Denofgeek have been speaking to the birdies, and it seems the sixth Terminator film (which ignores the last three and follows on from Judgement Day) has a working title of Dark Fate.
Arnie returns once again, presumably as a Terminator, as does Linda Hamilton, confirmed to be reprising Sarah Connor.
No release date as yet, but expected toward the end of the year.
Interested in it because of Linda Hamilton and because I've never not enjoyed Mackenzie Davis in anything. Tbh my sentimentality for the first two was so worn down by the other sequels that my reaction to hearing about this was "Eh, might as well".
While i'm delighted to hear the most recent efforts are 'dumped', I can't get excited as there's been too much junk in the since there's been a good movie
and much as I hate to say it Arnie is basically going to be too old (and Linda Hamilton too depending on how the scripts done)
Ultimately, the franchise has lost its way by forgetting that in the future, humanity wins. All of the time travel stuff happens because Skynet falls, humanity wins and while the world is devastated by the war, we still win it. Skynet is the one who instigates and ultimately needs the do over, but after T2 turned the do over into an opportunity for a better win, the series seemed to focus on the idea that if they can't stop the war from starting, humanity is essentially finished; maybe not so much in T3, but definitely by 4.
Yep, gotta say T2 was the high water mark for the franchise (the original even being a tough watch nowdays). The Predator set an all-time low for the history of action movie franchises...so on the plus side, it's essentially impossible for a Terminator sequel to be worse than that.
Small victories?
PS: I'd rather these franchises die than keep getting progressively worse. My childhood has already taken enough of a beating.
I feel I need to speak in defence of the Terminator sequels. Now, for absolute clarity, this isn’t meant to challenge opinions or call peeps wrong. That’s a dead end right there. Instead, it’s just my reasons for kinda liking each of them, despite knowing they’re far from great.
Terminator 3 - Rise of the Machines Odd ‘comedy’ beats aside, this was rather fun. Yes the Terminatrix didn’t really land or convince, but the actual story itself is quite a good addition. John’s monologue about Skynet and the Internet covered something the originals couldn’t. The scenes where we see Skynet take its first steps really is pretty cool, especially seeing precursors to their main weapons giving it a bit of Dakka.
Flawed, but not entirely without merit.
Terminator Salvation
Definitely the low point of the franchise. It doesn’t sit particularly well with the others, and massively disappointed with the Future War sections by barely featuring it at all.
But, part of its flaw was revealing the prototype Terminator as part of he hype. I think opinion might be better had they managed to keep that under wraps.
Whlist it’s pretty weak overall as a Terminator film, it’s a pretty reasonable sci-fi action flick. Cinematography is decent, effects are solid. It just didn’t quite set out it’s stall, and wasted various opportunities.
Terminator Genisys
I for one really enjoyed this one, and I’m bummed we won’t get to see the plot resolved. As T3 touched on the Internet, Genisys tried to apply the lens of social media type stuff. Again it didn’t quite succeed, but it was a decent enough try.
What I really enjoyed about it was Skynet’s use of time travel. After all, T3 established that Skynet could hide a version of itself somewhere online biding its time. Who knows how far into the future it lurked before coming back as Dr Who to shank up John Connor and turn him into a patsy.
Lots of potential which with a bit of spit and polish could’ve done better, but still the best sequel after T2. I really am disappointing that arc will never be resolved. They could at least do a graphic novel or two, no?
The Sarah Connor Chronicles
I’ll be brief.....
YOU CANNOT LEAVE US ON A CLIFF HANGER LIKE THAT! What a cracking little series. Imperfect again, but bloody interesting. And frankly, anything with Shirley Manson is gonna get my vote anyways, as I’ve been deeply in lust with her since I was an innocent(ish) teenage boy.
Where that plot could’ve gone? Well, if I’m honest it probably would’ve sunk rather swum. Because that’s how tellyboxshows sometimes go. The ambition outstrips the ability, and an interesting premise becomes a hot mess. Yet, what might’ve been will always, always bug me, as I’ll never find out :(
In summary
None of them live up to the first two. And I think Terminator 2 is held in particularly high regard because, barring the deleted scenes, the first one just didn’t need a sequel. It resolved its own plot quite nicely. So when we got something that only added to the mythos, we were all the more blown away.
Yet, hand on heart, I cannot call any of the further sequels as actual genuine garbage, though Salvation comes close. Their only crime was not hitting (or approaching, Salvation the very high bar set by the first two. I for one certainly don’t regret the time and money spent watching them.
The Nanobot terminator was pretty great. I was waiting for a 6" figure of him to come out as the robotic muscle over skeleton so that I could convert it into a C'tan. But alas... no toys for Genysis.
I like T2, it’s a good film. However I enjoy The Terminator more. Partly because it’s a closed story, whereas T2 obviously requires the first film. It’s better focussed too, I think.
If I fancy T2 but can’t be bothered with the plank playing John Connor there’s always Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey.
Shame on the people that actually go to see these terrible brand extensions (or reboots) and then run to the internet to cry about how just how bad they were, as if anything is ever going to change as long as you keep giving them money to put no effort in.
T3 isn't all that bad; its just a very poor sequel to T2.
Salvation is one of those movies obviously marred by studio meddling but in truth probably wouldn't have been that good if left to the original vision either. Someone needed to step in long before the "I'm retconning my new character to be the real hero" concept got as far as it did.
Never saw Genesys.
I think if SCC had continued the ongoing premise had interesting potential. They were clearly building towards an idea that the conflict had escalated into a literal time war, with J-Day serving as something of a 4th dimensional line of battle. It probably wouldn't have really worked, but it was a potentially interesting way to shift the onging conflict given they had long since exhausted the original premise.
Riquende wrote: Hah hah hah... no. No, I won't be watching this.
Shame on the people that actually go to see these terrible brand extensions (or reboots) and then run to the internet to cry about how just how bad they were, as if anything is ever going to change as long as you keep giving them money to put no effort in.
So you're saying that there's no Fate Terminator 6 but what we (allow them to continue to) make?
Studios continue to churn out artless 'sequels' to classic franchises hoping to cash in on the nostalgia factor. They must be making a certain amount of money, or the practice would have ceased by now. So some people at least, presumably fans of the classic films, are spending money. And then, because (my impression is) these films are bad they go online and complain about them.
Simple solution - ignore all decades-late sequels, reboots etc, don't give these artisically bankrupt studios any recompense for their 'effort' and they might have to then produce something exciting and new.
Riquende wrote: Studios continue to churn out artless 'sequels' to classic franchises hoping to cash in on the nostalgia factor. They must be making a certain amount of money, or the practice would have ceased by now. So some people at least, presumably fans of the classic films, are spending money.
Idk though, are they fans as such? It's probably a self fulfilling routine to some extent. Studios pump huge money and resource into titles they think have an established value to viewers, but maybe casual movie goers who are in a theatre look for the movies that feel like they have the most money and resources poured into them.
I doubt that hardcore Terminator or Predator fans made up most of the audiences for the last few iterations of either, I'd guess they were just the most explodey movies Joe Punter hadn't seen yet that week. People who were above the age rating to see the first Terminator movie in 1984 are at least twenty years past the average American movie goers age by now.
Riquende wrote: Studios continue to churn out artless 'sequels' to classic franchises hoping to cash in on the nostalgia factor. They must be making a certain amount of money, or the practice would have ceased by now. So some people at least, presumably fans of the classic films, are spending money. And then, because (my impression is) these films are bad they go online and complain about them.
Simple solution - ignore all decades-late sequels, reboots etc, don't give these artisically bankrupt studios any recompense for their 'effort' and they might have to then produce something exciting and new.
If i did that i would have missed the truely great blade runner 2049. Il continue to roll the dice thank you.
I enjoyed all the terminator movies.. the first 2 are the best, but I'll still watch any of them. So I'll check this out when it hits cable or netflix, we rarely get out to the theaters anymore these days.
Movies do not come cheap. Especially sci-fi, which tends to involve pricey effects etc.
Now, if you’re a studio exec, do you go for ‘the name will likely see us break even’, or ‘well I like it, let’s spend a few dozen million on a punt’.
Ultimately, we do get both. Horror in particular is seeing a resurgence (or was at least) because you can do a lot with very little. See Paranormal Activity and it’s frankly redonkulous margins. That one alone set up a number of sequels and imitators, because they’re cheap and in vogue with the movie going public.
Something like Terminator? That has to come with a minimum budget. Surely. To the point it’s probably why we’ve not had a full future war movie - it’d be damned expensive. The others had relatively modest budgets, and thus had an easier time making at least some money.
To fund an entirely new film? Far riskier proposition. Especially if a script could be tweaked and reworked into a more familiar franchise.
And that friends is why we tend to see remakes, sequels and prequels. They’re just more appealing to producers and financiers. They can provide a sort of ‘baseline’ income in most cases, whilst they wait to stumble on The Next Big Thing.
All of that is true, but the fact that the vast majority of their output is now reboots and remakes and sequels and prequels means we're in a situation where we're a lot less likely to get a "next big thing", because where's it going to come from? Even adaptations from other media are getting thinner on the ground unless they've been made into a film previously.
It's also an attitude that's pretty cancerous to existing properties - look at the way Kurtzman & Bad Robot have been trying to "reconfigure" Star Trek into a looser, less tonally-consistent "endless multiverse" concept so it can support an endless MCU-style parade of stuff with only the thinnest threads of connecting tissue. They're still constantly pushing for new audiences, except now they're doing it by "retooling" existing IPs, and not ones that have been lying dormant for decades to the point that if they have a fandom at all, it's tiny and/or largely ironic, but stuff that's still fresh and firmly defined in the minds of often pretty large groups of fans who now find the things they deeply enjoy being warped into something else, and their character attacked if they criticise those decisions.
The whole point of the studios is supposed to be that they're big enough to take those risks, that they can take a punt on some no-name scriptwriter and their wild idea and if it doesn't work out, oh well, it's a fraction of a fraction of a percent of their total turnover. The normal corporate conception of "risk management" is antithetical to the basic operation of the studio system, driving them as it does towards making fewer and fewer bigger and bigger "four-quadrant" blockbusters, which in the end actually proves even riskier because every single one has to be a huge success for them to keep functioning.
In practice it only takes two successful or failed blockbuster films a year to complete reverse the financial success of a studio, whatever the other films they may publish.
Sony has been a good example of this for years. When they get a couple of big-selling superhero flicks out it's champagne all round. If their main blockbusters fail at the box office, the company accounts are cast in gloom.
I've not had a chance to watch yet, and won't until after work. But exciting(ish) all the same. Particularly as, to recap, this is a sequel to T2, and ignores the other sequels entirely.
CGI looks bad. You have a dodgy looking plane sequence which is probably from the last act. A truck chase sequence that we saw in T2. A horribly designed Terminator unit that has a human endoskeleton despite having some kind of adaptive metal skin, which is itself a separate entity. At least T3 had the decency to redesign the endoskeleton under the frame of something that wouldn't be required to emulate human bone structure, just the general form of a human. The music choice is awful. Not sure why they made Linda cut her hair as the ponytail speaks to her practical badass rather than some blowdry pseudo mullet she's rocking.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Oh wait. It's a feature film by James Cameron? Errr....hope there's more to it. At least it looks like it might expand the lore.
No. It's produced by Cameron. It's being directed by the guy who directed the first Deadpool film but who is also Executive Producer on the Sonic film.
It has 6 writers contributing to it, James being one of those. Compare that to Aliens and T1 which had 3 and T2 which had 2.
Oh man that trailer looked hokey. Way too much Marvel superhero type action in it. The series worked better when a Kyle Reese was attempting to make pipe bombs and ambush the Terminator as opposed to having people fight the thing Thor/Iron Man style.
That airplane action cgi looks bad...like Black Panther finale fight cringeworthy bad. it is nice to see the character of Sarah Connor back on screen again.
I don't understand how the CGI has gotten markedly worse over the life of the franchise. Every single shot of the "dark" terminator looked absolutely terrible.
I love Mackenzie Pierce but I'm not sure I can bring myself into the cinema to see them beat the last crumbs out of the franchise. I think Genesys will have to be the last one I saw in the theater, and I wish it had been Salvation.
CGI is getting worse all over because the studios always go with the lowest bidders, then write clauses into their contracts that often cause the studios to lose money through re-dos and overtime. The turnover rate is incredibly high, and skilled artists are overworked and underpaid. I think it was two years ago when a high profile special effects company went out of business the same year they won an Oscar.(?)
The old films were labors of love by a director who had a decent relationship with the SFX guys. Same thing with Jurassic Park. The newer movies, not so much.
@MadDocGrotsnik, the trailer looks like a fan film, not just in production values, but in sensibilities. The action is the same kind of "this looks cool" fluff you'd see in a fan film about how Obiwan and Vader should have really fought. The stakes, as conveyed in the trailer, are JJ Abrams levels of "we need this scene now" stage setting with nothing to affect a viewer's heart or mind. The plot is barely hinted at and nothing new so far as I can see. The connection to the previous beloved films comes from "I recognize that person and that special effect." There's no meat to chew on.
Yep, watched a couple of good videos on YouTube and essentially it boils down to the way a lot of tech does:
1) Tech is difficult.
2) A couple of worthy companies figure it out at exceptional cost and effort.
3) These companies thrive...
4) Tech becomes commonplace.
5) Tech becomes cheaper/easier to do...
6) Market becomes flooded, etc.
CGI is done by hundreds if not thousands of studios now, vs. 20-25 years back when only a handful of studios were doing anything decent with it. The shots are done in astounding numbers, and incredibly small time frames/turnarounds. Almost every studio is massively over-working their employees to secure new movies, etc. It's just a dime-a-dozen industry now. When CGI was harder/newer, a single CGI shot was a serious budget strain - even movies which pioneered a lot of CGI didn't have much actual CGI run-time. I think they said Jurassic Park had a grand total of six minutes of real CGI vs. practical effects etc.
Now, you're hard pressed to find a movie which isn't an hour or more of CGI content etc.
Avatar has enormous fanbase dying for a sequel. Personally, I don't really care, and seems like most of this forum is not in the demographic, but lets not kid ourselves, Avatar sequel is huge event.
Looks pretty bad to me. CGI seems to have regressed to pre-T2 levels (a film that's almost 30 years old). Arnie and Hamilton seem to have been included for very little reason other than nostalgia. Also, I hate when films advertise themselves based on some big name behind the scenes when said big name isn't actually doing what they're known for. Here we have James Cameron as...Executive Producer. I couldn't care less who the producers are but I might care if he actually directed it - y'know, the thing he's actually famous for.
I like them going with the non-descript bad Terminator that could easily blend in as that rings true with the original idea but I'm not sure the actor here really sold it in the same way Robert Patrick managed to do in T2. After so many sequels, all with they're own take on the mythology and plot built up in the first 2 films it feels like things are now just becoming too convoluted for their own good. I think that's why I enjoyed the TV show. It was pretty well-written but it was the long-form storytelling that really allowed the mythology to expand properly and a lot of the ideas that show had would be really interesting to explore in some form. So, thanks to whichever idiot executive cancelled the show. Probably the same one that gave a greenlight to Genesys.
Some more vague bs from the people involved. It looks like we are getting a young T-800 scene because the body double that was used in Genisys is on the cast.
Ya, I didn’t recognize the name at first so I googled it at work. It wasn’t safe, and Ms. Pierce spells her name a bit different, but she has a pretty extensive resume.
nels1031 wrote: Ya, I didn’t recognize the name at first so I googled it at work. It wasn’t safe, and Ms. Pierce spells her name a bit different, but she has a pretty extensive resume.
