|
Jurassic World and Terminator Genesis are pretty interlocked in a few ways. One big one is obvious, big franchise rebuilding movies and all that. I'm hoping they twin in another way. Jurassic World is apparently a very fun, entertaining movie, just with a super straight forward and simple as hell plot. Terminator Genesis I'm hoping will deviate from that in terms of the plot and go full bullshit insanity time travel fuckery.
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:With TSCC I was always sort of hoping the time-travel problems would eventually have escalated to alternate future versions of Skynet sending back T-888s with missions and goals that were inconsistent with one another. This is what I want the movies to become. Just all out multi timeline super war.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
One thing I will say, I like the idea of pushing the Arnold Terminator even further. In Terminator 2, he was a kind of father figure to John. Here, he's pretty much Sarah Conner's father/mentor.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Firstborn posted:I maintain the idea that Arnold will make the movie fun. I will probably see it because honestly I've seen every Arnold movie. No regrets. Amen.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Firstborn posted:I don't think the young Arnold was thaaaat bad looking in Salvation. He was literally my favorite thing in that movie.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 18:22
|
|
This one does look great, though.
|
Grendels Dad posted:The thing is, I always took Arnold's role as Connor's father as pure projection by Connor. Arnold learns how to sufficiently fake stuff to make it work, but you see early on how much Connor is bonding to the Terminator even though the Terminator does nothing to justify that, he's just a slightly-animate object. In that context it's really weird and lame to see that apparently Terminator can become a real boy after all, and then grow old and be Sarah Conner's dad. Except, of course, if you see the deleted scene of them fixing the Terminator's memory chip so that he can learn. Terminators are sent out into the field with that turned off because it's a pretty lovely thing for a super death machine to have, the ability to learn why something is wrong, even if they cannot express it. After that point is when, in T2, Arnie starts asking questions, instead of just getting orders and obeying. It's the entire reason for the big climax at the end, the "I know now why you cry, but it is something I can never do." I don't think a Terminator could ever truly FEEL, but they can learn and relate. Which makes sense, it makes them better able to fit in, which is the point of them. The problem is, if they're so inclined, it can also make them sympathize.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:See, I didn't like that scene. I liked the idea that The Terminator remained unfeeling the entire movie, even at the end. That way it's all on Sarah and John, their humanity allows them to see The Terminator as human even though he isn't. The chip-scene states clearly that, nope, give him enough time and he becomes basically human. That kind of bores me. I find projection more interesting than AI. Well to be fair, while the learning chip isn't hugely important for the battlefield, the Terminator wasn't just developed for that now was it? It was an agent to go back in time as well, so learning and adapting to whatever time period it ended up in is pretty key.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:You'll have to refresh my memory there, was the T-800 designed specifically for his mission in T1? The way I remember it it's just used for general infiltration stuff and happened to be on site when Skynet frantically meshed the On-button on the time machine. It was designed specifically as the perfect infiltration unit, which would require seemingly being more personable than not. We don't know if it was made specifically with time travel in mind, but it'd make sense given the human resistance didn't even know about the time travel til they took down one of the bases with the equipment for it. We see in T2 that Skynet furthered their plans as far as that went with the T1000, which could act almost completely human when needed and was similarly a learning machine. If you take the SCC show into canon, then it supports the idea that Skynet built the T-800s or whatever variant of them for time travel purposes, just because of how many it has sent across the different eras.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
It's a Terminator for Terminators. Which is really dumb, because that should still just be a T-1000, as those things are way more dangerous and useful than the TX
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:I remember when I was younger I got the thought into my head that the T-800 designation wasn't the actual terminator chassis, but the 'wrapper' or skin that the terminator had. Apparently you got it reversed, maybe. The fact that he's a T-100 means he's an Arnold Class. T-110 might be Stallone and so on.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
