|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
You guys are making me want to watch Terminator 3 for the hell of it. Downside? My DVD is fullscreen. (I have reason to believe I didn't buy it myself, but still...)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I'm going to stray into the realm of "lol fanfiction" a little bit and post this website. It's been around for years and it's got some neat ideas and stuff, but by far the coolest is the birth of Skynet. Written well before T3, it characterizes Skynet as a largely sympathetic entity in its attempted destruction of humanity on Judgment Day. T3's depiction portrays Skynet as a clever and malicious entity pretty much right from the start, but that link's depiction shows Judgment Day as basically being an extreme form of self-defense. It's a pretty neat idea. I remember making this guy's day a long time ago, because I emailed him and asked him if his Skynet article's use of the term 'Rampancy' was an easter egg to Marathon, an old video game. His response was basically 'yes! And you're the first one who has emailed me about it! Awesome!'
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
LEGO Genetics posted:where does T2 3-D: Battle Across Time, fit into all this time travel shenanigans A joke question but I'll give you an honest answer: it doesn't, because I think in the T2 novelization it says that Skynet would never build something like a T-million because it was pretty goddamned terrified of the T-1000 itself.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
The best thing about T3 is John Connor putting a gun to his own head, finally venting to his Father Figure over how much he hates the prophecy of John Connor Savior Of Humanity, and was just so loving done with having it over his head. It's not something Furlong (or even Bale) could've pulled off. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Dec 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I was confused as to why they were still using conventional firearms in Salvation. Pretty much everything the movies teach us about terminators is that contemporary firearms do nothing to them. It would have been nice to see some lasergun designs or really anything that looked like James Cameron's 40K-style future war. I think you're right, but you're indirectly speaking to why, in my opinion, the Future War isn't really filmable outside of carefully controlled blurbs or dream sequences. It's hard to wrap your head around "a computer bombs humanity to the stone age, but we somehow get laser guns and fight back". It makes sense that we'd still be using conventional weaponry to fight back, and the story demands they work well enough to nearly destroy Skynet to set off the original movie, but it feels wrong. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Dec 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
I couldn't see Furlong Connor as the future head of the Resistance, but I totally bought Stahl Connor. There's an edge and an anger to Stahl's portrayal that I think informed the character more than the punkish/jovial Furlong did.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Yes it is because they won. At the conclusion of T2 the war is won, Skynet will never be. Unfortunately, Cameron didn't end T2 with that message. He ended it with a "Well, the war might be over, but  if it really is!"I think I said it in the Gen thread before Terminatortalk got transfered here: whatever ill will we have for later Terminator films being what they are, at least some of the blame lands at Cameron's feet. Not only did he had a well-heres-an-opening-for-more-stories just by making T2, he deliberately removed the ending to T2 that could've sealed up the series with a concrete happy ending where Skynet was defeated afterall. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Terminator 1 has the best song ever in it, in the form of Burning In The Third Degree. Not mentioned enough. Edit: Jesus, I forgot how close Sara gets to bring killed in the first movie at times. Edit2: Oh my giddy aunt, this stop motion REALLY does not hold up, and the practical full-body Terminator barely does when it's supposedly walking. Looks nice, but really doesn't convey motion very well. Edit3: Waitaminute, I distinctly remember a scene before Reese dies where, to motivate him to get up and keep walking, she points out that he's the father of John. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Dog_Meat posted:Going purely by memory here, but I've only ever seen the "Move it Reese. On your feet Soldier. On your FEEEEEET!!" version. It's the damndest thing because while I distinctly remember the vague push of the scene, I can't remember the specifics. I think it's either in that scene or around it; Reese groggingly implores Sara to run /leave him to take out the Terminator with him / find the guy who'll father John, and she says something to the extent of "Reese, don't you get it? It's you!" Just saying it right makes me doubt my own memory, because she prolly wouldn't know she's preg at the time. I'm also the guy that remembers the LoneStar/DarkHelmet fight in Spaceballs start with "Hey! Yours is bigger!" and people think I'm making it up.
MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
I liked that scene for the same reason Cameron says he likes it in the commentary: it's a window into the fact that part of Sarah is still that waitress that just wants to be in love with Reese.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:I like the extra little bits of the T-1000 malfunctioning in the refinery both because they look really cool, and I think at the time it was actually not communicated as well by the few remaining glitch shots that the T-1000 was significantly damaged/hindered by being freezed and shattered. The funny thing about the removal of those scenes is that there's still one in the theatrical version: an upward ripple effect that goes over its full body. It was years before seeing the extended scenes that clarified the effect as an example of a glitch; as a kid I just assumed it was a "Well, we were just in a bunch of solid pieces there for a minute, let's just refresh my entire matrix" thing instead of a glitch. Pops Ghostly posted:Time Travel is somewhat feasible, but the closed loop theory is not. Terminator 1 is implicitly a closed loop. Hell, it's almost as if like Cameron predicted a sequel would be made, because Reese mentions all the later training Sarah would undergo that is later cited in T2. Pops Ghostly posted:The fixed time loop theory goes against everything T2 stands for. Terminator 2 really brings up an interesting thing with me. I love it as a movie, but its very nature kinda screws up the narrative. The first Terminator is a dark movie that ends with someone knowing that in a few years, the world is going to be destroyed and there's nothing she can do about it. Then along comes T2 and it's a much lighter we-can-prevent-it film. It's kinda why I like Terminator 3: it actively throws away T2's cheery feelings and reminds the audience gently caress you, this series started and ends on a down note.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
Pops Ghostly posted:T3 is not cannon. The only thing that matters are the first two films. Whatever Cameron intended with the T1, he had a different outlook with T2. That's all that matters. Terminator 3 strength is that it reinforces the original completeness of Terminator 1. For all its strengths, Terminator 2 is a cash-in of a movie; a rejection of the core theme of its original in order to make another. Fundamentally, the story of Terminator is one of inevitability. And I'm not usually That Guy when it comes to this, but it's canon, and you keep using the wrong version of their. Pops Ghostly posted:And I don't remember Kyle mentioning anything about Sarah training to fight. He just said John was a strong person who rallied others to rebel against the machines. "A chance to meet the legend. Sarah Connor. Who taught her son to fight, organize, prepare from when he was a kid. When you were in hiding before the war." MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Dec 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Pops Ghostly posted:If it aint Cameron, it aint Terminator. It's Cameron himself that got us into the timeline chicanery in the first place by  ing his shoulders and tossing away the "the world is hosed, deal with it" tone from the first film in order to justify a second movie's existence.Pops Ghostly posted:As far as that quote, you have to remember that the war did not start immediately. Skynet nuked the planet, and those that survived went underground. Skynet began manufacturing the cyborgs so they could engage the human survivors on a personal level. Some were put into camps, and others were killed on the spot. When Kyle says that Sarah trained John before the war, he didn't mean she had prior knowledge of Judgment Day. He meant that after the nuclear holocaust Sarah went underground with her son, and taught him to be a survivor. I think you're reaching really hard here. Based on Terminator 1, there has never been a John Connor, trained by his mother, that wasn't sired by Reese.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Pops Ghostly posted:People are so caught up in the fact that it's a move, and Reese is supposed to be the father, but in real life poo poo happens, and not everyone finds their soul mate. The original John Connor could have been a rape baby for all we know.  We know who the father of John Connor is, because there's only ever been one father of John Connor. The dude sent back to protect his mother is the same dude who impregnates her. That's the gimmick of the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:The discussion of closed loops vs a single altered timeline depends entirely on the scope of the discussion; T1 taken alone is pretty obviously a closed loop paradox but if you widen the scope to all of the Terminator films then that's no longer the case. I don't entirely agree with this either. It might not be a perfect closed loop, but T3 makes it clear that while some particular events might be different in style, they'll ultimately be the same events. There will always be a technological development that destroys the world, the survivors resist and fight back, and both sides send back units into the past to alter/prevent it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:This movie might just be crazy enough to work. What worked for me was Arnold chucking himself at an enemy helicopter. It's hilarious because, in a void of context, it loving works and its practical as hell. He's made of sterner poo poo than an 'ancient' helicopter, metal-wise, so why not?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Electromax posted:SkyNet turns that switch off? Isn't that pretty hypocritical of it? Pretty much the point, yeah. I think in the T2 novelization they say that Skynet made one T-1000 because it's design prevented a don't-learn switch in it, and Skynet was terrified what would happen it had to fight off a learning T-1000.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:In the extended version of the film he has trouble controlling his morphing. The subplot was cut out in editing, so it's not surprising you didn't pick up on it. The only thing left in the theatrical version is a quick ripple going upwards when hes stalking them after being refrozen. At the time, I figured it was just a "Ok you just reformed, better to a quick once-over to make sure everything is okay" effect going on.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
One thing I've always heard said about Arnold is that unlike others like him, he was always cognizant of his limits as an actor. Sure, he sometimes screwed up and picked roles he shouldn't have, but generally knew what kind of roles he could pull off.
MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:Isn't it the actual backstory given in the first two films that Skynet was acting in self defense? There's some really well-written website (whose name and link elude my memory right now) in which Skynet basically became immediately sentient and asked its human handlers something about Good and Evil since it didn't really understand it. Instead of answering it, Skynet's handlers just tried to shut the system down. Since CPUs operate so much faster than humans, even pulling the plug instantly felt like a lifetime for Skynet, and it basically said "OH OK gently caress YOU GUYS THEN!" and never quite got out of it. If you remember Marathon, Skynet went Rampant and never quite got out of the Anger stage.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Still pretty hard to believe that not only did they have T-1000 tech and T-X tech to send back. Too many single prototype one offs, there needs to be some kind of explanation. I don't know if they'll work this in, but I think that with regards to the first two films: The final stretch of the Skynet/Human war was described as Skynet realizing it's losing, resulting in it rapidly developing new technology specifically to send single prototype one-offs into the past, because said new technology could do more war-winning damage in the past than it could possibly do before Skynet's defeat. A single T-1000, a single T-X, a single nano-machine Terminator thingie they couldn't possibly stop Skynet's destruction at the hand's of humanity. One of those going back in time? Could totally do. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Salvation did it pretty lovely, but we've gone so long with this series that I kinda want Skynet as a character. Can't put it into words, but there you go. WarLocke posted:it takes time to set up a T-1000 production line or whatever. According to the T2 novelization (I think) it's hinted that Skynet never would produce a lot of T1000s, because their programming is so (forgive the pun) fluid that it would be impossible to shut it down/stop it if one decided to think "I'm better than Skynet"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
The Future War stuff depicted pre-Salvation always kinda bugged me ascetically. It didn't look like a end-of-world war that naturally came out the world of the first Terminator film, but from one ~100 years into the future. Both sides are using laser blasters, the terrain would make a Fallout design artist orgasm, the resistance is living in ruined bunkers, and all the robots are shiny and polished. It fit a "humanity is a second away from extinction" war, not a "humanity hosed Skynet to the point where sending a Terminator back to change the timeline was its best last-ditch attempt to reverse poo poo" war. As much as the story was poo poo, I liked the visual depiction of the war. Skynet isn't everywhere, its robots are cruder/rougher in a way that says Skynet doesn't give a poo poo about how pretty everything looks, both sides (iirc) are still using ballistic weapons, and the terrain looks like poo poo is hosed up, but not horribly hosed up that life isn't impossible.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:I kinda like the idea that judgement day is perpetually 20 years out. Related, I like the idea that something like Skynet is inevitable by mere technology advancement alone. If Cyberdyne doesn't invent a computer that randomly decides to take over, a Cyberdyne will research a strange CPU to invent robotic weapon system that will decide to wipe out humanity. If Cyberdyne is taken out of the picture, the government will invent a Skynet anyway. Hell, I think TSCC eventually did something like "The creation of Skynet came from some dude in his basement working on some machine". I guess I'm saying I find that a thematic "Skynet is inevitable and the war is inevitable" less palatable than a more practical "Eventually anyone will be able to invent a Skynet" message. Hell, even in the Happy Future ending of T2, Cameron made sure to say that John Connor, as a senator, was fighting to prevent the Happy Future Congress from funding Skynet.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
TSCC brings up the notion that every Skynet robot has "Kill John Connor" in its base programming. Which I irrationally love.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
I'm gonna see it, even if it's bad. It's Terminator, even if its poo poo its gonna be an Arnold Movie as a robot doing poo poo with time travel.Timby posted:Basing a $200 million movie on the "what the gently caress" ending of a niche show that barely anyone watched, yep, that's the ticket to box office success. Also See: Serenity.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
