Skynet really is awful. An effect of it being PG-13 I guess wherein if it were R rated the story would logically go in a much more urgently violent direction. I really, really, really, really hate the scene of a terminator throwing someone around forever instead of killing them outright. There have been lots of different robots from Skynet in the movies like the tanks, aerial hunter killers, etc., but the unifying conceit of the "Terminator" as a concept is that if it gets its "hands" on a plain old human being that human is dead. To me the only straight up bad shot in T3 is when Arnold reattaches his head. There's a blown to pieces Arnold head prop, and the actual CG of the pieces reconnecting, sparks, etc. is EXTREMELY good for the time. But after he reattaches the camera lingers just a bit too long killing it. The CG was great in T3 when it came out and I'm not understanding all the hate for it. That one particular shot of a T-800 walking up to the screen isn't amazing but even the marching T-800s and the aerial hunter killer in the beginning were considered pretty high tier when the movie was released. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
I hated T3 and have only watched it twice. Once when it came out, and once a decade later to see if I was wrong. The biggest problem with it was that it was T2 recycled, but with terrible dialogue and flat, boring characters. The effects couldn't save it. The only thing I did like was the twist at the end, that fate was coming for you no matter how much time travel you try. The biggest problem I had with T4 was that they took the basic premise of terminator fighting and threw it out. The premise is: You run like hell because it will loving kill you efficiently. If you are backed into a corner you do what you can to disable it and then run like hell because it will loving kill you efficiently. Having John Connor go hand to hand combat with a T800 was the dumbest loving writing decision, because the only way for it to make sense is to undo everything we know about terminators. Now it plays with him like a cat with a mouse, batting it around keeping it alive. It was the isolation and terror of the hide/chase that made the first two so good. Even the terminator in T2 knew the rules. You don't take it head-on you loving run and hide. From my limited reading on the development of T4 I believe Christian Bale singlehandedly ruined it by inserting himself in the John Connor role and making it a large part of the movie. But maybe the script was too far gone by then. I still like it for the excellent performance by Anton Yelchin though. That guy is pretty good in everything he's in. I always hope "the new one" will be good, the trailer looks entertaining but I'm guessing it'll be really convoluted with a bunch of plot holes that barely tie the action together. I loved the Star Wars prequel trailers too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Sasquatch! posted:Christian Bale was either boring or screaming Literally all I can remember from his performance is when he's letting the hybrid Terminator guy sneak off and then suddenly screams out of nowhere, "WHAT ARE YOU?!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
LloydDobler posted:From my limited reading on the development of T4 I believe Christian Bale singlehandedly ruined it by inserting himself in the John Connor role and making it a large part of the movie. But maybe the script was too far gone by then. I still like it for the excellent performance by Anton Yelchin though. That guy is pretty good in everything he's in. If you know more about Bale possibly effecting the course of the movie do you have a link or anything to post? I ask because I remember reading an interview with him where he basically said he had no interest, but then saw the script and thought it was mind blowing and immediately signed on. But then there were a lot of weird changes to the ending as development went on. Initially Connor was going to die, but then the resistance people would transplant Connor's face onto Sam Worthington's skeleton so that the resistance would still have a "strong leader" to rally around. I blame the movie sucking completely on McGee though. I mean I'm not that big a Christian Bale fan but the guy is capable of acting well, and the cast in general wasn't particularly bad, just in this film everyone was completely awful. Also Moon Bloodgood, like why is there a geisha native american pilot, like was this an action figure/we need to sell fan service tie-in stuff decision or something? It is a fact that Terminator: Salvation almost received an R rating, but did not, not because of the violence which was always shot assuming PG-13, but because McGee was apparently really fighting for one of the actresses (I forget if it was Moon Bloodgood or the woman who play Christian Bale's girlfriend) to have a nude sex scene. Totally wrong director for the movie. Having it focus on John Connor in general I think was a mistake, John Connor's a living legend even in the future, he's a mythological figure. Kyle Reese talks him up like he's basically god in Terminator 1, and in Terminator 2 we get a similar visual depiction with everyone scrambling around this haggard strategist type. I mentioned earlier, but the footage and what I know about this new Terminator film, despite bizarre title, has me really interested because it looks like they're swinging for the fences structurally, so it will hopefully not be the most boring Terminator product ever made like Salvation was (even the official Terminator 2 screen saver was more exciting than that movie). Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 17:52
|
|
Gavok posted:Literally all I can remember from his performance is when he's letting the hybrid Terminator guy sneak off and then suddenly screams out of nowhere, "WHAT ARE YOU?!" I remember the part where he's kind of wandering off to do... something and then someone asks where he's going and the music just stops and he mumbles "I'll be back" like he's ashamed of delivering the line. Salvation had script and directing issues out the wazoo, and I honestly feel like it was a case like the last 2 Die Hards where they recycled an existing script for an original concept into a sequel to a known franchise. I was a tester on the lovely tie-in game to Salvation, by the way. It's a prequel, where John learns to be kind of a leader and recruits isolated survivors into the resistance. And despite sucking really hard, its story is probably more interesting than the movie's.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 14:50 |
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I was a tester on the lovely tie-in game to Salvation, by the way. It's a prequel, where John learns to be kind of a leader and recruits isolated survivors into the resistance. And despite sucking really hard, its story is probably more interesting than the movie's. To Salvation's credit it's still not as bad as the Terminator/RoboCop: Kill Human comic from a couple years ago. I actually got mad by how bad the story was in that. Not to be confused with Frank Miller's RoboCop vs. Terminator, which is the best poo poo ever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 19:35
|
|