david_a posted:The T designation isn't used for the exterior. Arnold plays a T-800 Model 101 in the first movie. But yes, I think the one shooting up the resistance base in T1 was supposed to be either a Model 102 or 100. I forgot that it was referred to as Model, that's right. So yeah, T-800 is about the hardware, the Model number is about the softwear Deal with that pun. Deal with it!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Azubah posted:Pretty sure the T-1000 was so experimental that Skynet only made one. It didn't know if it would control the drat thing and only used it because it was about to die. I cite not caring, as the TX is such a backwards threat compared to the T-1000. The TX could be, pretty easily, damaged and wasn't anywhere near as versatile. The only thing it added that wasn't inferior in some fashion was being able to control other machines, which in theory shouldn't work on a liquid metal thing like the T-1000.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Actually I could have sworn that in the original time line, all Skynet could muster was a single T-800. Then things changed, Skynet got WAY more advanced, because it got ahold of the original T-800 chip and arm, and it was able to create the T-1000 in a revised timeline and send THAT back instead, so knowing a regular human wouldn't be able to do the job, they reprogrammed a T-800 to try to save the past. At least that's how I always thought it worked. Splintering timelines all the way down
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
There is not a single movie Arnold hasn't starred in and been the best thing of. See Batman and Robin.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Darko posted:The Rundown. Unless you just count that as a cameo. Wasn't he in like, 9 seconds of that movie? The caveat of the Arnold Rule is that he must be in at least 15 minutes of the movie to make it worthwhile. It's why Salvation is almost watchable, Arnold is present for almost 8 minutes before just becoming a T-800. Even if it was weird silly CGI Arnold.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Doesn't he have like six minutes of screen time T1? ...he's the third main character of that movie. The only people with more screen time are the actual heroes. Even ignoring that silliness, this Iron Clad Arnold Rule (for Myself and no one else unless they agree) only really applies to what would otherwise be not so great movies. So Kindergarden Cop and Terminator are exempt because they'd be fine movies, regardless of Arnold. He just makes them amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
There is another way to look at Terminator 1, of course. Namely that Sarah was going to have John Conner with or without Kyle. She likely would have had a boy and likely would have named him John, regardless of the future. Would it have been the SAME John Conner? Does that actually matter? Any John Conner is the right John Conner if raised in roughly the same way. So the Time Travel started screwing things up day 1 in that regard.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
My favorite Terminator timeline is the one where RoboCop is both Skynet and John Conner.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:And the part of my original post that didn't result in the derail mentioned how I thought I had read something about his part being expanded in a planned sequel. I don't have a source for that though and may have that wrong. Plus it seems like this movie may underperform(it could never actually bomb) so there may be no sequel. Unless it super bombs, the movie will get sequels. They have this whole thing set up for the trilogy because after that they lose the Terminator rights entirely
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Mother of God. I try not to be too down on this but the idea of there being two more after this no matter what is hella depressing. Not if Arnold follows us all the way through!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:Better than T1, it's just that T1 really shows its age. When every gun store sold mini guns You're getting your Arnold movies mixed up. Sort of. Arnold never got a minigun in the 80s, only in T2, and that was specifically stolen military stuff that Sarah had been stockpiling across the border. All of the weapons Arnold stole in T1 from the store are pretty legit and make sense, not even that dated for nowadays outside of letting him anywhere near them without payment first. Of course he could have just killed the Clerk with his bare hands so that's not an issue. The movie you're thinking of was Commando where Arnie stole a rocket launcher and a bunch of machine guns from a gun store that had a secret military surplus thing in the back for some dumb amazing reason.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:I stand corrected, apologies. I wasn't aware he had. Wish I had heard more about it when it was relevant. He's cool again in my book. Sorry. Arnold's great. He's a flawed man, but he owns up to his faults and admits when he's wrong. Also the entire reason why they got her was because she's hot nerd bait that hasn't been in any major movies like this yet but is part of the super popular GoT series so onwards and forwards to exploiting that nerd dollar.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:But GoT has other actresses who are attractive and who, unlike Emilia, are good or at least decent actresses. Hell, Lena Heady already played Sarah Conner and did a good job of it. Yeah but she's the *BIG* one from GoT. She's the one I know the most about despite never watching the show, just because she's the one that gets brought up the most. I'm honestly shocked they didn't have her have white hair for whatever reason in the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Firstborn posted:Don't get me wrong, Indiana Jones is seriously my favorite movie series ever, but to be fair Indy's clothes kind of start off dirty when he gets going proper. I have a similar rule about super hero types and their costumes. If the hero's costumes isn't utterly wrecked and damaged over the course of the movie, then clearly they're not in much danger! See RoboCop, Terminator 2, and the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:I just can't put into words how terrible Sam Worthington is. And to think he was the favorite to be Captain America at one point. Kinnaman was not what was wrong with the new RoboCop movie, this I will agree with.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Pretty sure it was Sam Jackson. And the half assed script and the muddled message and the poor direction and the lack of good villains and
