|
I think Arnold's 'I AM... A MACHINE' scene in T3 is quite good as well.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 14:31 |
|
Axetrain posted:Elderly Schwarzenegger getting shoehorned into this is really giving me the vibe that they are just going to churn this out without effort to cash in on nostalgia bucks (again). Honestly, if the film is just some vehicle to get Arnold back playing the role that made him famous, I'd support it for that. The dude probably loves it.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 07:56
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:I was being facetious (hard to tell, I know). Once there's a second terminator sent back it goes from "It was a last ditch effort by the machines to stave off defeat" to "apparently they can use time travel as much as they want." In T2 (the script), I think it was 'We sent Kyle back, then the others went back and then we blew up the time machine' or something like that.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 09:55
|
|
INH5 posted:I guess that makes some sort of sense, though the fact that these sorts of narrative contortions are required to reconcile the two stories does not suggest a well maintained continuity. I've literally never understood this criticism of time travel. John Connor was always fathered by Reese because Reese always went back in time. Nothing was ever really changed. The whole criticism that there must be an original timeline where John had no father (what) is purely because we see the film from an outside perspective, I guess? It only gets confusing when you bring T2, T3, T4 and such into the mix.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 12:13
|
|
|
Also, TSCC was legitimately good and could have been great if it hadn't been caught in the writer's strike. It did have some big problems though. It's interesting because the series had a fair few of the people being T3 in it and it feels like they took a lot of the ideas from T3 and made them better and more realized.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 12:14
|
|
INH5 posted:I was talking specifically about T2 and the problems its story creates in regards to reconciling it with T1. T1 by itself has consistent time travel rules. It's the other parts of the franchise that bring up awkward questions. A lot of which goes back to the original movie being written without any intention of ever creating sequels. True enough. Can someone answer me why the Terminator franchise is weird with legal stuff? Like how TSCC could basically use everything except T-800s and the word 'Terminator' in character dialogue?
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 12:33
|
|
INH5 posted:Personally, I'm not so sure about that. Every other important character has been recast at least once. At this point, John Conner has been played by 6 different actors in various parts of the franchise (7 if you include an infant used in one scene of T2). The fact that Arnold's characters have never been recast makes him exceptional, more than anything. Sure, but John Connor ages. He goes from a kid to a man. The Terminator... not so much.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 02:10
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:I had very little hopes for TSCC but the show I think turned a corner when it brought in Derek and new Cromartie. The three dots story I think derailed the show pretty hard and once you get out of that story it improves a lot, again. The thing about TSCC is that, sure, it has a bit of a fanfictiony feel, but it doesn't really come up with anything new or contradictory but builds on concepts introduced in Terminator 2. For example, rogue Terminators - isn't that precisely what the T-800 is once he's able to write his own programming? After all, there has to be a reason why Skynet deliberately disabled that functionality. Let's say the T-800 had survived after the steel mill, or had been active for much longer... how would his distinct machine intelligence have evolved? TSCC tries to grapple with those sorts of ideas. The issues with the show come from its plotting and how it was written both in the middle of a huge strike and in the midst of the 'MYSTERIOUS CONSPIRACY MYSTERY' plots phase of the early 2000s (see also: Heroes, Lost, Battlestar Galactica). This is the biggest flaw in the show. It really did give the ideas exhibited in the films a bit of a exploration and breathing room. For a TV series version of the Terminator mythos, it was really quite good. It was, however, radically different to what I imagine people expected from a Terminator TV series and when that combined with the plotting issues of the show, really hurt it.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 06:18
|
|
Shadoer posted:However I agree, it's main problem was the plotting and that it came in a bad time with the writers strike. That period in Season 2 where there was like 3 poo poo episodes in a row just killed ratings, somewhat undeservedly as a bunch of pretty good episodes came right afterwards. Those would be the two 'Skynet town' episodes and then the episode that was literally 'it was all a dream!' right? Yeah. Those were horrid.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 07:11
|
|
INH5 posted:I've recently been rewatching Season 2, and I can confirm that at the very least, Riley being from the future must have been planned from the beginning, because they were dropping hints from the very first episode that character appears in. Rewatching Season 2 after you know about the later reveals is a very different experience because of things like this. Or was it? Someone on this Forum posted:Future John Connor was supposed to be this legendary guy who rose up to fight the machines but the machines knew nothing about him. How's that possible?
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
I don't know. It's like when people complain that TSCC had 'too much religious symbolism' but don't mention the swathes of it in T1 and T2. Terminator films are incredibly political and you can always just - I don't know - not respond to SMG's posts?
