|
Groovelord Neato posted:I think a Terminator reboot is the only film that would ever make me angry. I've started to come around on reboots. A bad reboot is better than a bad sequel. When it's a bad reboot - it gets forgotten about. A bad sequel will always have to be watched/kept for completists. The fact that next Ghostbusters movie is a reboot - is a GOOD thing. Expectations are lowered and continuity isn't put into effect. A movie series about time travel with little continuity between the last few movies is a BIG problem.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 03:21 |
|
|
I still love that idea someone tossed out once of a Terminator reboot that goes back to the initial concept of the Terminator being a wiry little fucker that could actually blend in on a social level while Reese is a hulking mountain of a man whose spent his entire life on a battlefield and is just this side of crazy, where it fools you into thinking that it's going the way of the original movie only to reveal that the one you thought was Reese is actually the Terminator and vice-versa. Played by Ryan Gosling and Tom Hardy, respectively.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:I still love that idea someone tossed out once of a Terminator reboot that goes back to the initial concept of the Terminator being a wiry little fucker that could actually blend in on a social level while Reese is a hulking mountain of a man whose spent his entire life on a battlefield and is just this side of crazy, where it fools you into thinking that it's going the way of the original movie only to reveal that the one you thought was Reese is actually the Terminator and vice-versa. Played by Ryan Gosling and Tom Hardy, respectively. I think there needs to be a Terminator movie where it's essentially Terminator 1, except you find out at the very end that if the Terminator had killed Sarah Connor there would be no war at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
CaptainHollywood posted:I've started to come around on reboots. A bad reboot is better than a bad sequel. When it's a bad reboot - it gets forgotten about. A bad sequel will always have to be watched/kept for completists. This is actually a good point that I hadn't thought of even though I disregard 3, Salvation, and the TV show anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
CaptainHollywood posted:I think there needs to be a Terminator movie where it's essentially Terminator 1, except you find out at the very end that if the Terminator had killed Sarah Connor there would be no war at all. zoom in on the dead terminator's hand "product of connor industries"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
This movie is a reboot. The entire thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
I feel like reboots don't work well with Terminator or any iconic Arnold-character movies. The movies are so ingrained with Arnold playing this character. Contrast this with something like James Bond where there's been successful movies / Bond actors after Sean Connery, since there's nothing really unique to Connery or his portrayal that defines Bond as a character.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Gatts posted:This movie is a reboot. The entire thing. Yeah, that's what I thought. It's not really a sequel, it ret-cons everything in all the films and starts fresh. It's just different in that the old continuity interacts with the new continuity, which isn't unprecedented, but doesn't happen often.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Ross posted:I feel like reboots don't work well with Terminator or any iconic Arnold-character movies. The movies are so ingrained with Arnold playing this character. Contrast this with something like James Bond where there's been successful movies / Bond actors after Sean Connery, since there's nothing really unique to Connery or his portrayal that defines Bond as a character. Personally, I'm not so sure about that. Every other important character has been recast at least once. At this point, John Conner has been played by 6 different actors in various parts of the franchise (7 if you include an infant used in one scene of T2). The fact that Arnold's characters have never been recast makes him exceptional, more than anything. On the other hand, the failure of Salvation and TSCC might suggest that Terminator really does need Arnold to succeed. I certainly imagine that it would have been difficult to get people to invest in the new movie if Mr. Schwarzenegger hadn't been on board.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:58
|
|
INH5 posted:Personally, I'm not so sure about that. Every other important character has been recast at least once. At this point, John Conner has been played by 6 different actors in various parts of the franchise (7 if you include an infant used in one scene of T2). The fact that Arnold's characters have never been recast makes him exceptional, more than anything. Sure, but John Connor ages. He goes from a kid to a man. The Terminator... not so much.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
INH5 posted:Personally, I'm not so sure about that. Every other important character has been recast at least once. At this point, John Conner has been played by 6 different actors in various parts of the franchise (7 if you include an infant used in one scene of T2). The fact that Arnold's characters have never been recast makes him exceptional, more than anything. This just highlights my point though. You can recast John Connor, not even have Sarah Connor, have a less interesting villain than the previous film, and still have a decent Terminator movie (T3). When you don't feature Arnold in a central role you get Terminator: 4: Salvation: The Future Begins. Arnold defines and carries the franchise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Really, the way to update it would be to include our own generations unlikely muscleman-cum-actor: Dwayne Johnson.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Dwayne Johnson operating with Terminator 1 caliber efficiency while just being his normal affable, charming self would be legit terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Arnold isn't central to Terminator at all. It just seems that way because he was inexplicably in 3 and his CG self was in 4 during the only interesting scene in the film. And that wasn't "It's Arnold, hooray!" it was, "Hey, that's like the thing from the Terminator movies, instead of this boring melodrama we've had for over an hour." That said, they really should stop making them. James Cameron was the central ingredient, and now we've had movies that (very poorly) tell all the interesting bits that were left untold. Doing a Star Trek time travel reboot is just them admitting there's no story left to tell with the setting, so they're going to just retell existing ones. If Genisys is as bad as it looks, we'll officially have more bad Terminator movies than good ones, and that's a shame. Then again I guess Sarah Connor Chronicles already heavily contributed to the Terminator name being associated with complete poo poo more often than quality.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
