- Joined
- May 1, 2018
>inb4 they pull the john connor is just a title excuse
Terminator: Dark Fate - Cause we need another one of these apparently.
- Thread starter Gordon Cole
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2015
See, I disagree. Maybe he owes someone a favor or believe that this movie needs to exist in order to get my point: a future war movie. A future war movie done right unlike Salvation. I heard rumors that can't be proven that he wanted the 3rd movie to be the future war but he lost the rights to the franchise in a divorce and so we got Rise of the Machines in its place.
You would think once he got it back he would oversee a future war movie. Or perhaps he thinks that he'll live forever and only he has the right to direct a future war movie?
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2018
That's exactly what they're going to do. They're going to claim that "John Connor" is a mantle, like Batman.
Think about it. This whole universe is set up around John Connor saving humanity from Skynet in the future. If they're going to kill John Connor in this movie, which the leaks have told us that this is exactly what they've done, then they have to replace him with another John Connor.
- Joined
- May 31, 2019
My Photoshop-fu isn't too fancy, but I put together an image of how the Trooninator might look if xey were an actual girl:
kadoink
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 29, 2019
John Conner is a mantle, which is why he was seen as an adult in the opening of the second film. Makes the whole series a lie really because then theres even less reason for the second film to exist.
- Joined
- May 19, 2019
Geez. It feels like Hollywood has nothing more to do except reuse older properties.
They want strong women, but don't want them to be feminine at all?
That sounds like it defeats the purpose of having a female character lead in the first place.
I never got the deal about that in the first place.
They want strong women, but don't want them to be feminine at all?
That sounds like it defeats the purpose of having a female character lead in the first place.
- Joined
- May 19, 2018
I was under the impression that Cameron only made movies these days to finance his
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
I don't understand anything about James Cameron, I don't understand how a once such talented guy could turn into such a pussified hack.
Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, Terminator 2 and True Lies were all great movies, but then Titanic and Avatar were gay ass bullshit.
Welcome to the 2010s, where nothing makes sense.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2016
Titanic is a masterpiece. Fuck you.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2015
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2016
Plinkett consistently says the movie is great in this review. I think you didn't watch the video or just remembers the fleshlight joke.
By the way, I disagree with him but still likes this review. But if you think RLM is the owner of the truth you are gay and a cuck.
By the way, I disagree with him but still likes this review. But if you think RLM is the owner of the truth you are gay and a cuck.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2018
Exactly. For people that can't seem to shut up about women they don't seem to understand them at all.
To Quote Ya Boi Zach: "SJWs just don't human very well."
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2016
In regards to the "John Connor is just a title" theory, bear in mind that there was something similar in an earlier draft of Terminator Salvation, where John is killed and his skin is grafted onto Marcus' mechanical body to keep his image alive. So this isn't entirely new, but it doesn't make it any less stupid, and the studios have been trying to pull off this shit for a while.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2017
This movie is about strong Latina women and brave transgender people.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
Ok, it's not the worst movie ever, but as the Plinkett review points out, it could have been a lot better, with just a few tweaks to make it less simplistic.
- Joined
- May 31, 2019
Sheesh, do we need a Titanic thread in the Multimedia section? No, Titanic is not a masterpiece. It is technically very proficient, ambitious and workmanlike. The second part of the film dramatically presents the events of the sinking about as well as anyone could - condensing and rearranging events to create a narrative that flowed well and which upheld the major themes of the story. On a technical level, the film earned all of its Oscars (even if the continuity of the final moments of the sinking wasn't perfect.)
Titanic was a good film. But it wasn't a great film. These were the reasons why:
1. The "modern day" framing story went on waaaaaay too long. It's obvious Cameron included the deep sea exploration section of the movie to wank over his hobby. You could cut the entire section down to the bare bones (or excise it entirely) and have a film that flowed far more smoothly.
