|
Vaall posted:Hamilton should've came back and at least died in a dramatic fashion rather then simply being written out altogether as well. She had a messy divorce with Cameron 
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
davidspackage posted:A far more interesting take, I feel, would've been the robot firmly establishing that he's a different model than the other one and giving him a slightly different characterization. They literally do this.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
What does SMG think of Terminator 3, then?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
I wish they'd kept the deleted moment from the end of T1 that set up T2. Y'know, the one where some Cyberdyne guys have the Terminator arm confiscated for research.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 08:37
|
|
|
CaptainHollywood posted:I think there needs to be a Terminator movie where it's essentially Terminator 1, except you find out at the very end that if the Terminator had killed Sarah Connor there would be no war at all. zoom in on the dead terminator's hand "product of connor industries"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
nexus6 posted:One thing I've not really managed to get my head around is: if Skynet succeeded, what did it expect would happen? If the terminator was successful, would John Connor in 2029 just magically vanish? Would the human resistance just give up? Doesn't Kyle say the terminator was sent back right as the resistance was storming Skynet, so presumably Skynet is already hosed at that point? They were trying to make Skynet work in the next iteration of the timeline. So the Terminator wasn't trying to save the version of Skynet that sent it, it was trying to ensure the safety of a new, different version of Skynet. In a sense the Terminator was a Skynet sperm cell impregnating a different universe with Skynet as the old one died.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Reese didn't actually know what he was talking about; the restrictions on time travel have nothing to do with a field created by living things.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Oh no, people are thinking in my movie forum? Unacceptable. There should be a movie about SMG. Terminator SiMGyn?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
Dog_Meat posted:The deleted scene where he's scanning John's home was rightfully cut for pacing, but it's a great little moment. What the gently caress are you talking about? There's only one cut of Terminator 2 and it's 150+ minutes. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:The scene where he grabs the dog's collar is totally unnecessary. The T-800 tricking the T-1000 is one thing. The T-800 tricking the T-1000 and the T-1000 never realizing it is quite another.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Maybe I was remembering wrong; I've never used fancuts. It's likely I watched the deleted scenes and forgot they weren't in the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Yeah, the only one of those that wasn't readded in the director's (ie, literally loving better in every way) cut was the dumb future ending, which I agree is dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
I'll admit to being disappointed that the T-1000 didn't imitate John Connor as it melted. It was perfectly set up, too, with John briefly holding the piece of it and throwing it back at it, during the chase sequence early on.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
That T-1000 doesn't look like the character in the movie at all.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
I don't think the face transplant idea would have worked as they implemented it, but I think it was onto a good idea.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
roybot9000 posted:It was not in the theatrical version. For good reason too, it felt cheaply made (like, made for tv) and slowed things down overall. 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".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
Also, establishing Miles as a sympathetic human character with a family before Sarah tries to kill him is kinda fuckin' important.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
The Terminator franchise intended to use the closed loop concept during Terminator 1, and then decided not to during Terminator 2. This is pretty obvious.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
I can imagine few if any more inane ways to discuss the Terminator films than trying to nail down their time travel mechanics. Maybe it'd be more inane to just discuss the leading actresses' boobs, but I'm not even sure of that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Der Luftwaffle posted:God drat it who really cares about timeline logic. quote:Deep down all we want are 2 solid hours of humans and robots battling across a nightmarish hellscape.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Sasquatch! posted:Getting too serious about events in the Terminator series usually eventually devolves into someone saying "You DO know we're having an argument about cyborg assassins sent back in time from the future, right??" There should be a name for that, like "Connor's Law" or something. It's not that I think the Terminator series is too ridiculous to argue about; it's that I think "time travel mechanics" is a ridiculous thing to argue about regardless of the series, and the Terminator series (or at least parts of it) are too good to argue about something that ridiculous. Argue about themes any day, or quality of different installments. But time travel mechanics are stupid, because people get into their heads their own ideas about how it "should" work, when in reality we have no idea because there's no such thing as time travel in real life.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
I've thought a Western-themed Terminator would be quite good for some time. The Back To The Future Part Three of the Terminator franchise.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Something Awful Forums poster Tenzarin is such dumb fanfiction; he should get outta here.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:I'm sort of surprised they haven't just taken the chance to fully reboot Terminator through a more modern lens. I've kicked around the idea in the past of a Terminator movie opening with a family playing with a remote-control drone in the park, when a Terminator appears.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:The idea what sort of person you are is decided even at all by which sperm made it to the egg is hilarious. Does this make twins, including fraternal ones, the same person?  This is the closest I've seen anyone come to taking a hardline, absolutist stance in the nature versus nurture "debate", which is bullshit because it's obvious people are affected by both.EDIT: gently caress, what if Sarah bore twins? LaughMyselfTo fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Jan 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
If someone's conceived by a different sperm, they are literally a different person. They're, like, a time-brother or something. We have a real-life test of this: actual loving siblings. Yes, in that case the egg and the sperm are different, but it's similar in principle: they're likely to have similarities, particularly because of similar socialization, but you're a crazy person if you think that this makes them the same for purposes of personhood.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Skeesix posted:Alternate theory: Reese and Conner bone in the first movie, but anyone can tell you that just having sex one time does not guarantee pregnancy. Sarah Conner strongly believes Kyle Reese is destined to be the father until she gets her period. Then she bones tons of guys, names the kid John anyway and gives the picture to John so Kyle can save her skin (and to relive the one romantic moment she had in her life). This would make a good spinoff.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
What if the Resistance starts sending back genetically engineered supersoldiers for the specific purpose of fathering a superior John Connor?  It's like a time-travel-based evolutionary process.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
WarLocke posted:Now I am imagining John Connor as Danny DeVito. We need to work in Eddie Murphy somehow.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 21:12
|
|