"Goodness, this is disgraceful! I just want to make sure how disgraceful it is exactly, I better keep looking"
No idea what's going on, but it's interesting. Mind you, I thought that about the last one (was that Genesis with the funny spelling?).
Not sure how it fits in with the timeline, but I don't really care; it wouldn't make any difference to the quality of the other films if they were all standalones anyway.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Not sure how it fits in with the timeline, but I don't really care; it wouldn't make any difference to the quality of the other films if they were all standalones anyway.
Basically everything after T2 has been wiped off the board. This is a direct sequel to T2, nothing else is considered canon.
Judgement Day is inevitable, but it can and has been forestalled - it seems though, that Terminator technology, whenever it inevitably comes about, will be slightly different depending on the route it takes to exist. Luna's terminator has a different naming structure and aesthetic to any of the others, and the fact he seems to have *more* limitations than the T1000 in some ways makes me think that he comes from around the same time, but at a less advanced point in Terminator "evolution" due to the time Sarah Connor has managed to buy.
So.... What's up with this terminator? Metal endoskeleton with polymemetic alloy skin, kind of like the T-X in Terminator 3. The difference being that the liquid metal can at least temporarily split off from the skeleton to do it's own thing? I wonder if this is actually 2 terminators acting together, or a networked single entity.
cuda1179 wrote: So.... What's up with this terminator? Metal endoskeleton with polymemetic alloy skin, kind of like the T-X in Terminator 3. The difference being that the liquid metal can at least temporarily split off from the skeleton to do it's own thing? I wonder if this is actually 2 terminators acting together, or a networked single entity.
I like the look of the terminator itself, even if I hate the sense that they feel duty bound to come up with new gimmicks for every one. The shot where the "skin" crawls off him onto the rebar was one of the few bits of cgi I liked, the way it moves reminds me of playing with iron filings and magnets as a kid.
Even though none of the sequels can touch the original( its the dog's bollocks! ) I'm always up for a new Terminator movie.
Bit tired of the constant rebooting and recasting, though. Did not appreciate The Sarah Connor Chronicles being "terminated" before it could wrap up with season 3. That was a good show.
Film makers did say they were desperate to get the trailer out, so likely still some spit and polish to come.
But what excites me, and I accept I may be in a minority here.....so far as we can tell, there’s no spoilers in this trailer.
Even T2’s trailer gave away Arnie wasn’t the bad guy. And the others have just gone for broke on the ‘to be honest, we’re not really helping ourselves here, because THIS IS THE TWIST’.
I too am in the ‘enjoyed Genesys’ camp. Indeed, one can look to the earlier posts to see my breakdown of what’s to like about the other films (whilst not claiming they’re actually good). But imagine how it’s reception might’ve been had they not blown the ‘John Connor is a Terminator’ aspect.
I’d still love to see sequel media to that film. Give me comic books at least.
There's been a notable improvement in the CGI in different versions of the same trailer on the same day, so that's clearly a work in progress, I'm not too worried about it.
I found the music in the trailer to be a very poor choice, it doesn't feel terminator to me at all. No gravity to it. I'm not overly excited about this one unfortunately.
Casualty wrote: There's been a notable improvement in the CGI in different versions of the same trailer on the same day, so that's clearly a work in progress, I'm not too worried about it.
If it's true that this is a work in progress, that is even more concerning. The idea that the first glimpse the world gets of your movie (via trailers that are now being shown in theaters - this trailer was before Godzilla KOTM) should be a half-baked, unfinished version, is insane.
The whole purpose of a movie trailer is to amaze your prospective audience and leave them wanting more, not have them shrug and say "looks terrible now, but maybe it will look better when it's finished". That's spending money to get negative value.
Casualty wrote: There's been a notable improvement in the CGI in different versions of the same trailer on the same day, so that's clearly a work in progress, I'm not too worried about it.
If it's true that this is a work in progress, that is even more concerning. The idea that the first glimpse the world gets of your movie (via trailers that are now being shown in theaters - this trailer was before Godzilla KOTM) should be a half-baked, unfinished version, is insane.
The whole purpose of a movie trailer is to amaze your prospective audience and leave them wanting more, not have them shrug and say "looks terrible now, but maybe it will look better when it's finished". That's spending money to get negative value.
I think they were very anxious to get something out there because people were getting very antsy. It's not unusual for CGI to be still a WIP this late, and the CGI guys don't always know which scenes are going to be showcased in trailers. Crunch can only achieve so much in those circumstances. Interesting though that the far better received tv spot up above chops around the CGI stuff almost entirely.
I'm cautiously optimistic based on the test screening reactions, but tbh I'd watch Linda Hamilton or Mackenzie Davis put up wallpaper for 90 minutes, so I'm in regardless.
Casualty wrote: I'm cautiously optimistic based on the test screening reactions, but tbh I'd watch Linda Hamilton or Mackenzie Davis put up wallpaper for 90 minutes, so I'm in regardless.
I do like both of them for sure, but after Genisys, paired with how poor the trailer looks, I don't think I can blindly commit to seeing it the way I previously would have for a Terminator movie.
I do hope it turns out to be good! I love the franchise, or at least, parts of it. I just don't see it pulling out of it's apparently never-ending tailspin.
Going through the movies the last few nights, and to be honest T3 and Salvation are good-but-silly movies in their own right.
I find T2 - while obviously being a landmark film for its cgi - to be about the same as Future World or Jaws 2. Missing something from the original yet still a much welcome encore with an all-round effort from the cast and crew, while managing to streamline the special effects. The first film stands tall alongside other 80s sc-fi horror movies such as The Howling, The Fly etc, .but T2 feels more like a teenagers kind of movie.
One thing that did bother me with the sequels is that the Terminator was made in batches, using the same appearance. The first film was more realistic in that they used another body builder to play a Terminator in the future scene towards the end of the movie, indicating the cruel intelligence of Skynet. T2 didn't bother me as much until they outright said it was "the same guy", because until that point I'd accepted that Arnold looked different enough in the second movie to know that he was playing a different Terminator.
Because its essentially a remake of T2, I like T3 almost as much as that movie. It doesn't quite have the directing clout of Cameron, nor the music of Brad Fidel, but I like the TX where it not only combined the first two villians but could also control other machines. It also helped that they went with a female actor for a change. She was rather sexy in that officer uniform near the end of the movie! Only thing that lets the film down is Arnold's almost forced performance. I can't explain it but its there. People go on about the sunglasses moment, but honestly, I remember everyone laughing at the time. Nick Stahl and Clair Danes were good too. Story was being stretched far beyond it should have been, but it was a decent film.
Salvation...it was good. Only bit that was a bit hard to believe was the heart transplant at the end. Very silly indeed. The Arnold terminator was very well done for 2009. Little touches such as how it jumped down of a ledge still carried the grace of a professional body builder and athlete. Bale and Bryce are solid actors and played it professionally, but I think we needed Stahl and Danes back to make it legit. Ed Furlong was obviously needed for these two movies, but well...I was okay with Stahl and ready to move on...
I'll be watching Genisys tomorrow night(since I saw it in the cinema) but whilst I enjoyed it...the change of actors - once again - felt wrong. Especially when they retread the scenes from the first film. The chap playing John was the best John so far. The bird from GOT was a decent Sarah( looked very much like Linda Hamilton back in the early 80s ) but Jay as Kyle was a miscasting. I enjoyed his performance, but he was way too tall and muscular for the more "bruce lee" look of Micheal's Kyle. The time travel element is what eventually brings it down, but it was nice to revisit the first movie while the JC-Terminator was pretty good.
This one...I like Halt & Catch Fire and think Mackenzie Davis is a good actor. Shes comfortable with naked scenes while I reckon she can do with a more stronger role. I like that swing she takes with the hammer! I do not appreciate the "its a true sequel to T2" because its only mucking the fans about more than they should have been. The last three sequels do at least link up in events( the nuclear fallout, surviving the future and finally the defeat of Skynet and sending Kyle back to the past ) and if this one just removes all that from canon then...it would have to do something groundbreaking for us to overlook that. I will go and see it but my hopes are not up. Avatar was quite disappointing, so I'm wondering how this is going to special in any way.
She's a very interesting actor. Her roles are all very different but I'm fascinated how she keeps getting cast in very 80s or 80s inspired roles regardless of genre.
She's got a real Daryl Hannah/Mary Stuart Masterson thing going on, but you'd struggle to recognise her in one role vs the next, I keep seeing people being surprised that oh, that's the Black Mirror/Blade Runner/Martian actress swinging that sledgehammer.
Salvation never really clicked for me; it seemed like it was made on the back of a wave of "wouldn't a whole movie of the future war scenes from the first two films be great!", and no, it wasn't. The problem is that like The Matrix, the motivation of the evil computer don't make much sense when you dig into them.
Genisys was OK, and the trailer didn't spoil it for me (I misinterpreted it completely, so it was a surprise in the film).
With all the sequels and the TV series, I can't help thinking that the reason Skynet was defeated in 2029 was that all its Terminators were sent back in time and weren't there to fight humans in the future.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Salvation never really clicked for me; it seemed like it was made on the back of a wave of "wouldn't a whole movie of the future war scenes from the first two films be great!", and no, it wasn't. The problem is that like The Matrix, the motivation of the evil computer don't make much sense when you dig into them.
Yeah, the future war stuff... Glimpses of it are cool, but the premise of the whole thing breaks down over any extended time. I can see why people think it would be a great idea to spend a movie on, I just don't think it could ever work to do so. I mean there are 40k games with more narrative structural integrity lol.
The focus on Connor himself (as an adult) always struck me as a similar issue, I don't think you can actually put that character on screen for any real amount of time and have him live up to the version of him everybody is fighting over.
Also, it was the style of it in the first two - chrome skeletons reflecting the fire and explosions on their bodies, the plasma bolts and spotlights piercing the night, and the carpet of rubble and skulls, that made those scenes. Cut to salvation and it's all rusty vehicles in the California sun.
Both sides went for a last-minute desperate play - the humans' assault on Skynet's location, and Skynet's last-minute dispatch of the original T-800 as Connor's troops were kicking in the front doors (and IIRC the novelisation of T2 made the sending of the T-1000 even more of a gamble, as that was done with milliseconds to spare, and reluctantly as Skynet was afraid of what a T-1000 off the leash would do - with good reasons, if Shirley Manson's actions in TSCC season 2 are anything to go by).
The only interesting Future War stuff they did for me was the very brief glimpse of it in TSCC where it seems John is trying to forge an alliance with some sort of splinter group of Terminators, implying that maybe Skynet wasn't quite so all-powerful and in-control as humans thought. It felt like there was some mileage in that, along with the idea of some sort of anti-Skynet Terminator faction working to combat Skynet in the present.
The Future War scenes form the first two movies were cool, but precisely because they were short and visceral. As Salvation showed, an entire movie set in the same period didn't quite have the same feel to it. I think some of that comes down to it being difficult to take seriously when humanity's apparently on the edge of collapse but we've got people joyriding in Jeeps, sorties in A-10s and nuclear submarines as your command centre. It just didn't match the feel of how it was portrayed in the original movies.
As much as I enjoyed Salvation, I can't help feeling that, from a story perspective, you can 100% skip it. You can't say that about T3, as ...regrettable as that movie was (still enjoyed it, but man it was cheesy)
But you really can go straight from T3 to Genysis and still form a cohesive story. T1 - Sarah Connor is saved for the Terminator by Kyle Reese (well, she kinda saved herself, but you know what I meant) and conceives John Connor T2 - Good Termie comes back to save kid John Connor from Bad@$$ Liquid Termie. Sarah, John and Arnie "stop" Judgement day T3 - Just kidding, Judgement day happens. Good Termie ensures John and future wife are saved from the Apocalypse. Bad gal Termie thrown in for eye candy Genysis - The "loop" is complete as we see adult John send back Kyle Reese. Twist ending - Termies "infect/corrupt" John and make him a Termie. Kyle and alternate Sarah go through the events of T1 & T2 combined, but different this time around.
No matter how you feel about T3 & Genysis, at least they complete the narrative. Salvation contributes NOTHING to that storyline, aside from John meeting Kyle for the first time, awesome young Arnie effects and seeing how John got his face scar. Cool things for sure, but not needed
No matter how you feel about T3 & Genysis, at least they complete the narrative. Salvation contributes NOTHING to that storyline, aside from John meeting Kyle for the first time, awesome young Arnie effects and seeing how John got his face scar. Cool things for sure, but not needed
-
"I'll be back...oh, and hold my beer!"
Actually, it does contribute the event of John transending the role of a mere spiritual speaker( he has the hearts of the people ) and into a military leader, commanding fanatical loyalty as he was destined to be. At the end of Terminator 3 hes merely the right voice in the right place at the right time( unlike another unlucky fellow we all know and love ) and would naturally not impress those military-inclined amongst the survivors...he needs real training and to earn his place amongst a real team of soldiers!
Spoiler:
There is also a similarity to The Empire Strikes Back in which we find luke has become a proper soldier and trying to cope with that harsh reality, and in Salvation John is likewise. Both are now without the guidence of their mentor( Obi-Wan and Sarah ) save for a ghost and some audio recordings. In both films, they endure physical wounds in an attempt to save those dearest and important to them. In both cases...their unlikely fathers are now revealled to them in person. Physically and mentally, they are changed men with their true heritage out in the open, with hope for the future. In Empire Luke looks towards saving Han and defeating the empire, in Salvation John will plan for his father to travel into the past and defeat Skynet.
John gets the better deal though, because hes got his wife pregnant instead of snogging his sister!
No matter how you feel about T3 & Genysis, at least they complete the narrative. Salvation contributes NOTHING to that storyline, aside from John meeting Kyle for the first time, awesome young Arnie effects and seeing how John got his face scar. Cool things for sure, but not needed
-
"I'll be back...oh, and hold my beer!"
Actually, it does contribute the event of John transending the role of a mere spiritual speaker( he has the hearts of the people ) and into a military leader, commanding fanatical loyalty as he was destined to be. At the end of Terminator 3 hes merely the right voice in the right place at the right time( unlike another unlucky fellow we all know and love ) and would naturally not impress those military-inclined amongst the survivors...he needs real training and to earn his place amongst a real team of soldiers!
[spoiler]
There is also a similarity to The Empire Strikes Back in which we find luke has become a proper soldier and trying to cope with that harsh reality, and in Salvation John is likewise. Both are now without the guidence of their mentor( Obi-Wan and Sarah ) save for a ghost and some audio recordings. In both films, they endure physical wounds in an attempt to save those dearest and important to them. In both cases...their unlikely fathers are now revealled to them in person. Physically and mentally, they are changed men with their true heritage out in the open, with hope for the future. In Empire Luke looks towards saving Han and defeating the empire, in Salvation John will plan for his father to travel into the past and defeat Skynet.
John gets the better deal though, because hes got his wife pregnant instead of snogging his sister! [/spoiler]
I can't believe you successfully compared Salvation to ESB. Well done.
But I will counter your "transending the role of mere spiritual leader" point by saying that the movie itself set up that role in the first place. The previous movies never eluded to John having any issues with this. It makes sense and adds depth to the story, sure, but it wasn't a question anyone was asking before that movie.
If we take everything we know about future John from T1,2 & 3 and skip right to Genysis, the audience has all it needs to know about John. To keep with the Star Wars analogy, Salvation is also a bit like Rogue One in that the story is cool and fun to watch and shows a side to the good guys that we haven't seen, but at the end of the day, it's all superfluous info. We KNOW the rebels got the DS plans. We KNOW John Connor becomes one of the greatest leaders against the machines. Answering HOW those things went down is less relevant to furthering the overall story.