2. The premise of the film. Cameron sold it to the producers as "Romeo and Juliet on the High Seas." One can't argue that, commercially, it was the right decision to make as teen girls made up a huge portion of the repeat viewership. Morally? It was a bit questionable. If you can't see why placing a teenybopper romance as the centerpiece of a major tragedy is bad, then imagine you're a Jewish movie producer and someone comes up to you and says "I want to make a movie about a sweeping young romance (starring a popular teen heartthrob) that happens in the midst of tragedy - it'll be "Romeo and Juliet in Auschwitz!" I imagine it would be a hard sell. A serious-in-tone disaster movie - one that centers around several different characters from different backgrounds - would have been much more appropriate for this material (and more interesting to boot.) While watching the Titanic movie for the first time, I kept thinking to myself "Why are we watching a cliched romance starring a couple of bland characters being menaced by cartoony villains when I would much rather be watching a story centered around the "unsinkable" Molly Brown, or any of the other fascinating real life characters who were on the Titanic?"
3. It had few really nuanced characters. Rich people (apart from a few good ones) were portrayed as either thoughtless or assholes. And the film portrayed many real life crewmembers in an unflattering light. There are scenes where Jack and Rose bully and yell at ship stewards who are just trying to help them, and a scene that implies that the crew deliberately locked poor people below decks with large iron gates. (Accounts of this happening are rare and of dubious veracity.) Considering that only 192 of the 885 men in the Titanic crew survived, it seems rather unfair for said crew to be portrayed as mere obstacles for Jack and/or Rose to overcome. And I'm sure the family of Officer Murdoch were happy to have their relative shown as taking a bribe from a rich man to guarantee him a place in one of the lifeboats.
4. Leonardo DiCaprio was way too young and babyfaced for his character, who was written as a more world-wise, experienced (and possibly older) person, with a wide variety of travel under his belt.
5. The dialogue. Dear God, the dialogue. Cameron can't write dialogue for shit, unless it involves Space Marines or snappy, action one-liners.
Lastly, a lot of people praise Titanic for its accuracy, but it really wasn't all that accurate. The interiors of the First Class section of the ship were based on the Mauritania, which had lighting sconces and carpet. (The interiors of the Titanic were far blander.) You can find a whole website detailing all of the goofs and inaccuracies here. My favorite quotes from that website are these:
"In the dining saloon, Ismay is told by Jack that he won the tickets thanks to a lucky hand at poker. This should have caused Ismay's eyebrows to raise. Jack's admission that he was from third class would have sent him back to steerage post haste due to the strict quarantine and segregation laws in place on immigrant ships. "
"Jack is seen strolling round the ship with ease. In truth, this would not have happened. There were very strict rules on segregation as this might prevent any communicable diseases from spreading. The concept of the whole film is a farce."
So, the entire premise for the story is based on a lie. The second Jack, a third class passenger, was discovered to be in the First Class section, he would have been either tossed back into steerage, or arrested and shipped back to Europe upon arrival in America for breaking quarantine AND the law. (The latter would probably have happened, since Cal was gunning for Jack and was looking for an excuse to have him arrested.)
2. The premise of the film. Cameron sold it to the producers as "Romeo and Juliet on the High Seas." One can't argue that, commercially, it was the right decision to make as teen girls made up a huge portion of the repeat viewership. Morally? It was a bit questionable. If you can't see why placing a teenybopper romance as the centerpiece of a major tragedy is bad, then imagine you're a Jewish movie producer and someone comes up to you and says "I want to make a movie about a sweeping young romance (starring a popular teen heartthrob) that happens in the midst of tragedy - it'll be "Romeo and Juliet in Auschwitz!" I imagine it would be a hard sell. A serious-in-tone disaster movie - one that centers around several different characters from different backgrounds - would have been much more appropriate for this material (and more interesting to boot.) While watching the Titanic movie for the first time, I kept thinking to myself "Why are we watching a cliched romance starring a couple of bland characters being menaced by cartoony villains when I would much rather be watching a story centered around the "unsinkable" Molly Brown, or any of the other fascinating real life characters who were on the Titanic?"
3. It had few really nuanced characters. Rich people (apart from a few good ones) were portrayed as either thoughtless or assholes. And the film portrayed many real life crewmembers in an unflattering light. There are scenes where Jack and Rose bully and yell at ship stewards who are just trying to help them, and a scene that implies that the crew deliberately locked poor people below decks with large iron gates. (Accounts of this happening are rare and of dubious veracity.) Considering that only 192 of the 885 men in the Titanic crew survived, it seems rather unfair for said crew to be portrayed as mere obstacles for Jack and/or Rose to overcome. And I'm sure the family of Officer Murdoch were happy to have their relative shown as taking a bribe from a rich man to guarantee him a place in one of the lifeboats.
