Terminator - Dark Fate

[MacReady]

31 minutes ago, seminoles1 said:

Is Kindergarten Cop #1? Because that movie is hilarious.

Last Action Hero is the best action satire ever made.

[seminoles1]

5 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Last Action Hero is the best action satire ever made.

You're Jack Slayer's favorite 2nd cousin in the whole world!

[thebestever6]

I thought this movie was excellent for what it was the force awakens of the terminator series.

The Rev 9 was so bad ***. 

[thebestever6]

On 11/4/2019 at 10:55 PM, Outpost31 said:

HOW THE **** do you justify that, CAMERON?

He justified it because the John Connor Saga got so worn out by the last 2 crappy terminators. 

[Uncle Buck]

 

 

 

1

On 11/5/2019 at 11:04 PM, Deadpulse said:

Honestly I am so happy that he is falling flat on his face with this. They marketed this flick as his grand return to the franchise as if he was some golden god of film making that could do no wrong. Titanic and T2, IMO, are his ONLY good flicks. For a career that spans almost 40 years thats pretty pathetic even if Titanic is a cinema milestone. I hated Avatar when it came out. Partly because those freaking glasses also give me pounding headaches and partly because "it's pretty" never satisfies me as a movie goer unless it means something. To me it was always empty visuals over a regurgitated and stiff acted Pocahontas in space. 

I agree.  The visuals in Avatar were spectacular, but ultimately they didn't mean much when paired with such a tired and predictable storyline. 

[Malfatron]

On 11/7/2019 at 10:48 AM, Outpost31 said:

Last Action Hero is the best action satire ever made.

If it wasnt for that kid, i would probably agree

I would say Predator, Robocop, Hot Fuzz, and Tropic Thunder are better action movie satires

 

 

[MacReady]

25 minutes ago, Malfatron said:

If it wasnt for that kid, i would probably agree

I would say Predator, Robocop, Hot Fuzz, and Tropic Thunder are better action movie satires

 

 

Don’t you ever call Predator a satire.  Don’t you ever.  Hot Fuzz eh, I consider that more of an action comedy than action satire.  It’s self-aware in parts, but I wouldn’t call it a satire.  Tropic Thunder definitely the funniest action satire, but not the best.  WTF are you even calling Predator a satire for?  You’re disappointing me.

[Malfatron]

19 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Don’t you ever call Predator a satire.  Don’t you ever.  Hot Fuzz eh, I consider that more of an action comedy than action satire.  It’s self-aware in parts, but I wouldn’t call it a satire.  Tropic Thunder definitely the funniest action satire, but not the best.  WTF are you even calling Predator a satire for?  You’re disappointing me.

Did you watch the first half of it?

[MacReady]

21 minutes ago, Malfatron said:

Did you watch the first half of it?

Don’t.

[MacReady]

This movie was bad.  It was really, really bad.  Really, really, really, really bad.

The first half hour to 45 minutes I was like, "Okay, this movie isn't so bad, I may have misjudged it before seeing it."  That was, of course, after ignoring the fact that Cameron thought it was a good idea to kill off John Connor in the first 5 minutes after complaining about how Newt and Hicks were killed off so unceremoniously in Alien 3. 

So ignore that.  Fine.  Also ignore that the movie was trying too hard to be politically poignant with cracking jokes throughout and trying to inject modern politics into an action movie (when has this ever worked?).  Also ignore that it tried so desperately hard to manufacture strong female leads for the sake of it.  That element was not nearly as creative and profound as you thought it was.  We all knew Dani was the new savior of humanity.  That twist was not remotely surprising.  The reveal wasn't great, either.  Suddenly Dani has cornrows and she's certified badass.  Lol.  God, that delivery was terrible. 

It was just Godawful in that respect.  Terrible.  So bad.  Sarah Connor didn't go from super meek and weak in one movie.  You can't do that.  This Dani girl was like 5 foot 100 pounds and you're trying to turn her into a heroine in a single movie with not one (Grace), not two (Sarah) but three (Carl) other characters you're trying to develop? 

Then you've got Grace, who has the presence and gravitas of a statue and you're trying to develop her, too? 

I've got no issue if you're trying to build another action heroine.  There are far too few of them that are worth a damn since the 80's.  But build one. 

If I had some positive things to say about it, I'd say that Sarah Connor was handled very well based on where they wanted to go (killing John).  She was really the only good thing about the movie, and I loved Linda Hamilton's performance in it. 

The action scenes in the first hour were good.  That first scene with Grace versus the Rev was really well-done, but...

They shouldn't have done the augmented thing.  That was dumb.  If you're in a future where you have an AI advanced technology try to kill your entire species, I can tell you right now you're not going to be augmenting yourself and you're going to have learned from your mistake of taking technology too far.  It would be more like sex in the AIDS crisis than people lining up to be augmented.  That was a dumb idea that shouldn't have made it. 

So you want to make a Terminator movie and you want to create a strong female lead.  Okay, quit being an idiot about it.  Don't throw three women into it because you're not going to get the development if all three of them are playing tug of war for development, much less if you try to develop a ****ing Terminator named Carl. 