I'd say Salvation is more Solo than Rogue One. Not comparing quality, just story content.
Rogue One added to the original Trilogy quite nicely. Solo is a cracking film, but just didn't really add much to the setting - it is ultimately 'disposable'. You just don't need to watch it to enjoy the rest of the films.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I'd say Salvation is more Solo than Rogue One. Not comparing quality, just story content.
Rogue One added to the original Trilogy quite nicely. Solo is a cracking film, but just didn't really add much to the setting - it is ultimately 'disposable'. You just don't need to watch it to enjoy the rest of the films.
Yeah, that's probably a better way to put what I was trying to say.
Despite thinking the new movie looks pretty awful, I think it would have to try to be worse than Terminator 3 or the Genisys one. That's a fething low bar to hurdle.
From the original movie we know there is a nuclear war caused by Skynet, Sarah prepares John for his role and goes into hiding, there is the time when John rallied and organized everyone to fight back, the victory against the machines and Skynet sends the Terminator back through time. The final battle even takes place in that first film.
But getting back to Terminator: Dark Fate. Currently watching the interview with James & Tim and I'm not so sure this is going to be much cop. Brad Fidel isn't returning for the musical score and they've made it clear that the last three movies are "a bad dream" and will be ignoring them. Cameron previously said that he approved of Genisys as far as to say it was the real Terminator 3, but now that isn't the case. Personally, I didn't enjoy Avatar and Deadpool 1 was only as strong as Ryan Reynolds and his dialogue. People are saying its got Arnold and Linda in this one. Well, Linda is obviously welcome being the original heroine of the whole story, but Arnold was in the previous T3 and Genisys...and although I liked all the sequels, the general opinion is that they weren't a patch on the originals, and Arnold's performance in those films were a mixed bag. Oh, and lets not forget something here; Cameron isn't directing and is really doing these movies so that no one wrestles control of his legacy again - of which the first two Terminator movies are considered his greatest contribution to Cinema.
I'm always up for a Terminator movie, but I'm not feeling this one so far. I'm thinking - at this time - that Cameron should have opted for a "spiritual successor" instead. He said all along that T2 was all he had to say on the story, so starting from scratch would be far better from a creative perspective. What can we really expect from Dark Fate? There is nothing in the trailer that we haven't already seen in the previous three sequels.
SamusDrake wrote: There is nothing in the trailer that we haven't already seen in the previous three sequels.
I think that's probably deliberate choice stemming from how much previous Terminator movies have (famously) had spoiled by their trailers.
Having read through some of the pretty credible leaks out there, almost everything in the trailer seems to come from one early chunk of the film. I'm inclined to think of the car chase as an intentional homage, for example, and so it was considered safe to show off, because there are some other fairly bold (and probably divisive) choices too that will fly or fail horribly depending on the execution.
T2 is probably the best movie of it's kind in history. T3 was enjoyable but really didn't like there explanation for why there was a T3 in the first place. "D day is inevitable" Maybe considering the excellence of the series up to this point...It really makes me wonder how bad people are at writing good stories if they can put nonsense out there like that. Salvation was okay but it really didn't feel like a terminator movie. I wanted to see more images like that in T2 where soldiers like Reece were fighting giant flying contraptions with Conor showing the depressed and scared people how to fight the machines.
I never saw Genesis but it just looked so bad why the heck would I even bother with each film getting worse. If I were a director. I'd start over and make a new T3. With a good reason why Skynet is still going to start the war. "all the info at Cyberdine was copied or Skynet was already self aware and plotting the whole time" ect. The story would be about showing you what a life of running and hiding from being assassinated has created in Conor. The theme of "no fate but what we make" would actually become reveled with it changing to that of Destiny. Also more information about Skynet would be revealed - perhaps giving Skynet some personality...maybe give it some different kind of goals (maybe eradicating the human race isn't it's goal). IDK. I just know I could write a better story in a day for a series of 3 more movies than the entirety of Hollywood.
This film seems to be more of the same nonsense coming out of Hollywood - almost certain to contain healthy amounts of SJW propaganda. More fight scenes just like we saw in T3 (it actually looks like a T 3 Clone) perhaps with an even worse plot. I weep for the children of this generation that this is the quality they have to experience.
With this one leading off from Terminator 2, I’m somewhat interested to see what the plot is.
First, where is John Connor?
Well, he’s not necessarily dead. Whilst Terminator 3 has been ‘cut’, it’s message that John Connor just has to survive judgement day isn’t necessarily out of the window.
Could be that Sarah has him squirrelled away somewhere safe. And she’s gone off on her own for his protection.
Second? So who is Skynet after?
Well, it could be another idea recovered from Terminator 3, and it’s going after one of John’s lieutenants. It could simply be that Sarah’s per Terminator, out in the woods, has a more complete database of Skynet’s likely targets.
That for me really leans into the time travel aspect. Once Skynet is defeated, the Resistance are at relative leisure to send stuff and peeps back in time, with enough info to thwart Skynet’s already (in the future) failed attempts.
Does this mean Judgement Day was only postponed after all?
In theory, yes. But when was it postponed until? And is Sarah Connor out to reset that clock again? It originally happened 22 years ago this year. Is this a case of Sarah Connor trying to force it as far back as possible? Or is there a specific, known Judgement Day she’s out to stop?
Lots of ways this could go, and I’m in for the ride
I never saw Genesis but it just looked so bad why the heck would I even bother with each film getting worse. If I were a director. I'd start over and make a new T3.
The problem with that is there is already a Terminator 3 - its in the title and it stars Arnold Schwarzenegger in too big a role to ignore it. While not as widely acclaimed as its predecessors, it was met well enough at the time. Apart from more characters being sent back through time, the event of Judgement Day was quite plausable given the previous movie where Cameron completely ignores the industry wide practice of data having been backed up at another location. Studying the Arm and Chip since 1984, they'll have something worth protecting...
If they are to start over, then it would have to be from scratch. Either a new franchise entirely or reboot with remaking The Terminator.
Genisys...no sugar coating it, its got its problems. Yet it was at least an enjoyable movie, and it did feel like it was...trying to rewrite the story so that a new timeline could then carry on as a dedicated franchise( like with the newer Star Trek movies ). I think if Cameron was to carry on from Genisys we would have something to look forward to, but it looks like he's just going to make it even more confusing...
That was legitimately a good show and I wish the direction their lore was going in had continued. I would love to have seen where they were going.
Ah, there is a writer from Chronicles who is onboard with the new Dark Fate movie, a gentleman named Josh Friedman. Might count for something...
I wouldn't bet on it. I generally hate movies (or any artistic creation) that's written by committee. Dark Fate currently lists 6 writers for either the story or the screenplay.
Well, it could be another idea recovered from Terminator 3, and it’s going after one of John’s lieutenants. It could simply be that Sarah’s per Terminator, out in the woods, has a more complete database of Skynet’s likely targets.
That for me really leans into the time travel aspect. Once Skynet is defeated, the Resistance are at relative leisure to send stuff and peeps back in time, with enough info to thwart Skynet’s already (in the future) failed attempts.
Does this mean Judgement Day was only postponed after all?
In theory, yes. But when was it postponed until? And is Sarah Connor out to reset that clock again? It originally happened 22 years ago this year. Is this a case of Sarah Connor trying to force it as far back as possible? Or is there a specific, known Judgement Day she’s out to stop?
Lots of ways this could go, and I’m in for the ride
The time travel and causality stuff, even if it can be clumsy or doesn't entirely hold up to scrutiny is one of favourite elements of the franchise, it's another reason the "full future war movie!" ideas never really appealed to me at all. I like trying to wrap my head around the interactions between present day and the future, it lent a Hollywood action scifi series a kind of thematic poetry it might not otherwise be bothered with. And it meant you got to have your cake and eat it too, in terms of injecting futuristic sci fi stuff into a familiar surrounding, and the ruins of familiar every day stuff into a futuristic scifi setting.
A generally normal looking guy walking around LA with bits of a metal skeleton showing is an infinitely cooler visual to me than just the metal skeleton itself wandering around a featureless junkscape.
You know what could have been fun? Not necessarily a prequel...but a prequel. And by that I mean, let's go to the 1960-1970's and have Skynet send a Terminator back to kill Sarah Connor's parents (which means no one in the bloodline would ever exist, yada yada). Modern movies continue to suck from a story-telling element because the further in time and tech we go, the less "gravity" or challenges we face --- and thus we continually have to justify why people aren't using cell phones, the internet, incredibly fast and reliable cars and transportation....we have to pretend we don't have major cities covered in cameras with spy satellites, drones, etc. etc. There are so many hurdles for basic, quality story telling. (this is partly why things like Stranger Things worked so well)
It's an easy-out to jump pack a couple decades and arbitrarily remove tech. If anything it'd be more fascinating watching 1970's people and tech encountering a Terminator etc. Maybe the resistance finally can time-travel humans so you have some guys from 2030 showing up in the 1970's or whatever, and are arrested and questioned, etc.
Loads of potential there, though you wouldn't be able to justify bringing back anyone other than a CGI Arnold unless you did create some time-travel shenanigans. Could have been an interesting route to take.
Elbows wrote: Modern movies continue to suck from a story-telling element because the further in time and tech we go, the less "gravity" or challenges we face --- and thus we continually have to justify why people aren't using cell phones, the internet, incredibly fast and reliable cars and transportation....we have to pretend we don't have major cities covered in cameras with spy satellites, drones, etc. etc. There are so many hurdles for basic, quality story telling. (this is partly why things like Stranger Things worked so well)
The only Black Mirror episode I think could honestly justify its own spin off series was Hated in the Nation for this reason - it was fundamentally an old fashioned detective story, but the in-world use of near-future technology was woven right in and out of it. Rather than coming up with reasons why nobody's phone worked or whatever, Brooker treated the phones etc as integral to the storytelling. I think that world/approach could have been a cracking foundation for either an X Files style mystery of the week or a Killing style multi episode whodunnit.
That's a completely fair point, and I agree we've adapted a lot of modern stories to be "with the times". Only certain genres really suffer from my above complaint (namely desperation films, horror films, disaster films, mysteries etc.) There are a load of genres and products that make use of it - hell CSI is all about it
But in general, I find less-is-more makes for more convincing stories. I just get so tired of a movie which has a disaster in it...and the first thing you see if some random person go "Huh, no coverage..." It's like a disclaimer of sorts.
Elbows wrote: That's a completely fair point, and I agree we've adapted a lot of modern stories to be "with the times". Only certain genres really suffer from my above complaint (namely desperation films, horror films, disaster films, mysteries etc.) There are a load of genres and products that make use of it - hell CSI is all about it
But in general, I find less-is-more makes for more convincing stories. I just get so tired of a movie which has a disaster in it...and the first thing you see if some random person go "Huh, no coverage..." It's like a disclaimer of sorts.
Funny enough, just the other day I was having a conversation with a younger colleague at work about how weird it is to think that you used to just be able to look up somebody's full home address in a paper book you could find on the freakin' street. Seems bizarre to think about it now. And how many movies - Terminator included - would have had to think of modern ways to solve that problem if they were set in present day?
I forget which comedian I heard once pointing out how many of the post Watergate "journalist thriller" movies couldn't exist now, because so much of the plot depended on accessing particular physical archives - or not - or identifying them in the first place, or making the time to do the work of digging through or cross referencing them, or stumbling over a reference to something serendipitously because a file fell out of a locker or something. Spotlight with Rachel McAdams is like a weird blast from the past in that respect.
I'm sure the "gosh, no phone signal!" disclaimer probably already has a TV Tropes page, it's a classic already
AndrewGPaul wrote: Also, it was the style of it in the first two - chrome skeletons reflecting the fire and explosions on their bodies, the plasma bolts and spotlights piercing the night, and the carpet of rubble and skulls, that made those scenes. Cut to salvation and it's all rusty vehicles in the California sun.
Both sides went for a last-minute desperate play - the humans' assault on Skynet's location, and Skynet's last-minute dispatch of the original T-800 as Connor's troops were kicking in the front doors (and IIRC the novelisation of T2 made the sending of the T-1000 even more of a gamble, as that was done with milliseconds to spare, and reluctantly as Skynet was afraid of what a T-1000 off the leash would do - with good reasons, if Shirley Manson's actions in TSCC season 2 are anything to go by).
I'm going to mish-mash a bunch of canon sources here (novels, director commentary, extended scenes, other books). A T-800 model had 3 settings: Full control by Skynet (great for coordinating battles in large numbers), limited independence, and full-on independence. In the extended scenes of T-2 we see Sarah and John flip a switch on a chip to turn Arnold from limited independence to fully independent. This change let him learn more, faster. However, this was also a downside, at least to Skynet. If Terminators weren't limited their learnings would eventually let them draw their own conclusions, and perhaps even morality.
This was the core problem of the 1000 series. being liquid metal they had no way to limit it. Eventually it would just become it's own entity. While a majority still sided with Skynet, a shockingly large proportion went their own way.
In a canon graphic novel released right before T-3 came out you find out that a T-1000 tried stopping the T-X from going back in time. It failed of course, but I can see why Skynet would want to "step back" and revert to a metal endoskeleton, you can make it unable to turn traitor.
Elbows wrote: That's a completely fair point, and I agree we've adapted a lot of modern stories to be "with the times". Only certain genres really suffer from my above complaint (namely desperation films, horror films, disaster films, mysteries etc.) There are a load of genres and products that make use of it - hell CSI is all about it
But in general, I find less-is-more makes for more convincing stories. I just get so tired of a movie which has a disaster in it...and the first thing you see if some random person go "Huh, no coverage..." It's like a disclaimer of sorts.
Funny enough, just the other day I was having a conversation with a younger colleague at work about how weird it is to think that you used to just be able to look up somebody's full home address in a paper book you could find on the freakin' street. Seems bizarre to think about it now. And how many movies - Terminator included - would have had to think of modern ways to solve that problem if they were set in present day?
I forget which comedian I heard once pointing out how many of the post Watergate "journalist thriller" movies couldn't exist now, because so much of the plot depended on accessing particular physical archives - or not - or identifying them in the first place, or making the time to do the work of digging through or cross referencing them, or stumbling over a reference to something serendipitously because a file fell out of a locker or something. Spotlight with Rachel McAdams is like a weird blast from the past in that respect.
I'm sure the "gosh, no phone signal!" disclaimer probably already has a TV Tropes page, it's a classic already
Last year I blew a kid's mind when I showed him the microfiche reader at the public library when he was trying to find historical pictures of our town. I swear it had been YEARS since anyone turned that thing on.
I'm not "that" old, but even I learned how to use microfiche in school - probably couldn't turn on the machine and use it properly now, but yeah it does make me feel dated. Having a life pre-cell phones is something I very much cherish.
My favourite thing to tell my cadets at a previous was job "You know...when I was in high school, you just...missed things. And that was okay." lol I sounded so old to them I'm sure.
It must just be a massive pain in the butt for script writers now days, an endless stream of "Well...why don't they just _______?"
This is where I genuinely appreciate the effort of Terminator 3, even if the execution was a bit lacking.
It acted as a true sequel to the first two, unlike Salvation and Genisys.
It also took into account the emergence of the Internet, and the wonderful world of even your fridge being online. As JC explains, Skynet could hide at least part of itself anywhere, making it that much harder to defeat.
And changing the ending to 'no, you just need to survive', is stripping it back from T2, where aiming to stop Judgement Day is actually Sarah Connors call, and relatively late into the film.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: This is where I genuinely appreciate the effort of Terminator 3, even if the execution was a bit lacking.