There's a lot you could explore within the Terminator universe, yet time after time the series keeps returning to like the same four characters. It's played out and is more or less an admission that they can't write an interesting character that isn't named Connor or played by Arnold Schwarzenegger.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Arnold isn't central to Terminator at all. Your posts continue to become progressively worse in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Arnold isn't central to Terminator at all. This is an absolutely preposterous statement. It's the most famous role by one of the most famous actors ever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
^^ In a way he's not wrong. Terminator's story is one of time travel and fate. The narrative involves the human resistance and the end of humanity against the machines. You don't necessarily need Arnold himself or his model, or hell you could tell a different sort of time travel movie targeting someone else important instead of the Connors.Neo Rasa posted:Dwayne Johnson operating with Terminator 1 caliber efficiency while just being his normal affable, charming self would be legit terrifying. I really don't know why they didn't do that. gently caress his infiltration would go so well people would be like "Haha oh Dwayne!" As they're being bru tally murdered. Terminator went back in time, something went weird science, hooked up with Bill and Ted, learned about humanity, and spat himself out in modern times to kill pr protect Sarah Connor. Bam! Gatts fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Then again I guess Sarah Connor Chronicles already heavily contributed to the Terminator name being associated with complete poo poo more often than quality. I never understood why the show was popular among a fairly vocal group because as a giant fan of the first two movies it came off like horrible fan fiction that didn't understand what made those films interesting. It really should've just ended with T2 because the story was told.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Gatts posted:You don't necessarily need Arnold himself This hasn't historically been true. Of course you could make a Terminator movie without Arnold, the question is if you can make a good Terminator movie. I guess we will see some more evidence if this next movie is as terrible as the last. Ross fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
It kind of feels like with all the time travel fuckery going on in this movie that they could legit set it up so that the sequel to this could be the Terminator/Back to the Future crossover from How it should have ended. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXPIQpldNw8
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Caros posted:I actually agree with this, so long as it isn't a stand in for them not understanding how it fits together. Letting the audience figure it out for themselves is fine, but not understanding it when writing the script can lead to horrible, horrible plot holes. Then just toss in some time travel events that contradict each other, like Terminators from different timelines showing up. That seems to be what they're doing for T5, since it's doing the reboot style thing but having multiple Arnolds and stuff. Neo Rasa posted:Dwayne Johnson operating with Terminator 1 caliber efficiency while just being his normal affable, charming self would be legit terrifying. Cracking corny jokes while covered in somebody's blood or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:I never understood why the show was popular among a fairly vocal group because as a giant fan of the first two movies it came off like horrible fan fiction that didn't understand what made those films interesting. I had very little hopes for TSCC but the show I think turned a corner when it brought in Derek and new Cromartie. The three dots story I think derailed the show pretty hard and once you get out of that story it improves a lot, again. Sure, the idea of there being rogue Terminator units, alternate timelines, future war stuff and what not could feel like fanfiction, but I think it really did expand a lot of concepts of Terminator mythos to something much different than a movie franchise would ever give it the time or the chance to explore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
CaptainHollywood posted:Also - if you haven't seen Breakdown (directed by Jonathan Mostow of T3) - go watch it. One of my favourite "average man gets put into one of the worst situations ever" kind of movie. Echoing this, it's a pretty dang good movie no one remembers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 06:03
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:I had very little hopes for TSCC but the show I think turned a corner when it brought in Derek and new Cromartie. The three dots story I think derailed the show pretty hard and once you get out of that story it improves a lot, again. The thing about TSCC is that, sure, it has a bit of a fanfictiony feel, but it doesn't really come up with anything new or contradictory but builds on concepts introduced in Terminator 2. For example, rogue Terminators - isn't that precisely what the T-800 is once he's able to write his own programming? After all, there has to be a reason why Skynet deliberately disabled that functionality. Let's say the T-800 had survived after the steel mill, or had been active for much longer... how would his distinct machine intelligence have evolved? TSCC tries to grapple with those sorts of ideas. The issues with the show come from its plotting and how it was written both in the middle of a huge strike and in the midst of the 'MYSTERIOUS CONSPIRACY MYSTERY' plots phase of the early 2000s (see also: Heroes, Lost, Battlestar Galactica). This is the biggest flaw in the show. It really did give the ideas exhibited in the films a bit of a exploration and breathing room. For a TV series version of the Terminator mythos, it was really quite good. It was, however, radically different to what I imagine people expected from a Terminator TV series and when that combined with the plotting issues of the show, really hurt it.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 06:18