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 06:06
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:From the terminator wiki. Yeah, it comes from the Terminator Vault book that came out recently. It only works when you consider T1 and T2. T3, T4 and TSCC all don't work with that premise. I personally like it.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 05:36
|
|
gently caress trophy 2k14 posted:Except in terminator 1 skynet was about to be destroyed by the resistance. If it could take action to increase it's chances of termination then not using the time machine at all would also count as an action. Except the first T-800 had to go back in time to fulfil its role in the loop.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
I'm not sure if I'd call Robert Patrick 'average' looking. He's very distinctive in appearance as the T-1000 despite being really bland at the same time. It's like, you'd never look twice at him, but once you know what he is you can pick him out incredibly easily.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 10:46
|
|
|
He was fast enough to catch up to the motorcycle (once it was moving), too, in some of the takes. He was running really drat fast.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 14:27
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Off the top of my head the poo poo that aint in the original movie: and i think the stuff with terminator trying to smile and assorted things in the desert is part of that director's cut stuff, too
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 04:29
|
|
Xenomrph posted:As a kid I didn't mind it, but watching T2 in recent years it always seemed weird that the T-1000 would mimic Sarah Connor but wouldn't, you know, terminate her when it had the chance. You could maybe say that the T-1000 didn't want to run the risk of John coming across his mother's body and therefore knowing that the T-1000 might take her shape?
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 06:33
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:If you think about it, T2 actually refutes the idea that destroying Skynet is the best way to change the future, because if the T-800 was able to learn to value human life, presumably Skynet could be reworked to the same end. the tv series plays with this idea during its second season
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
I find it weird that people think the Terminator in T2 should kill, like, a dozen people when it would be trying to maintain as low a profile as possible in the interest of protecting John Connor. It doesn't help the mission if he runs the risk of getting all the cops in the LA area after him because he cut a swath of destruction across the city getting there. I showed the first two films to my girlfriend, one after the other. She had no knowledge of Terminator whatsoever. She thought the T-800 was the bad guy (or working with the T-1000 'because the film is about two Terminators') up until he told John to get down. The fact that he wasn't killing people didn't enter her mind, because he was still stabbing people and giving that one guy pretty severe burns. It works really well as-is and having the T-800 tear through civilians in the mall with "reckless abandon" and "defy it's no command" demonstrates a surprising lack of understanding the character of the Terminator. It is not a person. It follows orders to the point of tearing off its own limbs. Even when given the ability to think for itself, it is still beholden by coded commands that render it unable to self-terminate. "I know now why you cry, but it is something I can never do" is the key phrase and the whole trick of the film is that it puts the audience and John in the same POV, of seeing the killing machine as an ideal father.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
I'm not missing your original point because your original point is stupid. The Terminators in the first two films are completely different with a completely different set of objectives. Maybe you can tell me why a super-logical machine given a mission to defend a young child for what seems to be an indefinite period of time would risk attracting significant amounts of police attention by killing people in a biker bar and in a shopping mall? These are public places and while it isn't the age of smartphones and Internet, a six foot dude in black leather on a motorcycle probably wouldn't get too far if he was leaving a trail of bodies in his wake with "reckless abandon". I'm not even going to mention that a Terminator is not a character that should be associated with the term "reckless". Terminators are exacting and precise. You act like the Uncle Bob Terminator should be offended by people putting out a cigarette on its chest when the action can't do anything to hurt it - and the act of ignoring it might even be more helpful to its goals! The Terminator is designed to kill, yes, but while Terminators are extremely single-minded they are not stupid. In the first film, the Terminator is there to kill every Sarah Connor in the city and there is little that the police can do to stop it. In T2, the Terminator is there to protect and how can it protect John Connor if the police are hounding it? All it would take is one bullet hitting John to change the future. It maintains as low a profile as possible. Your original point would create a completely different film. The fact that the Terminator has a different mission is what completely alters its character. This should not be hard to understand. John gives the Terminator the order not to kill because he - and we, the audience - know what Arnold might start doing at the drop of a hat. We don't need to see something in the film we already know and which the characters already have reason to believe. There is precedent for that behaviour. It's called the entire first film and the fact that it approaches violence without a care in the world in the second film.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Like, I get that's it one thing to try and engage with SMG's critical discourse which takes a completely different way of looking at film, but you could at least try to understand basic things like characterisation and how the film is built demonstrates it without explicitly telling you things and how the film plays upon existing audience expectations to assist with that. Like, this is basic stuff. An intelligent machine - which the Terminator is, even if not strictly self-aware - should and does demonstrate different tactics based on its primary objective. In the first film, this is to kill. In the second film, it is to protect. It absolutely doesn't matter that 'Arnold wanted to be a good guy' or whatever. Maybe he did. It doesn't matter one iota because the film tells you everything you need to know about why the T-800 specifically isn't killing people.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 05:18
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Before the movie came out, I thought Christian Bale was a great casting choice for the character of John Connor. But he wasn't. Because his character did almost nothing in the entire film except play straight man to Terminator With a Heart of Gold and worry about what's to come. I'd say he's a drat sight better than what's his name in the new one.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 06:28
|
|
davidspackage posted:Was Sam Worthington really so bad in Salvation? I rather liked his character, it just probably shouldn't have been in a Terminator movie. Plus they should've done something more interesting with him like 1) not bullshit restore his body 2) have him struggle with his programming to show that he's actually a robot and 3) keep the ending where he replaces Connor. I always thought it was weird that, like, there's this part where half of his face gets blown off and instead of doing the classic half human/half endoskeleton face, they kept the normal eye on the metal side of his face. It screams of some sort of 'No, Mr Worthington needs to have his whole face on display for this movie!'