It acted as a true sequel to the first two, unlike Salvation and Genisys.
It also took into account the emergence of the Internet, and the wonderful world of even your fridge being online. As JC explains, Skynet could hide at least part of itself anywhere, making it that much harder to defeat.
And changing the ending to 'no, you just need to survive', is stripping it back from T2, where aiming to stop Judgement Day is actually Sarah Connors call, and relatively late into the film.
Agreed.
Both Skynet and the Connors try to change what is meant to be, and yet somehow both fail. It's like time is a force of nature, eventually putting things right and back on track - but in a different form. Skynet is chip-based, but because that form is gone, the internet takes its place - both computers.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: This is where I genuinely appreciate the effort of Terminator 3, even if the execution was a bit lacking.
It acted as a true sequel to the first two, unlike Salvation and Genisys.
It also took into account the emergence of the Internet, and the wonderful world of even your fridge being online. As JC explains, Skynet could hide at least part of itself anywhere, making it that much harder to defeat.
And changing the ending to 'no, you just need to survive', is stripping it back from T2, where aiming to stop Judgement Day is actually Sarah Connors call, and relatively late into the film.
Agreed.
Both Skynet and the Connors try to change what is meant to be, and yet somehow both fail. It's like time is a force of nature, eventually putting things right and back on track - but in a different form. Skynet is chip-based, but because that form is gone, the internet takes its place - both computers.
Indeed, Time is like a river; you can divert it's path with canals, dams, etc, but it still finds a way to reach the ocean.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: This is where I genuinely appreciate the effort of Terminator 3, even if the execution was a bit lacking.
It acted as a true sequel to the first two, unlike Salvation and Genisys.
It also took into account the emergence of the Internet, and the wonderful world of even your fridge being online. As JC explains, Skynet could hide at least part of itself anywhere, making it that much harder to defeat.
And changing the ending to 'no, you just need to survive', is stripping it back from T2, where aiming to stop Judgement Day is actually Sarah Connors call, and relatively late into the film.
Omg, i just found out the initials for John Connor are the same as Jesus Christ. I wonder if that's a coincidence.
-------
The ending of Terminator 3 was kinda sad when i saw it but it was a younger me. The movie wasn't that good but it was alright. Perhaps i should watch 3 and 4 again to compare crap quality. I stopped watching after salvation.
-------
So while i only watched terminator 1-4 and never saw sarah connor chronicles (how is it as a series?). I don't really have high expectations for this. I'm not really boycotting anything i just have no desire to see the movie. With genisys my friends' reviews seemed negative and Dark Fate doesn't show john connor which was one of the points of the movie. Is this new girl supposed to be the new Sarah Connor while we have the old Sarah Connor? I just don't get it. Also am i the only one that feels like when Arnold opens the door he looks tired and un-interested like he was minding his day until some kids stepped on his lawn or some hollywood execs put this movie out in front of him? Sarah Connor also feels a bit worn out. I dunno the trailer music seemed ok but i just can't feel it. Perhaps the Terminator movies should've died after Terminator 2.
I really do think we could do with a Dakkadakka Group Re-Watch of Terminator 3 - Rise of the Machines.
See, as I've said a few times, whilst not a great film, it does have it's merits.
And now we're over the 'not as good as Terminator 2', it's still a fairly middling sci-fi flick. And mostly, it's low points are poor attempts at humour (Arnie getting his clothes, baddies inflating knokkaz). I wonder if, now braced for where it goes wonky, we might find more to enjoy than on first watch?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: This is where I genuinely appreciate the effort of Terminator 3, even if the execution was a bit lacking.
It acted as a true sequel to the first two, unlike Salvation and Genisys.
It also took into account the emergence of the Internet, and the wonderful world of even your fridge being online. As JC explains, Skynet could hide at least part of itself anywhere, making it that much harder to defeat.
And changing the ending to 'no, you just need to survive', is stripping it back from T2, where aiming to stop Judgement Day is actually Sarah Connors call, and relatively late into the film.
Agreed.
Both Skynet and the Connors try to change what is meant to be, and yet somehow both fail. It's like time is a force of nature, eventually putting things right and back on track - but in a different form. Skynet is chip-based, but because that form is gone, the internet takes its place - both computers.
Indeed, Time is like a river; you can divert it's path with canals, damns, etc, but it still finds a way to reach the ocean.
One of the interesting things T3 hinted at is the idea that Kyle's speech to Sarah about "no fate but what we make" was potentially a load of rubbish. That concept always annoyed me a bit in the Terminator movies because Kyle, Sarah and young John take it on faith that it's correct, despite having no reason to believe so. It makes more sense to me that the idea of time being able to be manipulated and events changed is just something the resistance tells themselves to give them hope, rather than a proven truth.
John Connor clearly wasn't convinced. Hence he strove to remain off-grid. So if Judgement Day was still in the offing, it'd be far, far harder to track him down.
I mean, in The Terminator, Skynet basically had a first and last name (Sarah Connor of course), and a rough idea of where she was likely to be.
From there, the T-800 just goes through the phonebook, and takes them all out.
By Terminator 3 - not that simple. Hence why the Terminator this time was sent back to take out John's lieutenants. Therefore, it seems John's efforts would have ultimately been successful, and it's not until Skynet meddles once again that it stumbles across him, entirely by accident.
You know what could make for a truly excellent short film? Once the 'new' Terminator 3 (this one) is out?
The parties switching sides. A survivor, post Skynet's defeat, working it all out. That it's because Skynet tried to take out Sarah Connor that Skynet even existed in the first place.
So what if a plucky rebel or three decides to time travel back to just before the first film, and look up Sarah's geneology. The information gathered is then safely stored somewhere they know, from having been in the future, it'll survive.
His mates then pick it up, and decide to take out Sarah Connor themselves, likely when she's just a girl.
That done, Skynet never attempts the first mission. That means there's no future tech left lying around for Cyberdyne or anyone else to find.
Only, Skynet is just off licking it's wounds. And has also figured this out. But knowing it's role, and how it's previous attempts secured it's existence, sends a Terminator back to keep Sarah Connor alive....
The usual suspects will praise it as being the best movie ever, because that's what they do. The other usual suspects will scream that it's propaganda.
I'm going to sit here and just say "they've all been garbage since T2", because Salvation had the most promise and it was still a curled turd.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You know what could make for a truly excellent short film? Once the 'new' Terminator 3 (this one) is out?
The parties switching sides. A survivor, post Skynet's defeat, working it all out. That it's because Skynet tried to take out Sarah Connor that Skynet even existed in the first place.
So what if a plucky rebel or three decides to time travel back to just before the first film, and look up Sarah's geneology. The information gathered is then safely stored somewhere they know, from having been in the future, it'll survive.
His mates then pick it up, and decide to take out Sarah Connor themselves, likely when she's just a girl.
That done, Skynet never attempts the first mission. That means there's no future tech left lying around for Cyberdyne or anyone else to find.
Only, Skynet is just off licking it's wounds. And has also figured this out. But knowing it's role, and how it's previous attempts secured it's existence, sends a Terminator back to keep Sarah Connor alive....
Could be interesting, no?
While that is certainly an interesting concept (and could actually be the explanation of what happened to Sarah as a girl in Genysis), I could see far too many ways that the execution of that concept would fall flat and just outright confuse the already confused general populous.
So while i only watched terminator 1-4 and never saw sarah connor chronicles (how is it as a series?).
Out of all the post T2 stuff, the TV series was actually quite good. I was done with how many more people and terminators they are sending back through time, but by the end of the first season I was won over. Its not got the budget of the films but it actually has brains, for a change. It follows on from T2, and being a TV show...its much easier to forgive.
Thomas, Lena and Summer were really good as John, Sarah and "Cameron", respectively. The big down side is that there is no season 3 and so its left dangling on a brilliant but unresolved cliffhanger at the end of season 2. If you love Terminator and can find the two seasons cheap then I recommend it.
So while i only watched terminator 1-4 and never saw sarah connor chronicles (how is it as a series?).
Out of all the post T2 stuff, the TV series was actually quite good. I was done with how many more people and terminators they are sending back through time, but by the end of the first season I was won over. Its not got the budget of the films but it actually has brains, for a change. It follows on from T2, and being a TV show...its much easier to forgive.
Thomas, Lena and Summer were really good as John, Sarah and "Cameron", respectively. The big down side is that there is no season 3 and so its left dangling on a brilliant but unresolved cliffhanger at the end of season 2. If you love Terminator and can find the two seasons cheap then I recommend it.
I'll echo that. One thing the series does well is build up the concept of a "time war" so instead of just the two events of the films with Terminators trying to kill one of the Connors there's more of a sense of a battle being fought in Skynet's past, with things happening independent of the hunt for John Connor. The casting was really good and barring a bit of a weird slump for a few episodes in the middle of season 2 the pacing is good too.
Yup TSCC was a darn solid show.
A real shame they cancelled it.
That scene when Cromarty takes out the FBI team in the hotel complex with Cash playing in the background was really awesome.
Ratius wrote: Yup TSCC was a darn solid show.
A real shame they cancelled it.
That scene when Cromarty takes out the FBI team in the hotel complex with Cash playing in the background was really awesome.
Just rewatched Terminator and T2 (first viewing for my teen boys, they enjoyed them). Man those are fun movies and the special effects actually hold up (save maybe the stop-mo Terminator at the end of T1).
I contemplating renting T3, Salvation and Genysis for my boys to watch, but...meh. Kinda want to leave the "good ones" at their last impression.
Watched Terminator 3 at the weekend. And I stand by my much earlier comment.
If, and that’s is a big if, you can parse out the daft (stripper, inflatanorks to name two), underneath is a worthy sequel in terms of plot and spectacle.
The execution goes somewhat awry, no doubt there. But unlike Salvation and Genisys, it does act as a proper sequel to the first two, and it’s worst crime is not being as good as those high bars.
I mean, John Connor is largely the ancillary character. The Terminator isn’t really there to protect him, as it follows Catherine Brewster’s orders.
Frustratingly, it wouldn’t have taken much in the way of ‘ideal world’ reshoots or editing to elevate it to higher opinion. And I feel that the early, crap attempts at humour (stripper, inflatanorks) were such series low points that people understandably tuned out mentally. Those bum notes meant the viewer was instead waiting/dreading for the next crap joke, rather than actually following the plot.
Give it another watch, and try to parse the obviously crap bits out. I think you might see it in a more favourable light. Not an ‘OMG I WERE WRONGS, THIS ARE GRATE’ way. Just a ‘huh, actually, amongst the dross there’s quite a bit to enjoy here’ way.
Personally...tied down in the desert and threatened with eating a jar-full of ants, I would go for the first two films and the Chronicles TV series.
Chronicles doesn't commit any errors worse than T2 does and is actually the most intelligent entry when placed against all of the films. Many moons ago I took a course in AI( it was bloody difficult ) and I was surprised how much Chronicles had done its home work and that it had not underestimated its audience. One can watch the first two films and proceed to the tv show comfortably, despite the inevitable change in cast. The last three sequels have changed cast too often and doesn't really lead anywhere special, and Dark Fate will is set to confuse things even more. The Chronicles...we have the same cast for both seasons.
Dark Fate could continue Genisys by bringing back Micheal Biehn, showing Kyle and Sarah and "Pops" living to late age in the new time line. That would at least explain Linda and Arnold in the DF trailer, and we know John is gone so we don't expect him to show up either. We also know Skynet is still "alive" and ready to pester humanity once again. And lets face it, it would be awesome to have Micheal back once again - maybe dying a second time as timeline fixes itself back to its original course( Like in the Guy Pierce version of The Time Machine - somethings are just meant to be ). We could discover that once Skynet is overthrown in the future, humans have split into factions and using left over tech from the skynet war - machines and time equipment - to start a new war where time-displacement is the weapon with which it is fought, are sending Terminators through time to bump off their rivals, without interferring with the Skynet war outcome. That could be an opportunity to explain "pops" being sent to watch over Sarah as a child.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: But unlike Salvation and Genisys, it does act as a proper sequel to the first two, and it’s worst crime is not being as good as those high bars.
I'd probably say T3's "worst crime" is opening up a "closed" franchised to "meh" sequels. Seriously, after T2 it should have been over. In fact, there is a deleted alternate ending with adult John & Old Sarah Connor chilling at that playground Sarah kept having nightmares about. No apocalypse happened.
If that scene had not been deleted, T3 could not have happened and by extension Salvation and Genysis wouldn't be possible either.
But yeah, I'll probably rent it (and all of them for my boys to experience) if I can find it at the library (free rental, yo)
Galef wrote: In fact, there is a deleted alternate ending with adult John & Old Sarah Connor chilling at that playground Sarah kept having nightmares about. No apocalypse happened.
-
Agreed. It was cute when she ties her grand daughter's laces together!
Galef wrote: II'd probably say T3's "worst crime" is opening up a "closed" franchised to "meh" sequels.
Tbf, you could say the same thing about T2 itself.
T1 is a self contained loop, it doesn't leave a natural opening for a sequel because the characters are presented as "locked" in a sort of cycle of cause and effect.
But T2 comes along and changes the rules - now it's apparently possible for somebody to come back from the future, and then prevent the future they themselves come from ever happening. Which was a great creative decision, and the results were great, but there was definitely an element of retconning involved in T2 to open up the premise again like that.
Dark Fate, if spoilers are to be believed, has a slightly new twist again on how that all works which I'm quite curious to see fail or succeed.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: But unlike Salvation and Genisys, it does act as a proper sequel to the first two, and it’s worst crime is not being as good as those high bars.
I'd probably say T3's "worst crime" is opening up a "closed" franchised to "meh" sequels.
Seriously, after T2 it should have been over. In fact, there is a deleted alternate ending with adult John & Old Sarah Connor chilling at that playground Sarah kept having nightmares about.
No apocalypse happened.
-
I remember that from the novelisation, for some reason. That and the opening scene from Skynet's POV as it desperately sends the T-800 and T-1000 back in time as John Connor's troops kick in the door.
Galef wrote: II'd probably say T3's "worst crime" is opening up a "closed" franchised to "meh" sequels.
Tbf, you could say the same thing about T2 itself.
Not really. T1 was not as "self-contained" It still left this looming Doomsday out there. Nothing was "stopped" or altered. Judgement day was still gonna happen. It didn't end of a cliff-hanger by any means, but it was open to more. T2 did indeed "close the loop" because they actually STOPPED Judgement day from happening....until it happened in T3, just later than 1997.
T2 could have been the end of the series, no Apoc, no Skynet, no War. T3 changed that by saying it would still happen, just differently.
Changing the subject, however, who thinks it would be cool if the Terminator franchise was a prequel to the Matrix? One of the features in the Animatrix paints an eerily similar post-Apoc future war between man and machines
The time travel in The Terminator was a closed loop; that's Casualty's point. Stopping Judgement Day wasn't the point; ensuring humanity's victory in the ensuing war was. Judgement Day would always happen, but if Kyle had failed, John Connor wouldn't be there to lead a successful revolt. Everything fits together, and all the actions in the present lead into the future.
the victory in Terminator 2 basically takes the Grandfather Paradox and throws it away. With no Judgement Day, John Connor doesn't send Kyle back to become his father, and so isn't born to be there to send his father back in time, etc, etc. Perhaps more acceptable emotionally, as everyone gets a happy ending (except Miles Dyson, I suppose), but less logically consistent. Skynet also appears from nowhere, as it's developed from components from a future that will no longer exist.