|
|
Vaall posted:Your posts continue to become progressively worse in this thread. Nah, they're just true things you don't wanna hear. Ross posted:This is an absolutely preposterous statement. It's the most famous role by one of the most famous actors ever. Do you honestly think if they had picked some other action hero guy the movies wouldn't work at all? Especially 1? Sure, they'd probably not be quite as memorable without that austrian accent, but they'd still be excellent films. Putting Arnold in 3 and kind of in 4 was self-indulgence and only served to limit the scope of those movies and their universe. T1 and T2 probably didn't need sequels, but 3 didn't need to be a Ghostbusters 2 type sequel that hits the same beats as T2 every chance it gets, either. Groovelord Neato posted:I never understood why the show was popular among a fairly vocal group because as a giant fan of the first two movies it came off like horrible fan fiction that didn't understand what made those films interesting. I guess for some people, the "lore" of Terminator is more interesting than the performances, cinematography, special effects, cool moments, themes, etc. and the series might have delivered on that if you could stomach the awful writing and acting. To me it just felt like giving Terminator the Smallville treatment.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:The thing about TSCC is that, sure, it has a bit of a fanfictiony feel, but it doesn't really come up with anything new or contradictory but builds on concepts introduced in Terminator 2. For example, rogue Terminators - isn't that precisely what the T-800 is once he's able to write his own programming? After all, there has to be a reason why Skynet deliberately disabled that functionality. Let's say the T-800 had survived after the steel mill, or had been active for much longer... how would his distinct machine intelligence have evolved? A point in its favor was that it was handling the whole "Mysterious Conspiracy Mystery" really well. It really did seem there was a genuine plan to the show and wasn't rear end in a top hat writers drawing things out of a hat. However I agree, it's main problem was the plotting and that it came in a bad time with the writers strike. That period in Season 2 where there was like 3 poo poo episodes in a row just killed ratings, somewhat undeservedly as a bunch of pretty good episodes came right afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I guess for some people, the "lore" of Terminator is more interesting than the performances, cinematography, special effects, cool moments, themes, etc. and the series might have delivered on that if you could stomach the awful writing and acting. To me it just felt like giving Terminator the Smallville treatment. On a TV budget, I forgave or didn't notice a lot of those issues, though. I actually liked most of the cast, the effects were mostly good with the exception of the T-1001 stuff they tried to do and some of the larger effects. Also, it was a show with plenty of cool moments, to me: The death of Derek, John considering suicide, Cameron being buggy, the rogue Terminator units, alternate timelines, the Grays, Self-Made Man, etc. It was a lot better than I figured it would be and was one of the few TV shows I made a point of watching every week. edit: If I have one issue, it's that time travel seemed like it became far too routine in the show I get it was a useful tool for the show to keep introducing new threats and missions, though, and I even mostly forgive that. JediTalentAgent fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 07:10
|
|
Shadoer posted:However I agree, it's main problem was the plotting and that it came in a bad time with the writers strike. That period in Season 2 where there was like 3 poo poo episodes in a row just killed ratings, somewhat undeservedly as a bunch of pretty good episodes came right afterwards. Those would be the two 'Skynet town' episodes and then the episode that was literally 'it was all a dream!' right? Yeah. Those were horrid.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:Those would be the two 'Skynet town' episodes and then the episode that was literally 'it was all a dream!' right? I sort of liked the Skynet town, if I remember it right. The All A Dream episode and the episode of Sarah being hurt and having to stop the the guy who played Trip on the Enterprise felt like they were sort of wasted filler episodes that I don't think really added anything to the series.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Nah, they're just true things you don't wanna hear. I too argue with hypotheticals & non sequiturs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
Gatts posted:^^ In a way he's not wrong. Terminator's story is one of time travel and fate. The narrative involves the human resistance and the end of humanity against the machines. You don't necessarily need Arnold himself or his model, or hell you could tell a different sort of time travel movie targeting someone else important instead of the Connors. At this point you might as well make a new time travel movie that deals with choices, consequences and fate. Looper was about all of those things, had nothing to do with the Terminator, and it was really good! Sure, you could make a whole bunch of movies that tell you more about the "universe," but they will just dilute the experience like the Matrix sequels did. The two glimpses of the future in T1 told you everything you need to know: almost everyone died and poo poo is really bad. So when the Sarah survives at the end, you still feel that sense of discomfort precisely because you know that the future is still happening. The good guys "won," but it doesn't change anything. Terminator 1 is my favorite movie out of the series precisely because it tells a complete story. The future will be bad, I'm here to save you from a killer robot because your son is important, you are important because he will grow up without a father, plot twist it turns out I'm the father, time travel is funny like that. Boom, complete story, short and sweet. The other thing is, no other actor can do Arnold poo poo like Arnold does it. He is not necessarily a good actor, but he has the "it" factor that makes his characters unique and his movies entertaining. Anything with the word "Terminator" will immediately be compared to T1 and T2, aka the quintessential Arnold, and it will not win.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
