|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
Well one way Skynet could win would be if they were able to kill John Connor after its creation, meaning after the events of the first movie. They tried to kill Sarah and failed, ensuring both John and Skynet's creation. Then, at a later date Skynet kills John, but the artifacts from the first attack are still in the past, leading to the creation of Skynet. I assume that's one of the main reasons why the time-travel mechanics were changed for T-2. If nothing from the future can be changed then is John really in any danger? The closed-loop explanation in Terminator was really more of a twist that you aren't supposed to know going into viewing it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:The obvious question then is, why bother? Why does Skynet care about the wellbeing of its alternate timeline iteration? Is it just a final "gently caress you" with no real logic behind it? Eh, that's one of those basic philosophical questions that you just have to accept will go unanswered. Even setting aside alternate universes, if you could change the past would that mean you are effectively "killing" the person that you currently are? If you change the future are you killing a version of future you? Most time travel stories don't really touch on that issue.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
It works best if you think of it as a new version of the timeline that has overwritten the old one. There aren't two existing simultaneously. It only gets confusing because there are people that have jumped from one timeline to another(I guess that will be Arnold and Kyle Reese in this movie), so they have memories of both. Live Die Repeat is similar because nobody around Cruise's character and Rita remembers anything, so to 99.999999% of the population theres only one timeline and its always been the same.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
What SMG is actually saying is totally appropriate for this thread, that's not the problem. The problem is a few people were having a light-hearted discussion about time-travel, and having a good time with it. SMG popped in to basically say "your conversation is stupid, here's what you really need to be talking about." It came off as pretentious and judgmental. These days I find myself agreeing with the content of SMG's posts more often than not, but he doesn't always have the best timing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Whats strange is that Terminator and T2 are both Cameron films, so I wonder why he decided to make such a big change in the theme(and basic mechanics of the story). Or maybe he was going for a "fate or no fate, what makes us human is we don't give up". Maybe it has something to do with capitalism, who knows.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
massive spider posted:I think thats common with a lot of creators, they don't necessarily have a big overarching "message" planned. Rather they make a single work, look at it later and then go "well actually..." and write the sequel as a response. Yea I could see that being one of the reasons Cameron felt like a sequel would be worthwhile. If he was going to do it he wanted it to say something different than the first movie, otherwise whats the point. Besides the millions of dollars of course.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
The silky smooth running motion that Patrick had was really important to the character. He had to be able to run flat out, but make it look effortless as if he could do a circuit around the planet if he felt like it. Its actually really hard to run at a sprint and maintain a serene facial expression.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
There is that one scene after Arnold and John get away from the T-1000 when he is about the just execute some guy and John steps in and stops him. That somewhat accomplishes what you're talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:But Skynet's actions were always self-defensive, that isn't a new idea. Sending the Terminators back in time definitely is, but we aren't ever told exactly why Skynet initially decides to wipe out humanity. The whole "we programmed it to work towards peace and it decided that things would be more peaceful with everybody dead" thing is a pretty standard trope, so its easy to jump to that conclusion but I don't remember that ever being outright stated in the movies. Skynet could have just decided that humans aren't aesthetically pleasing or something equally insane like that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Spakstik posted:In T2 they say Skynet attacked when the government got spooked and tried to pull the plug on it. Ah, ok I stand corrected. I assume the government got spooked when it became self-aware right?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Yea I think Stahl was fine in T3 and there are even a few very emotional scenes that you know Furlong would have never been able to handle. For me it was just too similar, plotwise, to T2 and without all the Robert Patrick magic the T-1000 had. But I don't think Stahl, Arnold, or Claire Danes where really part of the problem, they all did their jobs well. Salvation was very different, so I had high hopes for it. The one scene that was already posted about with the beanie wearing Terminator is on the same level as any of the other movies, so I know they understood how to make the machines scary. Maybe I need to watch it again to really understand where I felt it went off the rails.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Just practically speaking, at the time I thought it was very strange that they had cast Bale as John Connor because I was thinking at this point in his career there's no way Bale will sign on to do a whole trilogy of these movies. So when the rumors started coming out that he would actually die and be replaced at the end it made perfect sense to me. I wonder what their plan would have been if the movie was a big hit? Just pay Bale 20+ million per for two more? The casting of Bale was just plain weird for several reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Lots of people were expecting The Ultimate Experience In Grueling Terror - just two hours of machines brutally slaughtering innocent people - when the actual film is clearly aping Children Of Men. I don't think anyone anticipated an evenly-matched conflict between a still-organized humanity and a Skynet that hasn't built up its armies yet - and they certainly didn't anticipate a flawed resistance that still hasn't let go of the old ways, still treating Skynet as an external, alien threat instead of as a dark mirror of themselves. I think there was a middle-ground there that could have been achieved. The themes your talking about could have still been at the core of the film, but I think there needed to be more "grueling terror" than there was. There was plenty of time to establish the problems with the resistance as an organization and still have terrifying scenes of Terminator's stalking innocent people. Its a big enough world for both in my opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