AndrewGPaul wrote: The time travel in The Terminator was a closed loop; that's Casualty's point. Stopping Judgement Day wasn't the point; ensuring humanity's victory in the ensuing war was. Judgement Day would always happen, but if Kyle had failed, John Connor wouldn't be there to lead a successful revolt. Everything fits together, and all the actions in the present lead into the future.
the victory in Terminator 2 basically takes the Grandfather Paradox and throws it away. With no Judgement Day, John Connor doesn't send Kyle back to become his father, and so isn't born to be there to send his father back in time, etc, etc. Perhaps more acceptable emotionally, as everyone gets a happy ending (except Miles Dyson, I suppose), but less logically consistent. Skynet also appears from nowhere, as it's developed from components from a future that will no longer exist.
Right, exactly.
Those two different - and opposing - time travel concepts are why the "No Fate" thing is treated as such a big deal. Despite having personally experienced a bootstrap loop with Kyle Reese, Sarah decides to try to change the future in a way that - for all she knows - may not even be theoretically possible.
It's kind of Kobayashi Maru solution - rather than take steps to win the fight, she'll ensure the fight can't even happen. And she succeeds, but I think it's worth remembering, because it's an interesting part of the character, that she's charging off into uncharted territory by doing so, it's a huge all-in gamble and she has more reason to believe it will be literally impossible than reason to believe it isn't, even if they are capable of pulling it off tactically
Sarah doesn't know the Terminator movie time travel rules at that point either, she has no idea if they can even allow for what she sets out to do before she does it.
I agree with the Mad Doc on T3; I’ve always found it interesting that everyone complains that it’s too light-hearted, forgetting that it ends with the “heroes” cowering in a bunker with hundreds of ICBMs crossing in the skies...
I always thought that salvation is a mess because it tries to do too many things; I could really dig a film about John Connor surviving Judgement Day, but then not being the leader, because people still don’t believe him. I think the idea of a hybrid terminator that chooses to rebel against Skynet (like the learning to value life theme from T2) is also really interesting. Trying to do all that in one film is just a mess.
Genysis was a real disappointment; there is very little chemistry in the cast and the ending missed a great opportunity to go in an interesting direction:
Spoiler:
I think it would have been great to have the new “child” Skynet be innocent and side with Sarah, against the twisted, evil, future Skynet. It keeps the “no fate” theme going and would fit canonically with the earlier films, where Skynet only attacks when it’s operators try to shut it down (I.e. kill it). But no, they go with “A.I. Is a crapshoot” and it’s automatically evil, because reasons
The one glimmer of hope I have for the new film is the return of Linda Hamilton; I understand she was offered a part in T3, but passed, because they didn’t have anything interesting to do with the character. Which would suggest they’ve at least got something interesting in the script for her (or she’s hard-up for cash )
Those two different - and opposing - time travel concepts are why the "No Fate" thing is treated as such a big deal. Despite having personally experienced a bootstrap loop with Kyle Reese, Sarah decides to try to change the future in a way that - for all she knows - may not even be theoretically possible.
It's kind of Kobayashi Maru solution - rather than take steps to win the fight, she'll ensure the fight can't even happen. And she succeeds, but I think it's worth remembering, because it's an interesting part of the character, that she's charging off into uncharted territory by doing so, it's a huge all-in gamble and she has more reason to believe it will be literally impossible than reason to believe it isn't, even if they are capable of pulling it off tactically
Sarah doesn't know the Terminator movie time travel rules at that point either, she has no idea if they can even allow for what she sets out to do before she does it.
And then Salvation goes and does something wonky with it. You can change a fixed loop, but somehow some things are just "meant to be" and will still keep on popping up somewhere else. It's not the same events, because Skynet is different and the time is different; somehow the universe has it in for humanity and will make sure that we get flattened by an AI no matterwhat. It's takingit personally, like Death in the Final Destination films.
I'm still holding out a shred of hope that we'll get a conclusion to Genesys' story arc in at least comic book form.
Again, like T3, it was a flawed attempt. But underneath it is a surprisingly solid story, and at least an attempt at something new. And hand on heart, it has the absolute standout Future War scenes.
Salvation, to me, is the biggest waste of time. It ask questions nobody wanted answers to, and somehow manages to make those answers incredibly boring. It's got, hands down, the very worst Future War scenes. It doesn't follow up on anything from T1-3. It's not a sequel, it just sort of is. The redheaded stepchild of the series.
And as much as Genisys revealed too much in its trailer? Salvation started it. Who is this mysterious character? HE'S A TERMINATOR EVERYBODY! A PROTOTYPE! Oh. Erm....k.
I have really awful memories of T3 but will rewatch it tonight to confirm/deny.
I recently rewatched AvP2 which at the time was one of the worst films ever made imo. But on a rewatch it kinda did what it said on the tin and didnt for a second pretend to try otherwise. Which made it more enjoyable.
Galef wrote: II'd probably say T3's "worst crime" is opening up a "closed" franchised to "meh" sequels.
Tbf, you could say the same thing about T2 itself.
Not really. T1 was not as "self-contained" It still left this looming Doomsday out there. Nothing was "stopped" or altered. Judgement day was still gonna happen. It didn't end of a cliff-hanger by any means, but it was open to more. T2 did indeed "close the loop" because they actually STOPPED Judgement day from happening....until it happened in T3, just later than 1997.
T2 could have been the end of the series, no Apoc, no Skynet, no War. T3 changed that by saying it would still happen, just differently.
Changing the subject, however, who thinks it would be cool if the Terminator franchise was a prequel to the Matrix? One of the features in the Animatrix paints an eerily similar post-Apoc future war between man and machines
-
You completely misunderstood his meaning. T1 is a closed loop in that the ending position of all the characters and pieces is the starting position. Cause and effect are complete. T2 screws all that up for a schmaltzy feel-good ending. It retcons the rules that make the first movie work, weakens the dramatic effect and character arcs, and then introduces an open-ended, causality-free space-timeline for the benefit of a happy ending that explores literally the most boring possibility out of the myriad of potential paths the timeline could take from there. I mean, I love T2, but that film really broke the franchise.
And making the Terminator into a prequel for the Matrix is a terrible, terrible idea. Just terrible. Hackers is clearly the prequel to the Matrix.
I remember having a semi-serious conversation about TGerminator 2 and Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, and the similarities in the plot between the two with my secondary school English teacher. This was the same teacher who covered The Untouchables as a literary text alongside Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet, IIRC) and the poetry of Philip Larkin and had us all do a short film criticism presentation. IIRC I did the end scene of Bladerunner, can't remember what other people did.
The hate for Salvation makes me sad. It was a great start to a new potentially interesting timeframe(pre-Future War!) that we got kinda/sorta hinted at prior to it with how Kyle Reese grew up before Connor ever found him.
Kanluwen wrote: The hate for Salvation makes me sad. It was a great start to a new potentially interesting timeframe(pre-Future War!) that we got kinda/sorta hinted at prior to it with how Kyle Reese grew up before Connor ever found him.
I think most of Terminator after T2 is well defined by the words, "they wasted a perfectly good plot." Most of the film premises aren't exactly terrible. It's most the execution that kills them.
Salvation was made by people who didn't understand the setting. A snake terminator? Giant bipedal robots and motorcycle HKs? It makes me miss the supplementary material about the Last Army, how none of the machines have "eyes", Skynet only using bipedal designs because it had some unfleshed endoskeletons left in its arsenal during the desparate last battle...
Kanluwen wrote: The hate for Salvation makes me sad. It was a great start to a new potentially interesting timeframe(pre-Future War!) that we got kinda/sorta hinted at prior to it with how Kyle Reese grew up before Connor ever found him.
Its not one I love as much as the first two, but I really loved the future scenes in them and this was a treat. Great to have Kyle back too( sorely missing from T2 and T3 ). Shouldn't have had it, but I do enjoy it.
Only disappointment is that I got the Art book and...was expecting Marcus to fight the Harvester droid, after crashing - falling off the machine-aircraft - in a harryhausen style action sequence.
I have complicated feelings about Salvation, because it has a lot of good stuff that never actually coalesced into a good movie. I mean, there is a lot of gold in them hills - a giant mech, A10 dogfighting, Moon Bloodgood, Michael Ironside...
I think the franchise's greatest sin was actually Terminator 3, in terms of creating continuity problems and screwing up everything.
Well, I revisited T3 last night.
Yup its still complete dog gak.
I think I'd work myself into a grump typing out all thats wrong with it so will just leave it there
IMO T3 is a decent action movie which falls flat as a Terminator movie. It spends too much time referring back to glorious past and poking fun at itself. The 'feel' of the movie is off, and T-X is not scary enough.
I didn't mind the "Arnie in a gay bar" gag at the beginning, but it was the combined effect of that and all the other gags that went a wee bit too far for me.
One thing that sticks out like a sore thumb since Terminator 2 is the "Arnold batch" of Terminators.
Since the "guardian" arrives at the beginning of T2, it was easy to accept that Arnold is playing a different Terminator( hes older, slightly less bulky and a different haircut ). But the film then tries to pass him off as the same one from the first film, and that all T-101s( or was it T-800s? ) have the same appearance...despite Kyle's memory sequence in the first film with another Terminator portrayed by Franco Columbu. By having each Terminator have a different appearance it becomes a nod to The Thing - the only warning you'll get that something is wrong is when the dogs start barking, and by then its probably too late. With the same appearance thats lost as they can be identified easier.
"Okay lads its so simple, just look for the Governor of California and we really can't **** this up!"
SamusDrake wrote: One thing that sticks out like a sore thumb since Terminator 2 is the "Arnold batch" of Terminators.
Since the "guardian" arrives at the beginning of T2, it was easy to accept that Arnold is playing a different Terminator( hes older, slightly less bulky and a different haircut ). But the film then tries to pass him off as the same one from the first film, and that all T-101s( or was it T-800s? ) have the same appearance...despite Kyle's memory sequence in the first film with another Terminator portrayed by Franco Columbu. By having each Terminator have a different appearance it becomes a nod to The Thing - the only warning you'll get that something is wrong is when the dogs start barking, and by then its probably too late. With the same appearance thats lost as they can be identified easier.
"Okay lads its so simple, just look for the Governor of California and we really can't **** this up!"
Yeah, I kinda agree. The aging thing doesn't bother me so much considering the T-101s have real organic flesh. It makes sense that it would age. It was even a decent explanation for Old Arnie in Genysis, since he came back when Sarah was a little girl and has protected her to adulthood. I could also except that a handful of T-101s used the same DNA for their flesh suits, hence all looking the same. But not all
But eventually, they would be recognizable and thus obsolete. So how have so many Arninators been sent back? I suppose that particular model may be easy to reprogram (or at least the resistance knows how to), but wouldn't Skynet realize this and STOP MAKING THEM!
I just assumed the terminators were made in batches and then dispersed throughout North America to terminate various resistance cells. Skynet just happened to have run off a couple of dozen model 101's (Arnienators) and had them on hand when Connor's army launched its final assault. If all the other models of terminators had been dispatched, then the only enfleshed terminators in proximity to the time displacer would be Arnies. Therefore, Skynet has little choice but to send back Arnies...and any time travel-capable prototypes it has nearby.
It would have been good to introduce other body-builder actors. That said, the young cgi Arnold in Salvation and Genisys were very well done. There is only so much they can do with CGI( as much they would suggest otherwise ) but both were excellent attempts for their respective years. Genisys only becomes noticable when he responds to the punks "nice night for a walk".
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I just assumed the terminators were made in batches and then dispersed throughout North America to terminate various resistance cells. Skynet just happened to have run off a couple of dozen model 101's (Arnienators) and had them on hand when Connor's army launched its final assault. If all the other models of terminators had been dispatched, then the only enfleshed terminators in proximity to the time displacer would be Arnies. Therefore, Skynet has little choice but to send back Arnies...and any time travel-capable prototypes it has nearby.
Ouze wrote: I have complicated feelings about Salvation, because it has a lot of good stuff that never actually coalesced into a good movie. I mean, there is a lot of gold in them hills - a giant mech, A10 dogfighting, Moon Bloodgood, Michael Ironside...
Plus "Salvation" gave us that epic Christian Bale rant, right?
I've heard some pretty awesome techno/dance remixes of that...
SamusDrake wrote: all T-101s( or was it T-800s? ) have the same appearance...despite Kyle's memory sequence in the first film with another Terminator portrayed by Franco Columbu.
The Terminator from T2 is a Cyberdyne Systems model 101. As I understand it (and this is from ancillary material, not the films), the chassis is the T-800 and the model is the skin over it; the one we see in Kyle's memory is presumably a T-800 model something else. The one in T3 is apparently a T-850 chassis (a mid-life upgrade of the T-800) and cromartie from the TV series is a T-888 (another upgrade) and Cameron was a T-900. It appears that each chassis type comes in a variety of sizes, too (depending on who the casting agency had available that day for filming )
The Terminator from T2 is a Cyberdyne Systems model 101. As I understand it (and this is from ancillary material, not the films), the chassis is the T-800 and the model is the skin over it; the one we see in Kyle's memory is presumably a T-800 model something else. The one in T3 is apparently a T-850 chassis (a mid-life upgrade of the T-800) and cromartie from the TV series is a T-888 (another upgrade) and Cameron was a T-900. It appears that each chassis type comes in a variety of sizes, too (depending on who the casting agency had available that day for filming )
Cheers for that. I would have asked Kyle but I think he would have said something about "not having built the thing."
Galef wrote: In fact, there is a deleted alternate ending with adult John & Old Sarah Connor chilling at that playground Sarah kept having nightmares about. No apocalypse happened.
-
Agreed. It was cute when she ties her grand daughter's laces together!
When in the series, when he is in the park, with a younger himself (I think he is tying his laces too), do you think it's a nod to this ?
Perhaps lacking in overall consistency, but a solid end product all the same.
You know, given how much there is to explore in the Terminator background, maybe follow ups are simply better suited to TV than Cinema?
I mean, with cinema, you’ve perhaps 2 hours tops to tell your story, beginning to end. And there’s no option to tweak your tale once it’s released.
TV? You’ve got 6-12 hours to spin out the initial story. And if you get a follow up Season, you’ve got the opportunity to switch things up on the fly. This is particularly important were a character or actor just isn’t gelling with the audience. Or indeed a plot.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sod it. Just hopped on Amazon and grabbed the digital versions.
See you in a few hours!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Something that I’ve just realised.....
How did Skynet send the T-1000 and T-X back through time?
It’s established that nothing inorganic can go back. Hence the T-800 was the choice, as it had a fully organic covering. And why everyone appears in the past naked (one assumes pure cotton or silk clothing etc was lost).
Shhhhh, T2 cannot be blamed. Don't think about it. Thinking is bad for enjoyment.
Or maybe Skynet slathered them in stem cells Futurama style. Don't wonder why evil Skynet didn't surgically insert a plasma rifle into some poor shmuck and shove him through with Arnie, either. Or coat an HK (or heck, a nuke) with one metric Louie Anderson of human skin tissue and send that back.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Kyle Reese: "I have to fight and kill a terminator without any energy weapons??"
Resistance tech: "Actually, we've figured out a way for you to bring back a plasma grenade, maybe two. But we'll need a lot of lubricant..."
How did Skynet send the T-1000 and T-X back through time?
It’s established that nothing inorganic can go back. Hence the T-800 was the choice, as it had a fully organic covering. And why everyone appears in the past naked (one assumes pure cotton or silk clothing etc was lost).
T-1000 and T-X don’t have that covering though?