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Robocop was pretty good if you didn't go into the theater expecting to hate it. The new RoboCop is a decent action movie at best. If that's all you're really looking for, then knock yourself out. It's comparable to the other sequels as well as any could be. The original is just a drat near perfect movie, for me personally so it's a tall order to make a movie that can be compared to it. Rather like the Terminator franchise.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Nah, it's actually really interesting in new directions from the original film. Not a better movie though. It goes in different directions though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
evobatman posted:Who sent Pops back in time and deleted his files to begin with? I hope SMG is right and it's Skynet
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:Why does the terminator need a penis? In case the Terminator has to have sex. That's a minor plot point in the Sarah Conner Chronicles actually- one Terminator had gone deep under cover and taken the place of a married man for whatever reason. His wife never noticed, and it's logical to assume they'd be, more or less, fully functional.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:The problem is a Terminator weighs hundreds of pounds and you can feel the metal under the skin but that's the least of that show's issues. Look I don't question their sex life, just that they had one.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:This is only a thing in terminator 3. In terminator 1 Arnold gets tackled and thrown around by that one guy. It would be pretty silly if the only way to figure out the CUNNING DECEPTION was to have everyone weigh themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's why AvP 2 was so much better. See the more relevant one would be Terminator 3. Was Terminator 3 R? Also you're cherry picking. Certain movies can only be done with an R rating. See the Original Terminator and sort of Terminator 2. Also Predator. Other movies don't have to be R rated.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Pops needs an army of Terminators and gently caress Skynet up...alongside Robocop. That's what happened in the original RoboCop VS Terminator comic. RoboCop became part of Skynet, waited for a few decades, then seized control of a factory and mass produced Terminator Robo Cops and marched them against Skynet. He gave himself a super advanced high tech body, eradicated Skynet in the future, went back to the past, and suicide bombed Skynet there erasing it from history. Skynet tried to send back on last Terminator in a panic but overshot, and it got destroyed by a T-Rex.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's not, just like how nerds got mad about "The Clone Wars" not being what they pictured despite the fact that it was one line in the first Star Wars movie and then never mentioned again. The difference, you inglorious turbonerd, is that the Clone Wars was an off hand mention that lasted all of five second for one line in one movie. The Future War was literally the extended opening of the second movie where we got a very clear look at how it was, with lots of lasers and fields of skulls and blackened, charred earth. And that was backed up by the even earlier nightmares of the future war from the FIRST movie. If we only had Reese talking about them, you'd have something resembling a point. We don't however. We've SEEN what they apparently originally looked like. And they were a great deal more interesting than the brown and gray boring as hell version we got in Salvation. If you're going to have a future war, go balls out and give us the giant purple laser spewing death tanks, please
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There's a pretty consistent trend in a lot of media to start with a "cool" (appealing, etc) concept and then overexpose it to banality with sequels or extended universe material. The Future War has nothing to do with the Terminator Franchise. If you're making a Future War movie, it already invalidates it as a straight up Terminator movie. At that point it's just a movie that takes place in the Terminator universe. So why not go all out and give us the most visually interesting take on it?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's fanwank. You're not even trying.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
crusader_complex posted:I thought liquid metal terminators were already made of nanobots...? T-1000 is just liquid metal that's programmed to reshape itself. Whatever nonsense words T2 used to explain it. And the T-X I don't THINK was stated to have nanobots, in theory she has the endo skeleton of a regular Terminator with a liquid metal covering for better disguises.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Shima Honnou posted:Yeah, there's a lot of criticisms that can be leveled at the movie, but "Not enough like T1/2 Sarah Connor" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. This Sarah Connor has been different from that one since she was nine, it makes some sense to me that she might look or act differently, since she wasn't raised to be the other Sarah. Women tend to get poo poo when they get work done though. Men do to a much lesser degree.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
What I'm hearing is, if they're clever, we'll get an OG T-1000 cameo later. gently caress yes
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 16:17
|
|