4. Leonardo DiCaprio was way too young and babyfaced for his character, who was written as a more world-wise, experienced (and possibly older) person, with a wide variety of travel under his belt.
5. The dialogue. Dear God, the dialogue. Cameron can't write dialogue for shit, unless it involves Space Marines or snappy, action one-liners.
Lastly, a lot of people praise Titanic for its accuracy, but it really wasn't all that accurate. The interiors of the First Class section of the ship were based on the Mauritania, which had lighting sconces and carpet. (The interiors of the Titanic were far blander.) You can find a whole website detailing all of the goofs and inaccuracies here. My favorite quotes from that website are these:
"In the dining saloon, Ismay is told by Jack that he won the tickets thanks to a lucky hand at poker. This should have caused Ismay's eyebrows to raise. Jack's admission that he was from third class would have sent him back to steerage post haste due to the strict quarantine and segregation laws in place on immigrant ships. "
"Jack is seen strolling round the ship with ease. In truth, this would not have happened. There were very strict rules on segregation as this might prevent any communicable diseases from spreading. The concept of the whole film is a farce."
So, the entire premise for the story is based on a lie. The second Jack, a third class passenger, was discovered to be in the First Class section, he would have been either tossed back into steerage, or arrested and shipped back to Europe upon arrival in America for breaking quarantine AND the law. (The latter would probably have happened, since Cal was gunning for Jack and was looking for an excuse to have him arrested.)
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
Yup, it needed to lose the sappy love story and be more of an ensemble disaster movie like those 70s ones like Poseidon Adventure, The Towering Inferno and Earthquake.
Following a large cast of characters from all walks of life would have been way more interesting than "nearrrrrrrrr, farrrrrrrrrrrrr, wherever you areeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"
In fact I dare say someone some day needs to make a more realistic remake like that, especially since the CG in the movie is dated and crappy looking today (almost no 90s CGI holds up today save a few shots in Jurassic Park)
Following a large cast of characters from all walks of life would have been way more interesting than "nearrrrrrrrr, farrrrrrrrrrrrr, wherever you areeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"
In fact I dare say someone some day needs to make a more realistic remake like that, especially since the CG in the movie is dated and crappy looking today (almost no 90s CGI holds up today save a few shots in Jurassic Park)
kadoink
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 29, 2019
Thats the problem though. That wasn't cannon because Cameron had little to nothing to do with it. This film ignores all the others that came after T2 and is the new cannon. All the passion and emphasis on the character in the first film and all the work put into him in the second film are negated if the rumor is true that John gets shotgunned in the first 5 min of the film. Its a cheap trick, its a lazy choice, and it ruins the first 2 films because all the emphasis on this characters importance isn't just gone, it never really existed.
John Conner isn't a mantle that can be picked up like Batman, what made this character so important is that he was a strong born leader who managed to save humanity from the machines,. One guy manages to bring hope to whats left of humanity and saves it. The character was meant to be an allegory for Jesus Christ of all things(J.C, get it?) having the emphasis be on the name John Conner and not an individual takes away from the power of the idea that one person is that special.
History has been full of people who were that special and saved their countries from being wiped out in the past and they're important because of that. Doing a retarded "Im Spartacus" moment with this series and changing it to "Juan Conner" because of current year politics is another reason to save your money.
Lot of talent in this film I was excited to see, but I can make up my own silly shit in my head anyways.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2015
Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2018
The first two films in the franchise are great.
The Terminator is great because it's one of those dark gritty films from the period, that somehow managed to add in layers of sci-fi in a very well done and convincing manner. Arnold in his prime was perfect for the Terminator, and the film had one of those rare effects in movies. An idea that is so well done, it instantly becomes part of the popular culture.
Terminator 2 was probably the realization of everything Cameron would have wanted to do with the first movie, but was restricted in doing so because of budgets and time constraints. Even again they managed to re-invent the wheel, by taking what was the most menacing character of the first film and making the T-1000 even more bad ass. Instead of it being man vs machine, it's now machine vs machine, and it works. Even if the time travel elements are paradoxical, the film was good enough you could forgive those elements of idiocy, and the ending was just as poignant as the first.
The rest at this point just seem to be derivative, and failed experiments by big companies to recapture the magic of the first two films by throwing as much shit at the audience as they think would land.