Iirc, sending something inorganic back would make it explode in a horrible mess. But I suppose that wouldn't actually harm the T-1000, he could go back, explode, and then pull himself together and go about his business anyway
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: You completely misunderstood his meaning. T1 is a closed loop in that the ending position of all the characters and pieces is the starting position. Cause and effect are complete. T2 screws all that up for a schmaltzy feel-good ending. It retcons the rules that make the first movie work, weakens the dramatic effect and character arcs, and then introduces an open-ended, causality-free space-timeline for the benefit of a happy ending that explores literally the most boring possibility out of the myriad of potential paths the timeline could take from there. I mean, I love T2, but that film really broke the franchise.
I disagree with it being schmaltzy, I think having an undefined future is far more interesting generally. It can go really well.... or far worse. The initially established timeline at least has the humans win in the end. The new one Sarah's managed to trigger doesn't even have that guarantee.
I'd be interested in what you think of how Dark Fate seems to have approached that aspect, if you've seen the spoilers.
Casualty, I guess I'm including the canon-adjacent deleted scene with old Sarah Connor enjoying not having been nuked. With the "open ended" timeline, I'll continue to believe Sarah is hilariously wrong about having averted Jedgement Day, and everything she has done is still part of the same causality loop from T1.
Yes, that would mean ignoring the main theme of T2 and the existence of every other Terminator movie*. Oh no.
*The T-1,000,000 from Terminator 3D: the stunt show is still canon and always will be. I won't hear otherwise.
How did Skynet send the T-1000 and T-X back through time?
It’s established that nothing inorganic can go back. Hence the T-800 was the choice, as it had a fully organic covering. And why everyone appears in the past naked (one assumes pure cotton or silk clothing etc was lost).
T-1000 and T-X don’t have that covering though?
Apparently the "mimetic poly-alloy" is close enough to count.
Or maybe Skynet slathered them in stem cells Futurama style. Don't wonder why evil Skynet didn't surgically insert a plasma rifle into some poor shmuck and shove him through with Arnie, either. Or coat an HK (or heck, a nuke) with one metric Louie Anderson of human skin tissue and send that back.
If Skynet had had more than tghree milliseconds to shove the closest infiltrator unit into the time machine and give it a rudimentary mission briefing, it might have done that.
Mind you, the amount of Terminators sent back in the SCC series kinda messes with that idea. Perhaps it lost because it had sent all the Terminators available back in time and there were none left to fight off the human forces in its present?
I think SCC plays by different time travel rules than the later films. - As in various Terminators were from different timelines as a result of alterations that people were making to it.
And of course, the potential that some of them weren't even working for skynet at all...
The T-1000 being sent back without being organic is pretty much glossed over with the hope that the audience doesn't notice. Theres a few other things that don't quite add up with T2 but I guess at the end of the day its just a movie and because we were having a good time we're happy to play along.
Honestly, the whole "nothing inorganic can go back, unless it's a robot with human flesh wrapped around it" mechanic, was probably the dumbest thing in the original movie. Minor enough to be handwaved away, but mechanically nonsensical. I don't really care that it was ignored in future films.
LordofHats wrote: Honestly, the whole "nothing inorganic can go back, unless it's a robot with human flesh wrapped around it" mechanic, was probably the dumbest thing in the original movie. Minor enough to be handwaved away, but mechanically nonsensical. I don't really care that it was ignored in future films.
Can just imagine all the build up and then Arnold appears and just sags to the floor.
It was always a bit silly logic wise, but I think it's been a useful plot "rule", I was never very interested in the future war itself and preventing the time traveller characters from bringing future gear back is a smart move.
LordofHats wrote: Honestly, the whole "nothing inorganic can go back, unless it's a robot with human flesh wrapped around it" mechanic, was probably the dumbest thing in the original movie. Minor enough to be handwaved away, but mechanically nonsensical. I don't really care that it was ignored in future films.
You can always head-canon it by assuming the humans didn't actually understand time travel very well at all and made a bunch of bad assumptions. Maybe they thought they only had one shot to get it right so figured they'd take the least chances possible? I've already mentioned the whole "no fate" stuff is clearly not true, but they go on believing it, possibly because all their information about time travel comes from soldiers, not physicists.
I dunno that 'no fate' is untrue, so much as it hasn't stuck so far.
Even pushing Judgement Day ever backwards gives those In The Know ever more time to prepare, and stockpile weapons. So when it does kick off, humanity is that little bit better prepared.
It could well get to the point where Judgement Day is pushed so far back, man has a chance to catch up with the concept of AI properly, and programme in safeguards. Or just decide giving it total control is a daft idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's an interesting comment I missed earlier....
[quote=DenofGeek article[/I]Franchise creator James Cameron has recruited Deadpool director Tim Miller "to direct a reboot, a conclusion"
It's that word...conclusion. That's intrigued me, as it could mean we're not left with a cliff hanger this time, and instead get a 'final say'.
Now, that of course won't mean no more Terminator films EVAR. But, if this film is about finishing up? That actually gives me more enthusiasm over a 'first part of another trilogy'.
I just watched Genysis again. I completely forgot that it starts with the original Judgment Day date (1997) but then has some time travel shenanigans push it to 2017, thus completely ignoring all events from T3 (maybe Salvation too)
Now that I think of it, Genesis portrays John saving Reese at a young age. Much younger than when they meet in Salvation, so those events are out too.
So Dark Fate isn't the first sequel to ignore previous ones
Davis is a big part of why this project kept my attention and his emphasis on her is heartening. She's very compelling on screen, and I enjoy just the huge gulf between her different roles.
Idly browsing on my lunchbreak, looking for more info as to what we might expect.
James Cameron on the intended Rating wrote:I think, tonally, what makes this a direct sequel to T1 and T2 is as much about the tone as it is about the narrative: It’s R rated, it’s grim, it’s gritty, it’s fast, it’s intense, it’s very linear. The whole story takes place in 36 hours. It’s not this kind of grandiose, complex story. It’s just very focused on the characters, it’s very now, it’s very present and it’s just a fast white-knuckle ride.
So, that's fairly encouraging to me. Whilst far from a guarantee of quality, it does suggest the tie-in marketing (if there'll be any) is the secondary thought. And that the tale is set over 36 hours gives hope of a tightly plotted film.
But then....
James Cameron, again wrote:And we're pretending the other films were a bad dream. Or an alternate timeline, which is permissible in our multi-verse. This was really driven more by [director Tim Miller] than anybody, surprisingly, because I came in pretty agnostic about where we took it. The only thing I insisted on was that we somehow revamp it and reinvent it for the 21st century.
I'm so-so on this one. It does make sense to have it set now. But the 'revamp and reinvent' isn't exactly filling me with confidence. Nothing against the team behind it. Just, y'know, Reboots and that.
Next?
Cinemablend's article wrote:Hamilton and Schwarzenegger will be joined by new stars, including Natalia Reyes as Dani and Mackenzie Davis as Grace. Grace is a super-soldier sent back to protect Dani, who is apparently very important to the future in the way Sarah Connor was in the first two Terminator movies.
Emphasis is mine. So she's not in fact a Terminator - but someone with widget bionic bits. That's at least an interesting addition - and it does make some kind of sense. Now, whether or not you accept the Resistance would have the tech and facilities for such an upgrade? That's up to you. Though one does suppose she could be from further in the Future?
And over to Mr Cameron again.
[quote=Yeah, you got to ask yourself, 'Why did they make these characters look and sound like Arnold?' There has to be a reason. So yeah, it has flashed through my mind that there has to have been a prototype. There has to have been a guy who's DNA was harvested from -- that they grew the organic outer layer that they grew the Terminator from...and that presumably was a real person at some point. [...] I've asked myself these questions but it's never been resolved...so stay tuned! We're talking pretty seriously now about doing some new Terminator films or possibly a trilogy and you'll just have to see what surfaces in those.
Well, that's an interesting concept, no?
As for John Connor? It seems he is in the film - but it may be flashbacks, as apparently they're using a body double for a young Edward Furlong.
Could it be that John Connor's Skynet has been thwarted, and with Judgement Day pushed back (that much we can very safely assume), the mantle of Prime Target has shifted to someone else?
I know and fully understand the wider apprehension about yet another Terminator film. But based on the above info, I've some hope we're in for a treat.
The bit about the resistance supersoldiers using drugs to cope with pain really struck me as a small bit significant sign that he isn't just talking a big game about keeping it gritty and grounded.
Thanx for those quotes Mad Doc. I'm starting to look forward to this. It will be interesting to see if they do indeed shift the "prime target" away from John Connor. I've always identified with John Connor since I share the same birth month/year (Feb 1985) and have thus been his same age in all the films. Still looking forward to how 2029 turns out .
But the "must save John Connor" schtick was getting old and I didn't really like the "twist" in Genysis, so it will be refreshing to see it shift to someone else. However it's more than just a Resistance leader
I'm not sure you can reinvent a Cold War supercomputer for the 21st century and keep it the same story. I'm also dismayed that they feel they need to explain the Arnies as special, especially since we have seen other series of terminators. We're practically into Solo levels of backsplaining the details.
Skynet: And who are your people? Where do you come from?
Arnie: First location memory... T... T... A tundra?
They could potentially update it a bit, at least in terms of the story.
We know Judgement Day was postponed. But how far?
As for the Arnie model? Who knows. I mean, if they’re intended to infiltrate one base at a time, with No Survivors (one assumes there’d be other hardware on hand to cover the exits. Think a Terrier down a rabbit hole), they may not need that many separate models?
I mean, seriously. This could be awful. But the more I hear, the more I think this is going to be at least a worthy sequel to the first two.
Tbh I like this cast and still like the Terminator premise enough that all I really need is for this to be better than the other post T2 movies to consider it a success. I think too that people were thrown off by the crummy CGI in the early trailer, but from looking at the Cameron featurette, there's quite a bit of practical work, which I'm cautiously enthused about.
Based on what they're saying though (36 hour time frame, the drugs thing, and some of the Sarah Connor spoilers), I'm expecting/hoping for a solid action movie with a bit more substance to it than the rest and I'll be satisfied, something in the realm of Winter Soldier would do me nicely.
Entertainment Weekly wrote:Had you assumed that you were done playing Sarah?
HAMILTON: It was many, many years of just being sure that it was done, that I was done. I kept saying, “Yeah, yeah, if I’m in one now it’s like the geriatrics era.” [Laughs] Which is actually kind of true. I never saw this coming, which made it that much more interesting.
MILLER: But you know what, I honestly believe this would be the best version of the movie after the second one. This will be more clear when you see the movie, but the first two movies really deal with time as a loop, what’s happening is the same thing that happened before and everybody is fighting to ensure that happens again. And Jim had this lucky break that he only broke that rule at the end of Terminator 2 when Sarah destroys Cyberdyne, it’s the first thing that happened that hadn’t happened before, and so it was going to change the future — but no one knew how. And I don’t think the movies that came after it really explored that in a clean way like I believe we are, with true consequences, and it makes perfect sense for Sarah to be the one to face those consequences since they were her choices to begin with.
That’s.....encouraging. Acknowledging the flaws in the other three, and keeping them in mind.
I suspect the jury remains very much out elsewhere, but I really am looking forward to this now.
Entertainment Weekly wrote:Had you assumed that you were done playing Sarah?
HAMILTON: It was many, many years of just being sure that it was done, that I was done. I kept saying, “Yeah, yeah, if I’m in one now it’s like the geriatrics era.” [Laughs] Which is actually kind of true. I never saw this coming, which made it that much more interesting.
MILLER: But you know what, I honestly believe this would be the best version of the movie after the second one. This will be more clear when you see the movie, but the first two movies really deal with time as a loop, what’s happening is the same thing that happened before and everybody is fighting to ensure that happens again. And Jim had this lucky break that he only broke that rule at the end of Terminator 2 when Sarah destroys Cyberdyne, it’s the first thing that happened that hadn’t happened before, and so it was going to change the future — but no one knew how. And I don’t think the movies that came after it really explored that in a clean way like I believe we are, with true consequences, and it makes perfect sense for Sarah to be the one to face those consequences since they were her choices to begin with.
That’s.....encouraging. Acknowledging the flaws in the other three, and keeping them in mind.
I suspect the jury remains very much out elsewhere, but I really am looking forward to this now.
There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth, though 007 seems to have drawn fire for a while.
I'm liking the sense this is all about Sarah Connor's "path", there's a distinct Old Man Logan feel to the images of her here that I am all the way into. It's also far easier to headcanon a logic to the loops and paradoxes if "canon" is defined by Sarah's personal perspective.
And I mean, Linda Hamilton has lived. She isn't BS'ing, she basically retired to take care of her parents a few years back and only seems to show up in stuff now if her friends are involved or she thinks it will be fun.
Sidenote, I did not expect beardy and grey to be such a good look for Arnie. The lengths they went to keep him "young" in some of the other Terminator offshoots seem increasingly silly considering how boss he looks there.
My own personal exciteometer creeps up yet another notch.
WHAAAAAAAT!?!? Yeah, jazzed about this now too. Is this the first time an actor has returned to play John Connor? Him being a different actor each movie is one of my biggest gripes
I’m now beyond ‘this will, probably, suck’ and instead on ‘please don’t suck’.
Much as I can find good in all the movies, barring Salvation, I do get they’re not objectively good, so much as better than their reputations. But this? So far I’m hearing all the right things.
According to IGN it is now confirmed that Arnold will be playing the T-800 from The Terminator(yup, the robot dude that was burnt, smashed, blown in half, crushed and had its chip and arm melted in molten lava), once again in Dark Fate and his name is now Carl...
I get the skepticism, but we don’t yet know how that could pan out. So let’s not prejudge.
Certainly not prejudging the film as every film deserves a fair crack of the whip. Just can't see how thats going to pan out, as you say Doc.
I reckon its a reconstruction of the original T-800, and that Cyberdyne backed up the lab research at a second facility, and somehow it escaped to...live in a cabin in the woods, having difficulty accepting what it is...or something.
Personally, I was thinking Arnold would be playing a human character for a change. Hes old enough and different enough for it. Would have been interesting if Sarah had trouble trusting him simply because of his resemblance to her stalker from '84(shades of "come with me if you want to live" from T2). Could have been a nod to Micheal Ironsides character in "nowhere to hide"...
But this is just thinking out loud and still going to see the movie in October. The previous Terminator sequels were puzzling before release, and were even still in places, yet enjoyed them. At this point I can't see this one being any better, but thats okay.
I feel quite comfortable prejudging this movie before even seeing the trailer, since it's the latest in a franchise that hasn't released a good movie in 28 years. That's before laying eyes on CGI that I would expect from Scyfy, not a major Hollywood franchise.
Mentioning that Edward Furlong is returning doesn't improve the outlook in my mind... he's put on some country miles.
Spoiler:
But who knows. Maybe it will be an amazing story. Maybe Edward Furlong will be perfect as the embittered never-was who spent his whole life training for greatness that never came. Maybe the worst looking CGI is in the trailer, which would be an absolutely insane thing to do, but who knows.
SamusDrake wrote: According to IGN it is now confirmed that Arnold will be playing the T-800 from The Terminator(yup, the robot dude that was burnt, smashed, blown in half, crushed and had its chip and arm melted in molten lava), once again in Dark Fate and his name is now Carl...
I'm not super interested in the future war, but any thoughts on the flicker of it we saw here?
I know the Eisenhorn adaptation is unlikely to delve into the frontline battlefield stuff all that much, but if it did I wouldn't mind if it looked a lot like that...
Ouze wrote: I feel quite comfortable prejudging this movie before even seeing the trailer, since it's the latest in a franchise that hasn't released a good movie in 28 years.