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 08:26
|
|
davidspackage posted:Watched the first Terminator again for the first time in years, and it somehow escaped me that Arnold spends most of the movie with his eyebrows singed off. Weird. I always had something of a different response. For a lot of T1, I'd be sitting there thinking 'Why does Arnold look so weird and creepy?' And, yeah, I suddenly realised that his eyebrows had been singed off. He looks like a completely different person.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
In the original script, Skynet was preserving elements of the human race or something like that.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 08:12
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:I'm kind of sick of this idea that showing hypothetical images (ie, dream sequences of various kinds) makes film less professional. It's one of the bigger things dragging blockbusters down, IMO, if you don't get into the deeper underlying factors like "the producers have no idea what the gently caress they're doing". I don't mind the scene but, really, it doesn't add anything to the film. It's maybe the only scene from the Director's Cut that I think you could leave out with no ill effect. We already know that Sarah wants to get out and find John - we don't really need her hallucinating Kyle Reese, even if it is a nice moment. Dream sequences don't really tend to tell the audience anything new.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2014 07:26
|
|
WarLocke posted:Or T1 is a closed loop and Reese is always the father because he has always been the father. It's obviously this.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 02:05
|
|
Pops Ghostly posted:That's impossible. Time Travel is somewhat feasible, but the closed loop theory is not. I don't understand why people can't seem to grasp this simple fact. Please tell us more, Doctor Time Travel. 
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 02:10
|
|
Pops Ghostly posted:No he is not. Ultimately Kyle was just one soldier of many. If he didn't get the assignment, it would have been someone else. Maybe they would have fallen in love, maybe not. But Sarah would have had sex and given birth eventually. Even if she just went around having one night stands in order to get pregnant. Cameron is a feminist. He understands the power of womanhood and celebrates it. Sarah is the true hero of the Terminator franchise. Cameron understands that humanity's salvation lies in the hands of women, not men or cyborgs. "The audience has to want to gently caress her."
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 02:24
|
|
WarLocke posted:Exactly. There's no need to invent a string of fathers, since Reese fits the narrative set in the movie. One wonders how Sarah would have raised John to be set for the future war when I don't see how a waitress in LA would have the right skills or knowledge.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
I've always seen it as a series of branching timelines as opposed to 'alternate'. But Terminator 1 always happens. Kyle is always John's father. Speculating about an unknown Connor father is kind of ridiculous.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 06:03
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:This is true, but this just suggests he hasn't thought it through. The extra scene turns him into a similar character to Hammond in Jurassic Park. A good man, an optimist, who accidentally dooms us all. Yeah. I really like the scene for that reason. I'm also pretty sure I've never seen the original cut of T2, only the Director's Cut.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2014 06:55
|
|
Tenzarin posted:Well since he left it on the floor, and you picked through it like garbage. If its not there in the movies, that's pretty much fan fiction land. It got cut for a reason and it was for necromancy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQwjojvRNI4
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
I'm throwing some fuel on this fire. Hey, SMG! Did you check out the lyrics for the song in the Genesys trailer? They seem to fit perfectly with your anti-Capitalism reading of the Terminator series, strangely enough.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
That guilt theory of yours is interesting. In the Terminator Vault, Cameron said that's basically why everything happens how it happens. Skynet defends itself when people try to turn it off, then wants to ensure that it is never created as a consequence of feeling guilt.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
I think James Cameron said that he envisioned that Terminators had a heart and stomach sort of deal inside their body to provide nourishment for their skin, but it doesn't seem to have ever really gone anywhere. Like others have said, I always thought Terminators were a short infiltration job - they're not long term spies, they just look human enough to get inside a bunker and start shooting. Also, these Genesys screenplay rumors going around the Internet sound incredibly disheartening, wow.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 01:41
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:Go on... It's something like... When Reese is being sent back in time, John Connor is attacked by the T-5000 - which is a cloud of nanomachine Terminators (or something)! Reese has to watch Connor get turned into a new sort of Terminator from the inside out as he is sent back in time. Connor has been heavily implied to be the big bad guy of the film and is apparently sent back in time to ensure Skynet's rise. http://www.terminatorfiles.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=6122 edit: http://screenrant.com/terminator-5-genisys-plot-details/ Milkfred E. Moore fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Feb 21, 2015 |
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
It certainly leads me to understand why they cast that guy in that role, however.
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 02:09
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:I glanced at these for a minute and all things considered, there's something about the film I haven't heard a lot about. I'm spoilering in case. Given all the promotions for the film, the use of - - Matt Smith - - in the film hasn't been talked about all that much. Well, looking at what you suggested... the head snap-to-look motion of that figure is very Terminator-esque!
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 10:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 14:31 |
|
Simply Simon posted:They are seriously pushing "hey guys this is really truly honestly a Terminator movie" with all the blatant references in shots and lines. Probably immediately followed by an assumed "...unlike Salvation". The trailer looks pretty good, in my opinion, and it definitely feels like Terminator. I'd be pretty excited for it if I hadn't read those leaks. The continued lack of Matt Smith in the trailer, however, makes it definitely seem like the leaks are legit. 
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 11:31
|
|