|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on May 18, 2018 7:08:14 GMT
In the first Terminator, it is established that he was the leader of the resistance that defeats the Skynet machines.
In the second, we see him at the start, and then as a kid, and ultimately he learns valuable life lessons from one of the machines that he would eventually be seeking to destroy.
In the third, without the war, he becomes a drifting loser. It takes more help from one of the machines (who we are told, will succeed in killing him), and the destruction of the world, to validate his existence. I guess he wasn't a natural born leader type as the first movie suggested.
In the fourth, in order to save his life, he needs body parts from one of the machines.
And in the fifth, he becomes a machine.
It's like the Borg have ever increasing script approval over the films.
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on May 18, 2018 13:56:29 GMT
By film six, John should just be a computer program now.
|
|
|
|
Post by HorrorMetal on Jun 18, 2018 2:16:35 GMT
Haha, good points. You're so right. Also, am I the only one who thinks that the reason he became "such a great leader" was only because his mom knew about the future war with the machines and thus taught/trained him accordingly? So Skynet, sending the androids back in time to kill him, actually kind of screwed themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 18, 2018 16:11:38 GMT
By film six, John should just be a computer program now.
Dude, spoiler tag next time! |
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Jun 18, 2018 16:30:19 GMT
Haha, good points. You're so right. Also, am I the only one who thinks that the reason he became "such a great leader" was only because his mom knew about the future war with the machines and thus taught/trained him accordingly? So Skynet, sending the androids back in time to kill him, actually kind of screwed themselves. Yet, Skynet's existence is also reliant on the 1984 Terminator's destroyed CPU and remaining arm being found by Cyberdyne; its destruction leads to its own creation. |
|
|
|
Post by HorrorMetal on Jun 18, 2018 17:20:54 GMT
Haha, good points. You're so right. Also, am I the only one who thinks that the reason he became "such a great leader" was only because his mom knew about the future war with the machines and thus taught/trained him accordingly? So Skynet, sending the androids back in time to kill him, actually kind of screwed themselves. Yet, Skynet's existence is also reliant on the 1984 Terminator's destroyed CPU and remaining arm being found by Cyberdyne; its destruction leads to its own creation. That is also true! |
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Jun 18, 2018 17:24:13 GMT
Haha, good points. You're so right. Also, am I the only one who thinks that the reason he became "such a great leader" was only because his mom knew about the future war with the machines and thus taught/trained him accordingly? So Skynet, sending the androids back in time to kill him, actually kind of screwed themselves. Yet, Skynet's existence is also reliant on the 1984 Terminator's destroyed CPU and remaining arm being found by Cyberdyne; its destruction leads to its own creation. ![]()  |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 18, 2018 17:40:50 GMT
The thing that really bugged me in T 1 is the lame excuse for why they didnt send ray guns back through time--"something about the energy field generated by living organism--nothing dead would go."
I HATE that! It is so counter-intuitive.
In the Fly 1986, sending organic matter through the pod was much harder than an inanimate object.
Shirley they could have come up with a better line to explain why they didnt bring weapons.
They wanted to get a laugh out of the raygun remark, but if they had Silberman say "rayguns--weapons?" then Reece could have just said "The terminator is a weapon."
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 19, 2018 17:02:03 GMT
I HATE that! It is so counter-intuitive. In the Fly 1986, sending organic matter through the pod was much harder than an inanimate object. It's almost as if different movies have different rules for fake technologies. How dare the movie that came out first not use the same rules as a movie that wouldn't come out for another five years?! |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 19, 2018 17:05:53 GMT
It's almost as if different movies have different rules for fake technologies. How dare the movie that came out first not use the same rules as a movie that wouldn't come out for another five years?! Hey, I thought I gave you a box of scooby snacks and sent you off? |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jun 19, 2018 18:12:57 GMT
You're confusing fiction with reality again.
|
|
|
|
Post by HorrorMetal on Jul 13, 2018 14:59:30 GMT
I HATE that! It is so counter-intuitive. In the Fly 1986, sending organic matter through the pod was much harder than an inanimate object. It's almost as if different movies have different rules for fake technologies. How dare the movie that came out first not use the same rules as a movie that wouldn't come out for another five years?! Two years actually but yes, you have a point. |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Mar 14, 2019 20:28:16 GMT
In the first Terminator, it is established that he was the leader of the resistance that defeats the Skynet machines. In the second, we see him at the start, and then as a kid, and ultimately he learns valuable life lessons from one of the machines that he would eventually be seeking to destroy. In the third, without the war, he becomes a drifting loser. It takes more help from one of the machines (who we are told, will succeed in killing him), and the destruction of the world, to validate his existence. I guess he wasn't a natural born leader type as the first movie suggested. In the fourth, in order to save his life, he needs body parts from one of the machines. And in the fifth, he becomes a machine. It's like the Borg have ever increasing script approval over the films. That is interesting isn't it? It's like the creators cant see any other means of telling his story without having him be inextricably linked to the machines.