Terminator 3, was just a fairly milquetoast bland plot, that was a rehash of 2, but without anything new to add. The script was boring and the actor for John Connor was miscast. Though I doubt a better actor could have salvaged it, the film was a turkey.
Salvation had better casting and budgets but suffered from poor scripting as well as bad pacing. Again there was the opportunities there for a better film, though what it came off as was a piss poor action film, with again predictable drama and really bad pacing between long dramatic sequences and action. Another Turkey.
Genisys took the already convoluted paradox plot lines of the past 4 films in the franchise, and said a big fuck you by adding in another layer of a time paradox. Without adding much to the story, all it did was add in nano bots, made John Connor the bad guy, and fucking with the timeline wasn't enough, made Kyle Reese second bitch to Sarah Connor. (Who again was miscast.) Another Turkey.
So with this new film caveat emptor, I'd wait until the first week its been out and the youtube reviewers have had a chance to actually give an accurate review of the film. (The film press is so corrupt at this point, they make bent game journo's look like amateurs.)
The plus side of all of this, or a reason for optimism is that it has returning members of the original cast and most important Jim Cameron is producing it and over seeing it. The right to the franchise returned to him in 2018 so, with the original writer/director overseeing production (his own money) with the two iconic cast members returning for a send off, it has the likelihood of actually being a decent solid film.
The downside is this I suspect. With the cast of the original getting older, they will likely have much reduced roles over a period of time. It already looks from the trailer that Arnie won't be in the movie for the majority of it. I suspect in the attempt to transition the trilogy to new faces, they're likely going to kill off Sarah and the Terminator at some point over the next two to three films. Hopefully in some poignant way. (Though Arnie dying in the series is nothing new.)
The Terminator is great because it's one of those dark gritty films from the period, that somehow managed to add in layers of sci-fi in a very well done and convincing manner. Arnold in his prime was perfect for the Terminator, and the film had one of those rare effects in movies. An idea that is so well done, it instantly becomes part of the popular culture.
Terminator 2 was probably the realization of everything Cameron would have wanted to do with the first movie, but was restricted in doing so because of budgets and time constraints. Even again they managed to re-invent the wheel, by taking what was the most menacing character of the first film and making the T-1000 even more bad ass. Instead of it being man vs machine, it's now machine vs machine, and it works. Even if the time travel elements are paradoxical, the film was good enough you could forgive those elements of idiocy, and the ending was just as poignant as the first.
The rest at this point just seem to be derivative, and failed experiments by big companies to recapture the magic of the first two films by throwing as much shit at the audience as they think would land.
Terminator 3, was just a fairly milquetoast bland plot, that was a rehash of 2, but without anything new to add. The script was boring and the actor for John Connor was miscast. Though I doubt a better actor could have salvaged it, the film was a turkey.
Salvation had better casting and budgets but suffered from poor scripting as well as bad pacing. Again there was the opportunities there for a better film, though what it came off as was a piss poor action film, with again predictable drama and really bad pacing between long dramatic sequences and action. Another Turkey.
Genisys took the already convoluted paradox plot lines of the past 4 films in the franchise, and said a big fuck you by adding in another layer of a time paradox. Without adding much to the story, all it did was add in nano bots, made John Connor the bad guy, and fucking with the timeline wasn't enough, made Kyle Reese second bitch to Sarah Connor. (Who again was miscast.) Another Turkey.
So with this new film caveat emptor, I'd wait until the first week its been out and the youtube reviewers have had a chance to actually give an accurate review of the film. (The film press is so corrupt at this point, they make bent game journo's look like amateurs.)
The plus side of all of this, or a reason for optimism is that it has returning members of the original cast and most important Jim Cameron is producing it and over seeing it. The right to the franchise returned to him in 2018 so, with the original writer/director overseeing production (his own money) with the two iconic cast members returning for a send off, it has the likelihood of actually being a decent solid film.
The downside is this I suspect. With the cast of the original getting older, they will likely have much reduced roles over a period of time. It already looks from the trailer that Arnie won't be in the movie for the majority of it. I suspect in the attempt to transition the trilogy to new faces, they're likely going to kill off Sarah and the Terminator at some point over the next two to three films. Hopefully in some poignant way. (Though Arnie dying in the series is nothing new.)