Grace was just a terrible character.  I blame David Goyer.  How in the **** that man still has a job in Hollywood is beyond me.  He's the worst ****ing writer imaginable and he keeps getting handed these big properties only to end up with zero actual character out of his characters.  His dialogue is cringeworthy.  All he really seems capable of is coming up with stoned action set pieces.  I'm sure his brainstorming session sounded a lot like, "Car making place, immigration detainment center, big airplane fight, big *** dam, there's your movie." 

There are ten thousand ways to make a strong female character while making her female, not some testosterone-infused hulking mass of augmented technology.  They made Grace so much like a man she might as well have been a man. 

Then there's the whole thing of turning Skynet to Legion.  Why?  It's stupid and pointless.  I don't give a flying **** what Carl's explanation was for how he knew all those dates and times, either.  If Skynet was destroyed, there's no ****ing logical way he should know those dates. 

And I'm not crazy about their excuse for why they killed John in the first place.  So you're upset about how the other movies handled John Connor and you've decided that instead of making it right, you just kill him? 

They also watched all the sequels to T2 to allegedly find out what was wrong with them without learning any Goddamn thing about what not to do.  Terminator Salvation should have told them to NOT use augmented humans who are closer to machines.  What in the **** is the point?  It's humans versus machines, so you trying to blend them as if we're supposed to become machines instead of fight them is dumb as **** and it blurs the line of what they're fighting. 

I didn't like the scenes of the future, either.  They made the Terminators too much like some Goddamn robot octopus.  They have FUTURE weapons in the future, so Terminators aren't just going to turn into walking zombies that just stab you when they get close, they're going to have to shoot back. 

The biggest fault in the whole thing was their idea of action.  It doesn't take massive set pieces and planes crashing and huge explosions.  Terminator 2 still looks better than Dark Fate.  The CGI of planes crashing midair just takes you out of the movie completely. 

I'd go on, but there's no point.  When its creator (Cameron) is so out of touch with what made his first two great, there's really no hope for a worthy sequel to Terminator 2. 

[MacReady]

Just give Edward Furlong a chance. 

The justification of killing John Connor was, "What, do you make him a 36-year-old accountant?"  Yes.  That's exactly what you do. 

Make this man the lead character.  A character who had a hand in changing the ****ing future.  Saving 3 billion lives.  He did it.  He did it, but ****ing nobody knows.  He is a 36-year-old accountant who, along with his mother, is the only person who knows what could have been. 

Send another Terminator back, but John is only a secondary target. 

DON'T send back a good Terminator. 

The first one - An ill-equipped future soldier and a waitress have to survive against a literal killing machine.
The second one - A kid, a battle-hardened former waitress and an out of date killing machine have to survive against a top of the line machine.

Why do they keep upping the help while modestly upping the competition? 

The stakes need to grow, not get closer.  So in the third one they had a slightly upgraded model over T2 against an advanced human, a battle-hardened and experienced Sarah Connor AND a machine. 

Just make it a 36-year-old out of shape accountant who was supposed to be a leader of humanity, but has turned into an alcoholic underachiever against a machine. 

Sarah Connor has been watching for Skynet to show up again. 
She's found something. 
She tries to contact John.
John ignores the call, but can't ignore the texts, which lead him to evidence of Skynet's resurgence. 
You want to send it in a new direction and have a new hero or heroine, fine.  Do it.  John is a secondary target.  He realizes this when he sees a Terminator coming after him, draws its gun, aims, then shoots at someone else and misses.

Kinda like Terminator: Rise of the Machines where they couldn't find John, so they go after his Lieutenants, THEN finds John and turns their attention on John, but John is just a secondary target because the new future he's just some adviser or something.  

Tone down on the action.  We've had 4 ****ing sequels now where they've thought that the more destruction means the more people will go to theaters to see it.  Nope, that's not true. 

Free Edward Furlong. 

[MikeT14]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

The first half hour to 45 minutes I was like, "Okay, this movie isn't so bad, I may have misjudged it before seeing it."  That was, of course, after ignoring the fact that Cameron thought it was a good idea to kill off John Connor in the first 5 minutes after complaining about how Newt and Hicks were killed off so unceremoniously in Alien 3. 

THANK YOU

[seminoles1]

Cameron's big worry was not undoing the ending to Terminator 2: Judgment Day. He loves that ending and originally didn't want to make another Terminator movie because he loved how he ended it so much. That's why he wanted to get away from Skynet: he wanted to have his cake and eat it too by preserving the ending to T2 and also (eventually) making another Terminator movie. John is/was still the hero of the Skynet Terminator movies this way since he, his mom, and Uncle Bob still technically stopped Skynet.

Having said all that, it's still so, so, so ,so stupid. You don't have to kill John to take the franchise in a different direction. "Killing" Skynet just to have Legion take its place makes the switch irrelevant in the first place.

I love Cameron, but he did us fans dirty with that decision. He was supposed to come back and save his own franchise, and he lost me (probably its biggest fan) in less than 5 minutes. 

[MacReady]

3 hours ago, seminoles1 said:

I love Cameron, but he did us fans dirty with that decision. He was supposed to come back and save his own franchise, and he lost me (probably its biggest fan) in less than 5 minutes. 

Killing John Connor = Okay.
Killing John Connor like that = Not okay.
Killing John Connor without John Connor even being able to put up a fight = ****ing bull****.