Its almost as funny as how many different actors have played him!
|
|
|
|
Post by Grabthar's Hammer on Jul 2, 2019 5:57:27 GMT
In the first Terminator, it is established that he was the leader of the resistance that defeats the Skynet machines. In the second, we see him at the start, and then as a kid, and ultimately he learns valuable life lessons from one of the machines that he would eventually be seeking to destroy. In the third, without the war, he becomes a drifting loser. It takes more help from one of the machines (who we are told, will succeed in killing him), and the destruction of the world, to validate his existence. I guess he wasn't a natural born leader type as the first movie suggested. In the fourth, in order to save his life, he needs body parts from one of the machines. And in the fifth, he becomes a machine. It's like the Borg have ever increasing script approval over the films. That is interesting isn't it? It's like the creators cant see any other means of telling his story without having him be inextricably linked to the machines.
Its almost as funny as how many different actors have played him!
John Connor is a strange character that way. Multiple actors have played him and I can't help but feel like nobody has gotten him quite right even though there isn't really a definitive version to compare him to.
I think the new film finally figured something out about The Terminator franchise and it's that Sarah Connor is the iconic character and the main focus. She's up there with Ripley and pretty much all people associate Linda Hamilton with the role.
John Connor is basically just a famous name with all totally different portrayals. Smart and bratty delinquent in T2, drifter in T3, angsty emo teen in TSCC, military leader in Salvation, then whatever the hell was going on in Genisys.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jul 2, 2019 17:58:51 GMT
That is interesting isn't it? It's like the creators cant see any other means of telling his story without having him be inextricably linked to the machines.
Its almost as funny as how many different actors have played him!
John Connor is a strange character that way. Multiple actors have played him and I can't help but feel like nobody has gotten him quite right even though there isn't really a definitive version to compare him to.
I think the new film finally figured something out about The Terminator franchise and it's that Sarah Connor is the iconic character and the main focus. She's up there with Ripley and pretty much all people associate Linda Hamilton with the role.
John Connor is basically just a famous name with all totally different portrayals. Smart and bratty delinquent in T2, drifter in T3, angsty emo teen in TSCC, military leader in Salvation, then whatever the hell was going on in Genisys.
^^^THIS^^^
|
|
|
|
Post by leesilm on Jul 11, 2019 17:44:11 GMT
John Connor is a strange character that way. Multiple actors have played him and I can't help but feel like nobody has gotten him quite right even though there isn't really a definitive version to compare him to.
I think the new film finally figured something out about The Terminator franchise and it's that Sarah Connor is the iconic character and the main focus. She's up there with Ripley and pretty much all people associate Linda Hamilton with the role.
John Connor is basically just a famous name with all totally different portrayals. Smart and bratty delinquent in T2, drifter in T3, angsty emo teen in TSCC, military leader in Salvation, then whatever the hell was going on in Genisys.
^^^THIS^^^ Basically. This has always, at heart, been Sarah's story. She is the one who, without her having this child, there is no saving the human race. The first sequel is still her story, but instead of being the innocent, wide-eyed damsel, she has become the arse-kicking, machine-killing, son-protecting warrior that can stand right beside a former Terminator to fight. Later sequels focused more on John and because he had been a prop for Sarah's character, it was hard to nail down Who he was, How he was important, How he would save the day, etc., plus the machines are always meddling with time to try to destroy him so every time we see him, it seems he is more and more damaged by what the machines have done in their latest bid to end him before he can grow up to be a problem. In other series, such as THE MATRIX, the Jesus/Savior figure is central and is the leading character. TERMINATOR is more of a Mother-Of-The-Savior story, where she is the main character. First she was the innocent girl, thrown totally into the deep end of the ocean in this war that had yet to happen. Then, she becomes the warrior-mom who fights to save her son in order to assure he lives long enough to take down the machines. Later, she is the battle-hardened soldier who is 30+ years into a war, with no end in sight, doing her best to protect those who will play pivotal roles in the future of mankind.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jul 11, 2019 18:26:40 GMT
Later sequels focused more on John (but) because he had been a prop for Sarah's character, it was hard to nail down who he was, how he was important, how he would save the day, etc., We'll never know what might have been with the John Connor character. Cameron never did his part 3, Edward Furlong decided to go full on white trash instead of continuing what might have been a good career as an actor, and they were never going to move forward with Nick Stahl from Rise of the Machines.
Interestingly, Salvation was also NOT going to be about John Connor. Instead it was supposed to be about the Marcus Wright character (Sam Worthington). Connor was only intended as a supporting or cameo character in that. But when they offered the role of Wright to Christian Bale he demanded to play Connor instead. So rather than risk losing Bale they wrote Connor back in. I think that is, in part, why that movie is so... meh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jul 11, 2019 19:13:59 GMT
The original film suggested Sarah Connor was a Joan of Arc or Mary type. But the John Connor character was still important--he was the one who would save the world.
They kept to the story with the intro to Terminator 2 where we see him as an adult (and the original epilogue was him becoming a politician instead).
If there is no John Connor in this new Cameron-approved film then it suggests he is going along with (or has to go along with) the plan to remove male authority characters from cultural depictions.
The irony is that line about "retro-active abortion" will have come true.
Can Bale really make such demands? Michael Keaton and Roy Scheider pissed off studio people and were punished for it. I doubt Bale has that much clout to demand he play a character not written in the script.
They still made the character require a robot heart to save his life. They could have done many other scenarios instead.
How did the story originally end if John Connor was not meant to be featured in it?
|
|