I'm 30 years old and Terminator scared the crap out of me when I watched it two nights ago. I hadn't seen it for about 15 years.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:For him to exist a future dude had to make him, meaning that the future dude existed in a timeline without John Connor, went back in time on his own and screwed Sarah Connor spawning a timeline where their little bastard thinks that he is responsible for the future of the human race just because his helicopter Rambo mom says so. Then he manages to find an alternate future version of the same dude who hosed his mom last time and gave him a flowery story to take back in time while he rails Johns mother again, propagandizing his own birth. Self Fulfilling prophecy bullshit that only exists because of a temporal player getting some 80's trim. My favorite fun/stupid theory about John Connor is that when Kyle Reese went back in time and impregnated Sarah it hosed everything up because half of Johns DNA was supposed to come from some normal joe schmoe, not Reese. So in the "original" timeline there was a great leader born to Sarah Connor named John, but the one we see in T2 is not that guy at all, he is only given the name John Connor because Sarah is told that name by Reese. This theory was developed as an attempt to explain by Edward Furlong is such a whiny bitch.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:You'd be a whiny bitch too if you had been part of this movie Who the hell is that supposed to be on the cover? Even Furlong of today looks better than that dude.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Well Manicured Man posted:Well, it could be that, or it could be that in T2 John Connor is 10 years old. I actually agree with you personally, and his performance has actually grown on me over multiple viewings. His voice has a quality to it that can be grating, which I think contributed to the issue. But overall I think his character in T2 is actually a very well written and has a lot more intelligence than your average movie kid, which makes him more realistic. I was more referring to the theory I posted, and the fact that Furlong's tendency to sound like a whiny baby is such a common complaint about T2.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:All of these things can be explained by the timeline changing when Reese went back and told Sarah about the future, causing her to become a survivalist nut job. Like presumably in the original timeline, Sarah was just some waitress who got knocked up and John led a normal although maybe disadvantaged life. By T2 Sarah is in a literal mental institution for a terrorist attack and John is in a foster home until more future machines come and kill them and totally gently caress with his life; it is no wonder he was a messed up kid who eventually ended up homeless. Yea but this scenario still means that John Connor of the original timeline was a fundamentally different person(literally down to his DNA) from any version we actually get to see in the movies.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:
Well that is one thing I think T-3 fixed. It retroactively means that Future John's "The future is not set" speech that he makes Reese memorize is not factually correct, but that's not a big deal because it makes sense that humans would fight against the idea of their futures being predetermined. It means that the events of T-2, while they did change some minor things, didn't accomplish what the characters really set out to do(prevent the creation of Skynet and stop Judgment Day). So it sacrifices the themes and character arcs of T2, but hey who cares because we now know exactly how time travel works in the Terminator universe.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:I'm sort of surprised they haven't just taken the chance to fully reboot Terminator through a more modern lens. They won't every fully embrace a reboot until Arnold is 100% retired. A Terminator movie goes from a pretty big financial risk to a guaranteed $300 million when Arnold is on board. With Salvation they did take a risk somewhat, but they didn't have the option to have Arnold involved and they compensated by giving Bale a ton of money to get asses in the seats. Even that wasn't quite enough, they had to make sure everybody knew there would be an Arnold cameo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
david_a posted:What would the "evil" Terminators have done if they succeeded in killing their respective Connor? Lie low until the war starts or high-tail it to the closest defense contractor and "surrender?" They are probably programmed to (to quote Arnold) self-terminate. Any time they spend in the past increases the chances of changing the future, and once Connor is dead it needs everything else after that to stay the same. Of course in T2 Skynet is only created because of the chip left behind by the first Terminator, so its possible Skynet doesn't know its in a closed loop. The series contradicts itself in T2, and then back again in T3, so who the gently caress knows. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Parachute posted:I really need to re-watch these, but didn't Cyberdyne finding the chip & arm of the Terminator from the first film accelerate Judgement Day, or was it going to happen no matter what? Yea its implied in T2 that everything is a closed loop because of the chip from the first Terminator, but then Judgment Day is prevented, so maybe it isn't? Then in T3 it is explained that Judgment Day could be delayed but its always fated to happen at some point. There is no real consistency. Edit: Its been brought up before but one factor is how much does Skynet really know about previous timelines(ie past versions of itself). Like, does it have knowledge that we don't about an "original" timeline where nobody ever traveled through time and Judgment Day occurred on a different day than what we're told in T2? Does it somehow have insight into this "multiverse" and is able to see all the various branches of the tree and chose which to take? The answer would change things a lot. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
The events of Terminator make sense as a closed loop but you can't go any further than that if you want things to continue making sense. All the films after that are building on what came before and they all have inconsistencies in the way they attempt it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Esroc posted:But it can make sense if you assume a closed loop has a modicum of breathing room. It's likely unintentional on the writers part, but the films hold up if you look at it as the details can be changed but the broader events must always happen. The characters have a small amount of free will, but only within a narrow set of rules that must be followed. There's still an element there that is inconsistent and can't really be explained. For that to work there has to be a mysterious third party(nature, god, whatever) that determines what the rules are, what can be changed and what can't. Its a narrative tool that explains the inconsistency of the impact of time travel. I works because nobody really cares if time travel is totally consistent, its sci-fi after all. But only the truly closed loop really "makes sense" in that everything in it is explained by what we're shown in the film(except for the actual nuts and bolts of the time travel machine I guess). You don't have to add your own explanation to make all the events fit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Parachute posted:Yeah that was the only real letdown in that movie. So much so I can't even remember what the aliens look like. I thought that was weird yea, disappointing visual effects is something that I wasn't expecting from a big-budget Tom Cruise movie. The story and the characters were great, it could have been an instant sci-fi classic if the aliens themselves weren't totally forgettable.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
