Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
have a crap day
This is GOOD news sheeple.
how many terminator films are there?
in the rest of the franchise after being blown away by how shit T3 was??
wasn't good though, and compared to the first two it's not even close.
haven't seen the 4th one though, just not interested.
It is truly terrible...
I'd say T4 is more refreshing since it is a different sort of setup.
The fact that people rally behind T3 as much as they do just tells you how fucking dreadful the action movie genre was at that time. Actually, it probably still is.
and in comparison, felt pretty old school with genuine road chases rather than CGI bobbins.
I think it stands up not too bad compared to T2, neither of which are anywhere close to the first film, obviously.
Not sure why anyone gave that film the time of day. Pure balls.
Looking at the cast of this one:
Emilia Clarke ... Sarah Connor
Arnold Schwarzenegger ... Terminator
Jai Courtney ... Kyle Reese
Jason Clarke ... John Connor
Are they just fucking with us? Is this going to be some ridiculous tie up film to take us from the end of T4 to the beginning of The Terminator?
in a way that means you can just ignore them.
By having young Sarah Connor I can only presume this is going to try to Back to the Future Part II the shit out of The Terminator and pile a huge insult turd onto everything.
intersecting with the first two films. Which sounds kind of fun.
It doesn't sound like fun, it just sounds like Hollywood's still run by complete pillocks.
I can't get upset about Terminator when it's all based on such a deeply ludicrous premise.
"I was just trolling, guys!"
When I say the premise is ludicrous, I'm not saying the films are bad, or stupid, just that there's a huge logical flaw thanks to time travel that means it's not worth arguing over the details.
You're arguing that the original films are ruined because they're disregarded by the events of the subsequent ones - but that is the logical end point of time travel narratives. I don't think the original films are ruined, because all the things that make them good - the atmosphere, the direction, the performances - are still there for me to go and watch. And if the new film is going to incorporate the old films in some way, I think that's intriguing.
and you can ignore T3 and T4. I just mean that to incorporate the originals strongly into a fifth film is just crappy and shows a real lack of imagination beyond the normal, "Let's make a sequel, guys" sort of thoughts.
Also, a premise that is ludicrous covers probably most films, certainly almost every Alfred Hitchcock film. I'm not sure what it achieves to mention it except to leave you sounding like you're 'above' us and our petty cares over something.
The Time Travel aspects aren't alone something that makes it ludicrous in any case. No one has any idea what would happen with time travel. If you're going to base a film around time travel than you have to first accept that it exists and after that you just have to have rules, which those films do have.
BUT WHAT WE MAKE OURSELVES
because that's explainable and the whole article can fuck off if it does.
The SkyNet is created from the tech found after the first Terminator is destroyed?
It's a time loop. It wasn't a fuck up, it was written in purposely.
Some people think it's a fuck up.
and thought 'yeah, we can burn away any last bit of joy fans took from the first films with this angle'.
tied everythign up nicely. Made sense. Skynet can't be turned off or stopped. Doomsday was gonna happen whatever. The guy who played John Connor was a really likable, non action hero-y type.
The sexy Terminator woman was a bit lame but still a good idea (a Terminator who killed Terminators).
I thought it was great tbf. And that car chase with the truck on the motorway was great.
I mean, I know you've said some proper CRAZY stuff, but really, just get a FUCKING GRIP.
who thinks T3 is superior to T2. He's still wrong. As is the Mokernator.
I think I have a great view of films. I like most of the stuff people say is shit, and think all the stuff people like is shit.
Like all the "acclaimed" Spiderman films which are, frankly, the equivalent of beating off into a chipped mug.
when people are unsure if you're just shitting yourself for attention or not.
I liked it, the bleakness at the end was surprising
It wasn't that surprising as loads of the Terminator audience who only like explosions and hate plot/story/good films had been shitting themselves for a film set in the future war for over a decade. This was clearly going to lead to that, otherwise why bother making it at all.
I just wish to fuck Cameron had ended with the future ending thing on T2. Cheesy? Yes, but no more fucking sequels.
it just felt very small and conservative next to T2, I realise it must have cost a gazillioon dollars but it fet like they were wrapping the series up with a TV movie or something
"On March 13, 2014, The Hollywood Reporter has reported that J.K. Simmons is in talks for a role as a weary and alcoholic detective who has followed a bizarre case involving Sarah Connor and robots for more than three decades (since 1984, which, not coincidentally, is the year the original movie."
Given the world ended in 2004 or whenever in the film timeline, that's some pretty dedicated detective work.
Dunno who Jason Clarke is.
by implying T2 and T3 were about the same level as films.
did they see die hard 5?
also how are they going to explain arnie aging like 50 years despite being a robot
On one hand, T3 was bad and T4 was really really bad. On the other hand, as a general rule big-budget action sic-fi blockbusters have generally become a lot better since the 2000's, and the TV series was surprisingly watchable.