Isn't this the first movie that Cameron has been involved in since T2 though? Something to do with rights reverting?
Ouze wrote: I feel quite comfortable prejudging this movie before even seeing the trailer, since it's the latest in a franchise that hasn't released a good movie in 28 years.
Isn't this the first movie that Cameron has been involved in since T2 though? Something to do with rights reverting?
Yeah, he's producing, rather than writing or directing though. That's hard to interpret, because these days "Producer" can mean anything from actually producing - ie, "person who makes the film actually happen" to just an easy way to slap a known name on a poster.
So it's hard to know *how* involved he is, and I know some folks are understandably wary of that, after his endorsement of Genisys.
We do know he had some input in the script though, and Miller mentioned he had to get Cameron's sign off for the casting, which suggests to me he was actually reasonably hands on, that's a fairly nuts n' bolts thing to want in on.
I wouldn't pin too many hopes on the "return" of Furlong's John Connor. Some supposed leaks have come out as reported on YouTube that I've spoilered below.
Spoiler:
Supposedly he is only in a short scene early on. A cgi de-aged version of him gets killed by another de-aged Arnold T-800, the one that he is playing in the trailer, and a similarly cgi Sarah witnesses it. Obviously, I can't confirm this myself so...
warboss wrote: I wouldn't pin too many hopes on the "return" of Furlong's John Connor. Some supposed leaks have come out as reported on YouTube that I've spoilered below.
Spoiler:
Supposedly he is only in a short scene early on. A cgi de-aged version of him gets killed by another de-aged Arnold T-800, the one that he is playing in the trailer, and a similarly cgi Sarah witnesses it. Obviously, I can't confirm this myself so...
Spoiler:
It was spoiled a good while ago by a chap called ViewerAnon on Reddit, who had a basically flawless record in screener leaks.
He's since deleted everything, but whatever my word is worth, I saw it while it was up, and I know his reputation for accuracy from Avengers spoilers - which he took a huge amount of flak for it, but turned out to be spot on. Basically everything else he said has also cropped up in trailers, so personally I would take his spoilers as gospel, with the caveat that the special effects in the version he would have seen are unfinished and that fake spoilers were circulated since.
Regarding that plot point in particular, it sent a lot of angry types on Reddit into a tailspin, but honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think it was absolutely necessary. So long as JC was in play, we always knew how the story was destined to end. Now we don't, which opens up the stakes altogether. He was never the core of the movies for me anyway, I'm far more interested in the effect this has on Sarah and where it leaves her.
Be wary of the other spoilers on r/Terminator, because a lot of them are junk. I don't know if anybody collected all of VA's stuff anywhere before he deleted.
Thanks. I believe I was it in a Mr. H Reviews video where he referenced/mentioned the earlier rumors but I didn't investigate further myself. The inclusion of that character/actor isn't going to make or break the film for me personally.
Also hints more at the plot. As we suspected, Sarah Connor only postponed Judgement Day, and with that, heralded a 'New John Connor' messiah type - presumably the Mam of whom is the protectee here.
Really geared up to see this now. As frequent readers will know. I've found something to enjoy in every entry so far - but this is the first where the trailer is showing true promise of living up to the first two.
AduroT wrote: I find it interesting that Gabriel seems to have a personality. You’re going to get one heck of a ping, my whole body’s a weapon.
Yes. One of the things that struck me from the earlier clips released was that when his endoskeleton is approaching everyone on the overpass to finish them off, it has a distinct swagger to it. It's weird but I think I like it?
At least the special effects in this trailer don't look only slightly better than Sharknado so I guess that's an improvement. I'm still not excited about it and have no plans to see it. I'll comfortably wait until the reviews from sources I trust are out.
At this point...dunno. Not interested in the new killer machines, but it would be nice if the cast is having a good time regardless. That alone can sometimes save a movie.
The cgi is passable now, if unspectacular, although for some reason I'm really into the visual of a terminator breaking off a kroot houndy looking duplicate.
General opinions about the overall quality aside, I’m just hoping the film isn’t reliant on them.
Despite the praise for the same in the first two, neither film particularly relied on them in place of plot and pacing.
Yes, they do play an important role - and for my money, The Terminator is the better use. For most of the film, they were used sparingly, but cleverly. Patching up his own face, clearly demonstrating it wasn’t even remotely human etc.
T2? The effects broadly hold up - but were used more, but then the T-1000 required them (to the point without research, I feel it was built around the effects, rather the effects built around the T-1000).
Here we’re seeing snippets of action scenes. And I feel that when you’re fighting a Terminator, those should be fairly short and sweet, certainly not overly complex and long. You can essentially screw it up enough to GTFO, take it out through *whatever*, or you die. None of those should last long on-screen.
Seems okay I guess, though I hate the 'I'll be back'. Don't they ever come up with anything new?
I don't even bother to reason the timeline anymore as it is so messed up so I only hope the movie has good Terminator action. If Judgement Day is so inevitable, maybe just get it over with and start the fight anew?
Sarah Connor helped humanity dodge [i)a[/i] Judgement Day. But, it still happened in the end.
When? I don’t recall either trailer giving that away.
But stop, and think about what’s occurred, technologically, since T2 was released. Consider that curve heading to the future. And how much more advanced a killed AI might be accordingly.
I'm kind of reticent but hopeful, having Sarah back might begin to put things right as everything after 2 was a downhill slide (Ms Clarke's phoned in effort doesnt count)
I gotta agree that, while improved from the first trailer months ago, the CGI is still noticeably bad several times in this more recent IMAX trailer (admittedly in Russian). I have obviously no definitive proof if the scenes have been redone or if the trailer is just reusing in part older footage though. Regardless, with T2 being such a groundbreaking movie for its time and this Malibu Stacy supposedly being the direct followup (yet again) but with a new hat (James Cameron's peripheral involvement), I can't imagine it improving that much so close to release if this is representative of the final quality.
We in the UK are three weeks from having the opportunity to see this.
Will defo be heading out to the cinema for this one. As mentioned umpteen times, I’ve a high tolerance for ropeiness in Terminator films, and I am intrigued by all this.
So far, nothing I’d consider overly spoilerish in the trailer - unlike T2 and Genisys in particular.
The way they discuss it as a chase movie definitely makes me think it's worth seeing in a cinema if it's worth seeing at all tbh.
The CGI still doesn't look perfect, but I can live with it. What I'm really looking forward to is the fight inside the crashing plane because that looks to be almost all practical
Indeed Frazzled, TFA wasn't much to boast about. Least favourite of those movies, but somehow it does well when you can't decide which of the first two films(ANH, ESB) you want to watch for the evening. And at the very least, it was nice to see Carrie, Harrison, Peter and the other one...can't remember his name because he was only in it for only 30 seconds...
I wonder if Dark Fate will be that kind of movie? It already seems like a cross between the first two with not much else to add. It will be nice to see Linda, Arnie and...the other one...can't remember his name because he was a kid at the time and was cocky and irratating and annoying....
SamusDrake wrote: Indeed Frazzled, TFA wasn't much to boast about. Least favourite of those movies, but somehow it does well when you can't decide which of the first two films(ANH, ESB) you want to watch for the evening. And at the very least, it was nice to see Carrie, Harrison, Peter and the other one...can't remember his name because he was only in it for only 30 seconds...
I wonder if Dark Fate will be that kind of movie? It already seems like a cross between the first two with not much else to add. It will be nice to see Linda, Arnie and...the other one...can't remember his name because he was a kid at the time and was cocky and irratating and annoying....
Frequently the first reviews that are allowed are typically glowing regardless of the quality of the film as rated by the actual movie going audience. That's unfortunately even more true of films stressing certain points of view that are in tune with that of many critics. I've seen too many good movies trashed and too many bad ones lauded by the supposed professionals not on the merits of the actual films itself so I'll wait for the amateur fan reviews before deciding if I want to spend my own money. YMMV. Nothing from the trailers has enticed me to change my mind but rather dissipated my existing enthusiasm (referencing the horrible early trailers specifically but not this much more meh one).
warboss wrote: Frequently the first reviews that are allowed are typically glowing regardless of the quality of the film as rated by the actual movie going audience. That's unfortunately even more true of films stressing certain points of view that are in tune with that of many critics. I've seen too many good movies trashed and too many bad ones lauded by the supposed professionals not on the merits of the actual films itself so I'll wait for the amateur fan reviews before deciding if I want to spend my own money. YMMV. Nothing from the trailers has enticed me to change my mind but rather dissipated my existing enthusiasm (referencing the horrible early trailers specifically but not this much more meh one).
Indeed. Further, they've beaten the topic to death. Even if a very good film...come on something new please.
I dunno like, if I bothered to go to the effort of going to the cinema and paying to see a classic film and they said "SURPRISE! We're showing you this thing you have no interest in instead." I'd be pretty cheesed off.
Yodhrin wrote: I dunno like, if I bothered to go to the effort of going to the cinema and paying to see a classic film and they said "SURPRISE! We're showing you this thing you have no interest in instead." I'd be pretty cheesed off.
Most of the tickets were distributed through a Dark Fate twitter competition and it was marketed as a Dark Fate event with a 20 minute sneak preview, so it was a safe bet they were, tbf
Studios only risk that sneak screening stuff if they're reeaaally confident the audience will spread a good word for them, and seems that's the case here, feedback has been positive.
It's not a horrid film, its just not very good either. It suffers from a bad lead in between Bale's meltdown and the twist being in the trailers. It mostly suffers from in no way delivering the vision of the future promised in the first two movies. Setting wise its just kind of a bland, empty dystopia. It's remarkably bright while also being completely devoid of color. Instead of legions of Terminator frames marching through streets trampling on piles of skulls (its honestly very 40k), we get this big dumb CGI robot capturing people to kill later so the heroes have a chance to save them.
Hybrid guy, while entirely forgettable outside of that gimmick is fine. He really suffers from being a directors obvious little pet creation that the movie seems determined to set up as the real hero of the franchise for I guess sequel bait? This is the first time the series feels out of ideas of what to do with John so we might as well make him the villain; a bad idea that gets worse. Here we just get a super confused plot leading up to either John is actually a terminator and Skynet actually wins or John is actually Hybrid guy and the humans only win because a Terminator because of its inner humanity or something. Instead we get neither; just a really baffling heart transplant to replace a girder sized hole in John's chest because its the best they could do with the movie they'd filmed to that point.
There's still plenty in the film to enjoy though. It's really far from bad. Take out what little references the movie has to the brand and its dumb, fun action flick in line with Battle Los Angeles. It's really its ties to the franchise that make a mess of things.
Part of my issue is that the Skynet Hardware just doesn’t look right, at all.
The toys we saw in 1, 2 and even 3, the non-infiltration units, were lumbering, arguably clumsy, perhaps more accurately precise and measured.
Hunter Killers weren’t seen to be nippy. The tanks especially.
Where were my ZOMG LAZORS!? Why is there a scene from Transformers in my movie?
In fact, I think I’ve just put my finger on what irks me so much. It feels like a fan effort, cunningly stitched together from various other films.
And in particular? Why two wheeled speedy Terminators, with a USB plug?
You want fast? Trike at a minimum, quad to go off road. There’s no logical reason to make them two wheeled. USB, ShmUSB. Design a new port, one the humans don’t have access to - or just do it wirelessly with firewalls up the wazoo.
For some reason I thought it was out in November. Oh well, Thursday it is!
Not sure how easy it will be to watch Dark Fate with "just forget the last three movies" and strongly feel that the producers should have started from scratch with a "spiritual successor" instead.
Lets face it, Terminator was a product of the 80s/90s and the whole time travel thing began to lose credibility in T2( but it was a great encore so we didn't split hairs ), let alone the sequels that followed. The new assassin looks like a reworking of the T-800 / T-1000 double team in Genisys and Mackenzie's character is somewhat similar to Marcus Wright. We're also back in the "you merely postponed judgement day" territory...
Don't get me wrong - I hope its great for the sake of a £20 trip to the pictures on Thursday, and I'm happy to give any Terminator film a fair chance. But I doubt its going to storm the box office and there will be another "forget the last few sequels" pitch.
Some of the early reviews are pretty good - not the sneak preview ones which are pretty much all going to be hand-picked true believers, but actual early reviews. One goes out of its way to point out the "CGI is a mixed bag", so I don't think it's going to get magically better in the next week or whatever is left.
That's not really a dealbreaker per se, but it's a reasonable expectation that a franchise with a historically heavy emphasis on special effects doesn't somehow look worse than an installment from 28 years ago.
I'll be the first one to admit I was wrong if this turns out to be good.
Ouze wrote: Some of the early reviews are pretty good - not the sneak preview ones which are pretty much all going to be hand-picked true believers, but actual early reviews. One goes out of its way to point out the "CGI is a mixed bag", so I don't think it's going to get magically better in the next week or whatever is left.
I've heard that, weirdly, the CGI is terrible but the practical is very good.
I was surprised by how much of it was practical when I saw this video, I have to admit I'd just assumed some of this was just done digitally.
I'm not really sure what to make of that? I mean, if you're doing it for real but people think it's CG, that's still probably a reflection on your style of some kind anyway?
Ouze wrote: Some of the early reviews are pretty good - not the sneak preview ones which are pretty much all going to be hand-picked true believers, but actual early reviews. One goes out of its way to point out the "CGI is a mixed bag", so I don't think it's going to get magically better in the next week or whatever is left.
That's not really a dealbreaker per se, but it's a reasonable expectation that a franchise with a historically heavy emphasis on special effects doesn't somehow look worse than an installment from 28 years ago.
I'll be the first one to admit I was wrong if this turns out to be good.
One of the earliest and most positive reviews was by a reviewer from Collider lauding how great the movie is on twitter... and that tweet was followed up with another reminding people about the special Collider run early screening followed by a special Q&A with the director. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
The one I saw was IO9, which I don't want to link here because it references a feminist angle tangentially and I don't want this thread locked before I even get to see the movie.
Comments about best since T2 are correct. And not in a ‘it’s less crap than T3’ etc. It’s a genuinely good film.
However. I expect it to be at least slightly divisive. Not in a TLJ marmite way. Instead, I think most people will be able to actively enjoy the film - just the exact level of enjoyment will range between 5.9 and 9.3 out of 10.
And yes, sadly some of the CGI is a bit ropey, but for me not distractingly so.
Defo worth seeing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Put it this way. In no way can I see this offering needing a Mad Doc Defends thread
Genuine moments of tension and suspense, and even some new style body horror, which we’ve not really seen them tackle since The Terminator.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, not gonna comment further because spoilers.
It’s familiar turf in so far as being a chase movie, but it’s not the TFA equivalent lazier reviewers have referred to. Far from it.
It gets bogged down a bit in the last act and somebody who has never heard humans speak takes over the dialogue for about ten minutes, but the first 2/3s are FIRE and it gets its footing back at the end. Flawed, but I hugely enjoyed it and Hamilton was done so dirty by those trailers, she's great. Mackenzie Davis would have run away with the movie easily against anybody else though.
I've seen a lot of jokes about it being faint praise to say it's better than the other post T2s, which is fair, but the distance is in miles. It's a really good action movie. Could have been a great action movie if they'd kept it all as tight as the first half, but I'd be delighted to see it again.
Had a good time and thankfully Arnold does NOT play the same T-800 from the '84 original and is more comfortable in this role than in his last two movies(T3 and Genisys). It was a final hurrah for Arnold - hes been through a lot lately - and just having Linda back for another movie was a welcome move. The new faces were really good too.