I hate to nitpick at trailers but I'm worried that they're trying to be too flashy and stylish with this new T-1000. The economy of movement that Robert Patrick brought to the performance is what made it, I don't want to see a Terminator doing acrobatic flips or dancing around in an attempt to make him more badass. Not enough evidence one way or another yet, but the way it slices its arm off and throws it doesn't feel right to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Eh, it could work, it could still have a real economy of motion and efficiency while doing things that way, right? If he just pulled his arm off and tossed it that would be economy of movement. Instead he slices it off and sends it tumbling in the air, which is 100% percent unnecessary and just for style.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:On the other hand, hasta la vista baby. Touche, I gotta admit T-1000 did kinda start acting like a dick towards the end there.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Hmmmm, I guess I just love Robert Patrick. Oh well, can't fault me for that!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
The climax of T2 is just absolutely perfect, so when you achieve that the audience is much more receptive to campy, saccharine lines like "I know now why you cry". Emotions are running high, you just had a major fist-pumping moment when Arnold blows away the T-1000, so the audience is primed for an emotional gut punch and you can get a way with a lot more.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
True Lies broke box office records and was immediately regarded as one of the best action movies ever, I have no clue what you're talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Yea Arnold is a guy who always seemed to really enjoy being a famous movie star, I've never seen him come off as bitter or jaded. Considering how other iconic action stars like Bruce Willis and Harrison Ford regularly come across(jerky, aloof) in interviews I think that's pretty impressive. I know he's got some unsavory poo poo in his past but when he's in front of a camera Arnold has never not been 100% on his game.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Kharn_The_Betrayer posted:I always felt that when the T-800 says he understand why humans cry he was saying that he understood it on a mechanical level as in emotions being a logical process. You see as an infiltration unit he might be able to imitate human responses to certain stimuli in order to better blend in but like he says emotion is something he cannot do. So when he hugs John Connor hes not doing so out of affection, hes doing it because he probably supposes its what John needs at that moment to let go of him. Another way of seeing it is the in way the T-800 immediately comes to the realization that he has to be destroyed. He doesn't hesitate for a second that he has to die in order to save the future, even if it means hurting Connor emotionally. Yea definitely, when he says "but it is something I can never do", he means he'll never be able to feel any of the emotions that cause a person to cry. He now understands that humans become attached to things via their emotions, but he'll never experience that for himself.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
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. You know looking at the trailer again I think you may be right and I don't think I've seen that noticed anywhere yet. It is a very Matt Smith-like face and is clearly a Terminator.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Timby posted:Eh, yes and no. There's a fair amount of stuff in the early going (Arnold in the bar being played for laughs, taking the motorcycle while "Bad to the Bone" is playing, etc.) that really paints the T-800 as the good guy. You're definitely right that there are hints, but I think overall the film does a great job of keeping things ambiguous until the hallway scene. For instance when the T-1000 goes to Johns house initially, even though there's something off about him, he is generally very friendly. There's also the fact that we know from the previous film that Arnold is a Terminator, but Robert Patrick could very easily just be a normal human for all we know at that point. If you didn't know in advance that the movie would be Terminator vs. Terminator you could easily jump to the conclusion that the cop must be the resistance fighter from the future, that's the expectation set up by the original. One hint would be that in Terminator Reese arrives first, and in Terminator 2 Arnold arrives first, indicating that he will be the good guy this time. I may have that backwards but either way the point is the same.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Hockles posted:You do have it backwards. Arnold arrives first, because it shows the stoic Arnold rising up from a kneel, whereas Reese is just dropped to earth, in pain. Is the order reversed in T2 though? I thought I remembered that but maybe I just imagined it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:What question? Whether or not the beginning of T2 is purposely ambiguous. I don't think its much of a question, it seems self evident to me that the entire opening portion of T2 is designed that way.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I was always under the impression that the T1000 died basically through dilution in a hostile medium. There was a lot more molten metal than there was memetic polyalloy, and its intense heat was destroying it blob by blob, by mass alone. Yea I think its that the alloy has a temperature range, and it can't reform above whatever that is. And if you were to dump that molten metal out and cool it down the alloy's molecules would be locked into place inside it, unable to move around to reform itself.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
Shadoer posted:You know, I'm really surprised they decided to reveal this whole John Connor thing while still trying to keep Matt Smiths role a secret even though it's leaked that he's playing Is he supposed to have more of a role in a sequel? Seems weird to be so secretive about it when it amounts to like two or three scenes at the beginning of the movie. I'm assuming once Skynet takes the form of Connor that's it for Matt Smith.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 15:15
|
|