|
Watched Genisys last week for the first time, then cause I have too much free time I watched T-1 and T-2 and then Genisys again. The notion that all three movies could be consistent with one another given that 'time travel logic' presented in the films is interesting, the first 20 minutes of Genisys are definitely a lot more interesting if you have T-1 fresh in your memory, the ugly rear end Nike shoes were definitely an amusing callback. I also didn't find Emilia Clarke to be as offensive as many reviewers (and people in the GoT threads) would have led me to believe, she was fine, I think she's charismatic enough to make you like her even when her delivery is sometimes awkward. As for the temporal fuckery and the overall themes; it was always gonna be difficult to explain the existence of the 'original John Connor' without a time loop but I still tend to think that T-1 represents the 'original timeline' or at least, the minimally altered timeline, in that sense T-1 is also the starting point for the various temporal fuckeries, specifically when Reese tells Sarah that 'there is no fate but that we make for ourselves' - he basically gets her to start working on altering the future by providing John with more and more information about future events and creating more temporal alterations with each iteration of the loop, T-1 -> T-2 -> T:G are consistent in the sense that Skynet is always losing the war and its 'birth' keeps getting delayed but also in the sense that it is always born from more advanced technology (with the access to the future tech from the terminators) so it has more advanced terminators at its disposable to send back come 'the final stand'. Of course there's still a lot of bullshit and stuff that can only be handwaved away but it's a marked improvement over T-3 and T:S, I also prefer the narrative dealing with Sarah, Reese and the T-800 as the protagonists then focusing on John like T-3 and T:S did, there's just something not particularly interesting about John, the way T:G presents him as someone who always relied on the information of future events given to him by Sarah is more interesting than the super warrior cold hearted badass he was in T:S. idk, I guess I liked it, nowhere near as good as T-2 obviously but still a decent movie.
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
coyo7e posted:That the only thing tying looper and terminator together is not bruce willis. And the genre, and the time travel, and the whole assassin from the future sent to murder a child who'd grow up to be a meaningful persona in the future, and predestination themes, etc, etc. Nobody is saying that the movies are identical or that looper plagiarizes the terminator franchise, they're saying that there are some interesting parallels and that looper draws some inspiration from terminator, and people seem to have got this without difficulty, perhaps you are being unnecessarily obtuse?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Christ, the obvious one. I can't believe I forgot about that. I just reread the book a couple of days ago and this is actually wrong. Rachel Rosen has been aware of her being an android all along, after her and Deckard gently caress she tells him she's actually been banging bounty hunters all over the planet which caused all of them except for one to stop retiring Androids, she even tells him that all of them threatened to kill her but none of them actually did. The book plays with the notion of people being androids while not being personally aware of it but in both cases this gets brought up it either turns out the person is actually a human or has secretly known he's an android all along.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2015 10:16
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Nah it's cool, it's been forever since I read the book and it's neat to see how the movie handles the source material differently. The nature of being human (and self-identifying as such) is a pretty big theme, I didn't remember that the book handled it so differently. The movie and the book have very different plots and the book deals with the subject of empathy in a much more detailed and central manner but I think both ultimately have the same message concerning the big philosophical question at the core of the plot, Androids are 100% human, they might not be quite as emotionally developed as natural humans are but that is at best a temporary condition and at worst actually an illusory concept, the Androids consider themselves to be selfish and lacking in empathy but after Deckard kills the androids Rachel goes and kills his goat to avenge them, and the androids do ultimately care for each other and try to find safety and comfort in each other's company even while boasting about how cold, calculated and uncaring they are. Not to mention the whole unresolved discussion of whether certain 'Specials' are also inhuman by the criteria of the empathy tests due to not showing an acceptable amount of empathy and the such. The book makes it plenty clear that they have personal ambitions and dream of being free and just pursuing their own interests, the personification of empathy even tells Deckard that killing androids is wrong. It really is a fantastic novel, I should rewatch the movie as well.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2015 17:40
|
|