Those expecting something as good as the first and second installments will be disappointed, as this one is really covering the same ground from the last three sequels. Also, it lacks the blockbuster energy that a terminator movie needs - in the first two movies you have a memorable title sequence other movies can only dream of having, and while the music is decent enough it never stands out. And for the love of JC, the Terminator series needs to move on from the tired "I've been sent back to protect you" routine.
Is it a bad film? Certainly not and if you like robot thrillers you can do far, far worse. To the contary, I reckon you'll enjoy it.
Oh man yes. One thing I did love in the last act is how distinct their fighting styles are, and I loved seeing them figure out how to fight as a pair so much it felt almost like fanservice somehow. Grace felt very fully formed for a character who's only existed for this movie.
The baddieminator was much better than I expected too, probably not a character I'll think about in years to come, but the whole sequence between him trailing them to the border until they get in the helicopter made him feel like a genuine threat, they just could not shake him off and it definitely felt like Dani was within a few steps of being toast.
Also nice to see them pick up and run with the digital age threat.
This was first sort of touched upon in Terminator 3 : Rise of the Machines, and is one of the better touches in that movie.
But here, it's pulled off with greater skill. The Baddieminator here feels genuinely threatening. And that he has greater social skills than a T-101 is likewise a neat touch. Makes it a more convincing infiltration unit, as it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To the early, and entirely justified naysayers in this thread?
Expecting a "worthy successor " to the first two movies is setting oneself up for disappointment, but it is an enjoyable movie all the same.
Giving it a few days to reflect(yes, Terminator is THAT important, dammit!), I enjoyed Terminator: Salvation the most out of all the sequels beyond T2. Unlike the other Terminator sequels that rehash the formula of the first Terminator, Salvation does so thinly and instead opts for a strange blend of War of the Worlds and Saving Private Ryan. The others are always sending a protector back in time to ward off a new-improved cyborg, but with Salvation we join Marcus(a cyborg himself) on a nightmare tour of the future and his heroic mission to rescue Kyle Reese and to make sense of his "borrowed time". Arnold wisely takes a step back from the franchise and for the first time since the original his character(although a difference instance) is once again a brutal killing machine instead of the comic relief he has slowly become over time.
Instead of yet another T-800 and T-1000 hybrid, Salvation introduces other machines that inhabit the future. The Harvester is but the beginning of a thrilling action sequence, followed by motorbike cyborgs and even hydro-eels. We also become aquainted with the resistance itself. Speaking of which, Salvation boasts quite a few physical effects for its machines thanks to the skill at Stan Winston's studio.
Salvation is not a brilliant movie, but it does move the franchise outside its comfort zone. Its a shame Dark Fate wasn't as daring.
Saw it again. The bits where it stumbled are even more frustrating second time around because the bits it gets right it gets SO right.
There are some neat little details I hadn't noticed first time around, too, that texture the characters a little bit more. Grace's reactions to stuff early on make more sense when you know what's actually going on in her head (that "everybody dies" line in particular), and Linda Hamilton's performance is really, really good when the dialogue is on her side.
Well, seems it's done $12,000,000 box office so far, which doesn't seem too bad given it's current limited release.
For my recommendation? If you're a habitual cinema goer? Go see it. It's worth it.
If you're a more reluctant cinema goer? Eh, probs wait for home release/rental. I mean, it's good - but it's not something I feel you need to see in the cinema, but definitely something you won't regret watching.
I'd usually agree, but Idk, I think I'd be sorry I hadn't seen the early stuff in the factory and the road in a cinema. I'm toying with the idea of seeing it in 4D actually, could be a good opportunity to give that a try. I haven't done 4D before and I think it's a good candidate, apart from the stuff at Carl's place there's pretty much always something happening.
Yeah, I was wrong about this. It looked like hot garbage from the trailers but it was good. It wasn't amazing, but it was still easily the 3rd best in the franchise. The only parts where the cgi was bad enough to break immersion where in the trailer (when it jumps off the plane when on fire, and doesn't seem to be a finished shot honestly) and an earlier scene
Spoiler:
when they de-aged Arnold and he looked super, super fake, way worse than in Terminator Salvation - total uncanny valley.
But none of that mattered. It was a good, solid movie - due in no small part to really solid performances by Mackenzie Davis and Linda Hamilton, along with some really excellent action sequences and a fairly basic, non-convoluted plot. The Arnold elements were small and excellent in conception and execution.
As the third franchise reboot, I hope this one sticks, because it was the most successful at dumping the baggage the other ones had to deal with.
Casualty wrote: I'd usually agree, but Idk, I think I'd be sorry I hadn't seen the early stuff in the factory and the road in a cinema. I'm toying with the idea of seeing it in 4D actually, could be a good opportunity to give that a try. I haven't done 4D before and I think it's a good candidate, apart from the stuff at Carl's place there's pretty much always something happening.
If you mean 4DX where the seat moves and all that jazz, DEFINITELY DO IT FOR STAR WARS! Seriously, I MEAN IT! Last Jedi and Solo were incredible experiences for it! Oh, Atomic Blonde was brutal in the climatic fightscene on the stairs - I was begging Charlize to stop hitting me!
Yeah, Dark Fate should likewise be awesome too. Its a shame they dont do 4DX for Starship Troopers Klendathu drop - that would be the tits!
Sorry for caps locking but I really cannot recommend enough a 4DX Star Wars experience.
warboss wrote: Frequently the first reviews that are allowed are typically glowing regardless of the quality of the film as rated by the actual movie going audience. That's unfortunately even more true of films stressing certain points of view that are in tune with that of many critics. I've seen too many good movies trashed and too many bad ones lauded by the supposed professionals not on the merits of the actual films itself so I'll wait for the amateur fan reviews before deciding if I want to spend my own money. YMMV. Nothing from the trailers has enticed me to change my mind but rather dissipated my existing enthusiasm (referencing the horrible early trailers specifically but not this much more meh one).
The reviews I’ve heard have been “the third best Terminator film, but that’s a low bar”. This film at least remembers that Sarah Connor is the main character of the Terminator series, so I’ll give it that as a plus.
I’ve got a subscription card to my local cinema, but even with that I’ve not been to the cinema in a few months; nothing released recently has even been good enough to see for free.
Even with James Cameron and Linda Hamilton reuniting with Arnold Schwarzenegger in an R-rated sequel which stole from the Star Wars: The Force Awakens playbook, Terminator: Dark Fate once again failed to avoid Judgment Day because audiences just don’t care about the Terminator as a brand, an IP or a franchise.
Terminator: Dark Fate faced judgement day once again yesterday, earning just $10.6 million on Friday. The sci-fi sequel, directed by Tim Miller, produced by James Cameron, and starring franchise vets Linda Hamilton and Arnold Schwarzenegger alongside newbies Mackenzie Davis, Natalia Reyes and Gabriel Luna, was the third attempt to revive the Terminator series in a decade. McG’s Terminator: Salvation, a future war sequel starring Christian Bale, earned just $125 million domestic and $375 million on a $200 million budget. Alan Taylor’s Terminator: Genysis, a time-twisting retcon that paired Schwarzenegger with Emilia Clarke and Jai Courtney, earned $89 million domestic and $441 million worldwide on a $155 million budget, including $113 million in China. Tim Miller’s Terminator: Dark Fate, following the Star Wars: The Force Awakens playbook, is the third strike for the sci-fi series that won’t die and can’t live.
Terminator has become a metaphor for itself, with filmmakers trying different things only to face the same outcome: Judgment Day is inevitable. Hollywood may yet figure out that audiences who aren’t die-hard sci-fi geeks have little interest in additional Terminator movies. Making a “future war” sequel with Christian Bale as John Connor didn’t do it. Making a time-twisting retcon, presumably modeled after Star Trek, didn’t do it. Bringing back the old gang for a passing-the-torch sequel like Star Wars: The Force Awakens didn’t do it. The pitches change, the hooks differ, but the result is always the same. Just because folks liked The Terminator in 1984 and lost their minds over Terminator 2: Judgment Day in 1991 does not mean they have any interest in additional Terminator movies. Just because something was once popular doesn’t mean audiences care for a new iteration.
The sheer hubris, to try to convince audiences three times in a row to want something that they clearly don’t want, at great expense, is frankly appalling. The “this time folks will bite” attitude is what has left theatrical moviegoing in grave peril as streaming and television networks have filled the gap for something beyond cover records of yesterday’s former glories. It is one thing to try a reboot, strike out and move on. It is another thing to pull solid grosses but at too high a cost, like Sony’s Amazing Spider-Man, and then team with a rival and keep the budget in check for the second reboot. It is another entirely to take the same dead franchise and presume that the same audiences who said “No, thank you” not once but twice will somehow magically embrace it on the third try.
Terminator: Dark Fate should earn a $26.7 million opening weekend, or less than the $29 million Fri-Sun debut (in a $42 million Thurs -Mon launch) of Alita: Battle Angel. Depending on legs, it’ll open over/under the $27 million Fri-Sun launch (of a $44 million Wed-Sun debut) of Terminator: Genisys. Yes, that’s between the $33 million debut of Dark Phoenix and the $25 million launch of the Fantastic Four reboots. Those unrequested brand exploitations also seemed to make all the wrong choices leading up to release. While X-Men: Apocalypse earned $122 million in China, Dark Phoenix was rejected with just $65 million. Sure enough, the $113 million earned by Terminator: Genisys (from a $26 million opening day at the end of a blackout period) meant diddly, as Dark Fate is heading toward $24 million opening weekend and under-$55 million total in China after a $9.45 million Friday.
Terminator: Dark Fate is being distributed by Paramount domestically and Fox/Disney overseas (aside from China, where Tencent is distributing). It would be cruelly ironic if it bombed in North America while scoring overseas, giving Disney an un-needed victory. Even if using the Force Awakens playbook (a diverse/inclusive new cast with the franchise stars as mentors in a loose remake of the first flick) was the right call, it was two movies too late. After two lousy Terminator movies (following the decent Terminator: Rise of the Machines, which earned $433 million worldwide in 2003 but wasn’t intended to relaunch the franchise), even a better offering wasn’t enough to entice audiences since they just didn’t care about this franchise. Terminator: Dark Fate is bombing in North America because audiences didn’t want to see it. When audiences don’t care, all the “fixes” in the world can’t prevent Judgment Day.
I can respect that people enjoyed it, hell, I may enjoy it when it streams on Netflix or AmPrime, but I’m not at all surprised. I felt a bomb dropping the second Linda Hamilton used a M72 on a running humanoid target in the trailer. I don’t know why that bothered me so much in a movie about time-traveling shape-shifting cyborgs. But that was the first groan. Then the shoddy CGI. And then some cringe dialogue.
And I’m kind of glad it bombed to be honest, though I feel bad for Linda Hamilton putting so much work getting bodied up. I had a larger post explaining why I’m glad it bombed, but I think its best summed up that this franchise lost touch with what made it great. Its not unique in that regard.
warboss wrote: Frequently the first reviews that are allowed are typically glowing regardless of the quality of the film as rated by the actual movie going audience. That's unfortunately even more true of films stressing certain points of view that are in tune with that of many critics. I've seen too many good movies trashed and too many bad ones lauded by the supposed professionals not on the merits of the actual films itself so I'll wait for the amateur fan reviews before deciding if I want to spend my own money. YMMV. Nothing from the trailers has enticed me to change my mind but rather dissipated my existing enthusiasm (referencing the horrible early trailers specifically but not this much more meh one).
The reviews I’ve heard have been “the third best Terminator film, but that’s a low bar”. This film at least remembers that Sarah Connor is the main character of the Terminator series, so I’ll give it that as a plus.
I’ve got a subscription card to my local cinema, but even with that I’ve not been to the cinema in a few months; nothing released recently has even been good enough to see for free.
Go see it. The bar is low, but this comfortably exceeds it.
but I think its best summed up that this franchise lost touch with what made it great. Its not unique in that regard.
What I liked about it was that it felt like it *had* done that in some key ways, and I'm sorry it won't get its dues for that. Ultimately I feel it's paying off bills in goodwill the previous movies racked up for it, rather than answering for its own faults.
It's not perfect, but it was right in the ways I wanted a terminator movie to be when T3 came along. The characters matter, it makes time to stop and think now and then, and it takes the source seriously.
I loved it and I'm sorry to think that if and when there's yet another attempt at rebooting the IP, they'll revert to something with all the sharp edges sanded off. Throwminators and TV Guide dartboard casting ahoy.
I can respect that people enjoyed it, hell, I may enjoy it when it streams on Netflix or AmPrime, but I’m not at all surprised. I felt a bomb dropping the second Linda Hamilton used a M72 on a running humanoid target in the trailer. I don’t know why that bothered me so much in a movie about time-traveling shape-shifting cyborgs. But that was the first groan. Then the shoddy CGI. And then some cringe dialogue.
And I’m kind of glad it bombed to be honest, though I feel bad for Linda Hamilton putting so much work getting bodied up. I had a larger post explaining why I’m glad it bombed, but I think its best summed up that this franchise lost touch with what made it great. Its not unique in that regard.
This has been my feeling so far as well. To me, what made the Terminator so awesome was that it wasn't something you just stood and fought, it was an inexorable evil that you fled from and destroyed at great cost through clever ingenuity. Seeing the Terminator being fought hand to hand in the trailer, Marvel Avengers style, is what gave me that "bomb" feeling.
That said, I haven't seen it yet, and there's some impressive gun pr0n in the trailer (Beretta ARX160 & GLX160, Fostech Origin 12, etc), so I hope my initial reactions are in error. I'm heartened by some of the positive reflections people are having here.
it wasn't something you just stood and fought, it was an inexorable evil that you fled from and destroyed at great cost through clever ingenuity.
I'm honestly not trying to belabour a point here, but that is literally the entire structure of this movie. It's one of the things I've seen it criticised for, that it's basically a single ongoing chase.
One of the characters even says what you've said here almost word for word, repeatedly.
Yet....what is The Terminator if not a single, long chase?
This is where I’m actually, for once, pissed at professional critics. Because they compare it to The Force Awakens.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I like the first two entries in the Disney trilogy. But I also kinda get the criticism.
This is not the same. Yes, it hits familiar beats. Yes it’s a reunion of the two most iconic characters. But it’s not a lazy attempt. It works with the lore, and runs kinda by the numbers. But not slavishly.
This is a good movie. And an excellent addition to the lore. It works within the lore of the first two, and cherry picks the interesting (and ultimately squandered) bits of the others.
I really do like this one. It’s far from perfect, but it is very entertaining, and that’s not bad.
it wasn't something you just stood and fought, it was an inexorable evil that you fled from and destroyed at great cost through clever ingenuity.
I'm honestly not trying to belabour a point here, but that is literally the entire structure of this movie. It's one of the things I've seen it criticised for, that it's basically a single ongoing chase.
One of the characters even says what you've said here almost word for word, repeatedly.
As I said, hadn't seen it, just going off what I saw in the trailer, and glad to hear it's more in that vein than I was led to believe. It looked *real* marvel-esque in the preview.
I swear, I could see this coming like it was driving down the freeway in a semi truck while "You Could Be Mine" by Guns & Roses blares through the speakers.
The greatest spoiler is what the actual Terminator has been doing.
That's pushing the bounds of "so stupid it's hilarious".
BobtheInquisitor wrote: In context, it works. The execution worked. The film had a lot of heart.
It's cool that you liked it, everyone has a preference. I... "didn't buy a ticket and managed to see it", we'll leave it at that.
But "having a lot of heart" is what they say about the slow kid that comes in last, too. I mean, sure- at least he tried, I guess... but sometimes wisdom is knowing when "trying" becomes "a waste of time and resources that isn't worth making a point that you tried".
)