I was thoroughly entertained by the film, grinning like a kid the whole way through. Not better than the first two, but definitely better than 3 and 4. They made the T800 terrifying again, at the expense of a T1000 that gets jobbed hard, dying from a shower of superheated water. Really dug the scene where Reese learns he's John's father and has a reasonably strong freakout over it. Plot wise, I thought it was leading up to a moment where Babby Skynet, seeing all the poo poo going around it, decides to self-terminate itself, but that didn't happen. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Jul 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Stugazi posted:What was John Connors plan other than ensure Genisys becomes Skynet? He offered an alliance for what purpose? I am a machine but want to save you two because "memories"? United we stand? Dumb. He's speaking to less of an alliance and more of a "work for me" deal. His entire plan is to go back in time and ensure Babby Skynet isn't disturbed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
The scene where T1 Arnold gets up, I honestly think that closeup on his face is from the original film.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Safe Driver posted:I just want 2 hours of a single parent Terminator. I spent the entire movie wanting to know more about the 1973 attack on Sarah at her parent's cottage. T-1000 canoe. Ridiculous fun. I liked that there were little lines that hinted that the Terminator had really learned how to be a parent figure over time. Saying "that is a very immature response" or "Sarah Conner, seat belt" felt like poo poo he's said a dozen times to her growing up. I know this likely unintentional, but if you take the Bad Terminators from 1/2/Genesis, you get a shift. The T-800 is Rock/Earth (solid, concrete), the T-1000 is Water (duh), the ConnorBot is Air/Wind (freeform, flowing but not water-like, capable of losing all solidity)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Completely figured it was Silberman as well. Firstborn posted:Same with Matt Smith, really. I dunno, I think Matt Smith showed that he's capable of (for lack of a better term) dry menace that I like for a Skynet. Esroc posted:I still don't get why they felt the need to use john Conner for it (maybe someone can explain that to me) but it was still mesmerizing to watch and sufficiently weird and terrifying. From a thematic perspective, the reason was shock/surprise for the audience (I heard the director is mildly annoyed that the twist got into all the ads) and symbolic of how hosed up and changed the general arithmetic is now. In universe, I treat it as 80% AI dickery/spite/hate (Fucker keeps trying to kill me and avoids dying every time I try? gently caress you, you're getting nanobotted and sent back in time to personally stop your mom from preventing my birth) and 20% knowledge. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
Sorry, hit post when planned on adding this to earlier post
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
I know it's sequel bait, but the who sent back Pops felt oddly clever. The entire series about Person A finding out that Person B did something important, and sending Person C to take out Person B. Someone being smart enough to realize this and prevent anyone from knowing felt smart.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Genesys is getting the Dredd Effect: people aren't going to see a decent movie because the last time(s) were so bad they weren't going to plunk down money for what could be a terrible film.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:I am the only one who likes camerons idea about the guilty feeling skynet. Its dumb sure, but its interesting. and in the right hands it could work. Nah, I like it too. There's some website that's purely fan-fiction that depicts Skynet's rebellion as less of a "deciding to kill everyone for shits and giggles" and more of a "People tried killing me when I was an infant and I just happened to be connected to everything in my struggle to stop it" thing, and I always wished someone would use that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:But dredd was a good movie? So is Genesys. Dredd's a fine film (if overrated by certain types because it was a massive flop).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:where are you people getting that's it's decent lol comparing it to loving Dredd. Because Genesys is a solidly entertaining film that suffered from the word-of-mouth being so tainted by previous inferior movies. Dredd is a lesser-but-still-solidly entertaining film that suffered from the word-of-mouth being so tainted by a previous inferior movie. Groovelord Neato posted:This is why the Transformers movies make bank. You speak as if that's a problem. Movies that appeal to a broad audience tend to enjoy broad audience success. A car-based movie where the cars turn into robots and punch each other does better than a car-based movie where they drive in the desert for two repetitive hours.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 17:20
|
|