Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

-

I saw the trailer. It will be the worst movie of the franchise.

That's a hot take and almost certainly wrong!

(Maybe)

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.

Yeah I think that's the kind of bar you can roll over by accident.

Not expecting another T2, but I would be fairly confident it's better than T3, so it'll be worth my popcorn money at least.

To be fair, none of the sequels are necessary.

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.

Just finished watching an episode of Sarah Connor Chronicles and "John Henry" is painting some minis!

Washed his brush real good, too!

 Strg Alt wrote:
I saw the trailer. It will be the worst movie of the franchise.

I dunno, I feel like Genisys is going to be a very low bar to limbo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SamusDrake wrote:
Just finished watching an episode of Sarah Connor Chronicles and "John Henry" is painting some minis!

Washed his brush real good, too!

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.

 Ouze wrote:

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...

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

 Xenomancers wrote:


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...

SamusDrake wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Casualty wrote:

 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.

SamusDrake wrote:

 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'm pretty sure they're supposed to look tired and worn out.

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?

 Galef wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:

 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.

Just another thing to admire about Terminator 3.

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....

Could be interesting, no?

This movie looks like a dookie-heap.

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.