Shadoer posted:A point in its favor was that it was handling the whole "Mysterious Conspiracy Mystery" really well. It really did seem there was a genuine plan to the show and wasn't rear end in a top hat writers drawing things out of a hat. I've recently been rewatching Season 2, and I can confirm that at the very least, Riley being from the future must have been planned from the beginning, because they were dropping hints from the very first episode that character appears in. Rewatching Season 2 after you know about the later reveals is a very different experience because of things like this. Shadoer posted:However I agree, it's main problem was the plotting and that it came in a bad time with the writers strike. That period in Season 2 where there was like 3 poo poo episodes in a row just killed ratings, somewhat undeservedly as a bunch of pretty good episodes came right afterwards. That's a common misconception. The string of navel-gazing episodes happened after the show was moved to the Friday Night Death Slot (which means the writing was already on the wall by that point), and they did not appear to cause exceptional rating decreases. A TSCC fan once did a detailed analysis of the ratings and concluded that the series showed a steady decline in ratings throughout its run, that this was because it just wasn't the sort of show that could succeed on network TV, and that the writer's strike is the only reason the show got more than one season, because it left it with virtually no competition when it started out. But regardless, I don't think those episodes were a good move on the writers' part. They must have known that the show's future was in jeopardy at that point, so those episodes would have been better spent actually developing the plot and hopefully wrapping things up before the end. Not that anything actually was wrapped up in the end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 12:59
|
|
INH5 posted:I've recently been rewatching Season 2, and I can confirm that at the very least, Riley being from the future must have been planned from the beginning, because they were dropping hints from the very first episode that character appears in. Rewatching Season 2 after you know about the later reveals is a very different experience because of things like this. Or was it? Someone on this Forum posted:Future John Connor was supposed to be this legendary guy who rose up to fight the machines but the machines knew nothing about him. How's that possible?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
Just rewatched T3, I know a lot of the time travel stuff in the series doesn't make sense but, if Judgement Day is inevitable, wouldn't that also mean Skynet's defeat is also inevitable? Making the entire endevour pointless?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Do you honestly think if they had picked some other action hero guy the movies wouldn't work at all? I think they would be nowhere near as good or memorable without Arnold's performances. I'm ignoring your "So you're saying these movies wouldn't work at all then?" strawman. See below: Pycckuu posted:The other thing is, no other actor can do Arnold poo poo like Arnold does it. He is not necessarily a good actor, but he has the "it" factor that makes his characters unique and his movies entertaining. Anything with the word "Terminator" will immediately be compared to T1 and T2, aka the quintessential Arnold, and it will not win.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
nexus6 posted:Just rewatched T3, I know a lot of the time travel stuff in the series doesn't make sense but, if Judgement Day is inevitable, wouldn't that also mean Skynet's defeat is also inevitable? Making the entire endevour pointless? Yeah, that's the irony of the series. Skynet both ensures its creation and its destruction simultaneously, so whether it does or doesn't send back the Terminator is equivalent to suicide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yeah, that's the irony of the series. Skynet both ensures its creation and its destruction simultaneously, so whether it does or doesn't send back the Terminator is equivalent to suicide. This is an interesting way to look at it, but I feel like the time travel mechanics aren't well-explained enough in the Terminator series to say with any certainty whether it's the case. The first movie could have implied that, given that it seemed to go with a "closed loop" theory of time travel. But then the subsequent movies stated that the future could indeed be changed. Even though T3 revealed that Judgment Day was inevitable, it was still clearly possible to alter the future in other ways. So it's conceivable that Skynet could eventually get it right and successfully kill John Connor in the past, while simultaneously ensuring its own creation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Amusing idea: "John Connor" did not originally exist, but was created as a fictional figurehead for humanity to rally around. Trying to kill him ironically lead to the meme spreading to the past, leading Sarah Conner to have a son named John Connor who goes on to lead the resistance due to his essentially miraculous knowledge about Skynet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 03:21 |
|
|
One thing I've not really managed to get my head around is: if Skynet succeeded, what did it expect would happen? If the terminator was successful, would John Connor in 2029 just magically vanish? Would the human resistance just give up? Doesn't Kyle say the terminator was sent back right as the resistance was storming Skynet, so presumably Skynet is already hosed at that point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 17:11
|
|