|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 30, 2019 8:57:17 GMT
I know "the best one since 2" is the faintest praise imaginable, but I did enjoy it mostly. I'd go so far as to say I wouldn't mind considering it a cannon sequel (whereas I've ignored everything since 2 as ever having happened). I dug the bad guy especially. A good villain has really been missed in these last few sequels. And the Ahnold plot is really interesting. Just wish he was in it more.
That said, if you're an incel who's masculinity is threatened by these Stacy's infiltrating your geek movies... it gets heavy handed even for me. I don't mind the new savior of humanity being a woman, because I'm not a stupid asshole, but the movie REALLY pats itself on the back for it. Like, Sarah Conner just blindly assumes the Mexican lady will give birth to the MAN (they really emphasize that part) who will lead the resistance. Of course, the "twist" is that it's not a MAN but the Mexican lady herself who is the leader because WOMEN are capable of more than just giving birth, you know? Fuck you, Terminator 1!
I remember Jim Cameron got super pissy when everyone was praising Wonder Woman because he made two movies with badass female characters 31 and 26 years prior, so I wonder if he was overcompensating here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 30, 2019 9:27:28 GMT
I remember Jim Cameron got super pissy when everyone was praising Wonder Woman because he made two movies with badass female characters 31 and 26 years prior, so I wonder if he was overcompensating here. One wonders how much is determined by the filmmakers and how much is determined by the studios. It was said Ripley in ALIEN was originally supposed to be a man. I have my doubts.
John Connor's importance was diminished right from the start though. The original ending for Terminator 2 was that he becomes a senator! Can you imagine? A politician.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 30, 2019 9:48:19 GMT
I remember Jim Cameron got super pissy when everyone was praising Wonder Woman because he made two movies with badass female characters 31 and 26 years prior, so I wonder if he was overcompensating here. One wonders how much is determined by the filmmakers and how much is determined by the studios. It was said Ripley in ALIEN was originally supposed to be a man. I have my doubts.
John Connor's importance was diminished right from the start though. The original ending for Terminator 2 was that he becomes a senator! Can you imagine? A politician.
I'm imagining John Conner deregulating Skynet for campaign donations. |
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Oct 30, 2019 10:39:04 GMT
I've only seen the trailer, but I'm already disappointed that they just had to work in that line again.
I now refer to it as...
"By Grabthar's Hammer, I'll be back!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Oct 30, 2019 12:25:12 GMT
I remember Jim Cameron got super pissy when everyone was praising Wonder Woman because he made two movies with badass female characters 31 and 26 years prior, so I wonder if he was overcompensating here. One wonders how much is determined by the filmmakers and how much is determined by the studios. It was said Ripley in ALIEN was originally supposed to be a man. I have my doubts.
John Connor's importance was diminished right from the start though. The original ending for Terminator 2 was that he becomes a senator! Can you imagine? A politician.
I've always heard that the the characters from Alien were written originally so that the role could be played by either a man or a woman but that they knew that Ripley was the sole survivor and wanted to avoid the final girl trope which was common in horror movies so they considered having a man playing Ripley. But apparently it was Ridley Scott decision to make Ripley a female character. Ultimately a good decision as Ripley is awesome as arguably one of the best female heroes of a all time.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Oct 30, 2019 12:31:28 GMT
I remember Murph in "Interstellar" was originally supposed to be a male character but was changed to female by Chris Nolan. “In the original draft of the script, Murph was originally a boy,” Nolan told Dazed. “Maybe because my eldest child is a girl, I decided to change Murph into a girl. I found that came very naturally to me, writing that relationship between a father and a daughter. It was something I really enjoyed, and I enjoyed extrapolating that to the rest of the story.” www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/22407/1/jessica-chastain-interstellar-interview-gender |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2019 14:21:52 GMT
John Connor's importance was diminished right from the start though. The original ending for Terminator 2 was that he becomes a senator! Can you imagine? A politician.
A shame cry baby!!!!!! Everything that was wrong in the previous execrable sequels has been put right here. Gone are the tedious obsessions with the narrative implications of time travel. Gone is the baffling focus on the franchise’s least interesting character, the future messiah John Connor, as played, poorly, by Nick Stahl, Christian Bale and Jason Clarke.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 30, 2019 14:39:47 GMT
A shame cry baby!!!!!! Everything that was wrong in the previous execrable sequels has been put right here. Gone are the tedious obsessions with the narrative implications of time travel. Gone is the baffling focus on the franchise’s least interesting character, the future messiah John Connor, as played, poorly, by Nick Stahl, Christian Bale and Jason Clarke. I could not care less what they do with it, I am merely pointing out that the goal was always to diminish/deconstruct the male authority idea. Terminator was memorable mainly for Arnie as a killing machine (an image of toxic masculinity ironically enough).
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 30, 2019 14:49:27 GMT
I've always heard that the the characters from Alien were written originally so that the role could be played by either a man or a woman but that they knew that Ripley was the sole survivor and wanted to avoid the final girl trope which was common in horror movies so they considered having a man playing Ripley. But apparently it was Ridley Scott decision to make Ripley a female character. Ultimately a good decision as Ripley is awesome as arguably one of the best female heroes of a all time. I mean they always intended for her to be a woman. Just like Star Wars (another Fox film) intended the hero to rely on magic and be a nerdy short guy. They claim these were accidents or something but the big studios were always motivated by political messages and avoiding certain depictions (i.e a film where a Lex Barker type was the lead--thus he, Richard Harrison and others went to Europe since they didn't freak out if a big guy was a lead) and the messages were cranked up in the 70s.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 30, 2019 15:04:36 GMT
They claim these were accidents or something but the big studios were always motivated by political messages and avoiding certain depictions. . .
The only evidence which actually exists, which consists of the statements by people who were there and made the damn movie, indicates that Ripley was originally a man or written neutrally. There is zero evidence for your idiotic conspiracy theory of a top down agenda. I know that you've always been adverse to objective, verifiable reality, but someone has to point out what a tinfoil hat wearing lunatic you are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 30, 2019 15:09:43 GMT
The only evidence which actually exists, which consists of the statements by people who were there and made the damn movie, indicates that Ripley was originally a man or written neutrally. There is zero evidence for your idiotic conspiracy theory of a top down agenda. I know that you've always been adverse to objective, verifiable reality, but someone has to point out what a tinfoil hat wearing lunatic you are. You are the one who said my claim Disney was motivated by politics was bogus too yet we have Bob Iger admitting it by his "are you a racist" response to Scorsese. The studios were always motivated by politics. In 1925 Fox, an allegedly American owned company, made a film on the Rothschilds. In the middle of the Great Depression, blamed on bankers, they make a film about European banking families, I guess because Americans secretly loved banks.
|
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on Oct 30, 2019 15:10:29 GMT
This movie is going to bomb at the box office. Thank God
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 30, 2019 15:31:23 GMT
You are the one who said my claim Disney was motivated by politics was bogus too yet we have Bob Iger admitting it by his "are you a racist" response to Scorsese. As if that proves so much as one fucking thing. Like I said: you're a tinfoil hat wearing lunatic.
|
|
|
|
Post by James on Oct 30, 2019 15:37:53 GMT
Glad you enjoyed it. I hope I can catch it at some point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 30, 2019 17:15:13 GMT
As if that proves so much as one fucking thing. Like I said: you're a tinfoil hat wearing lunatic. Better than having a head made of tinfoil like you for being so fucking blind. The CEO of Disney could have responded a million ways-instead he chose to focus on racism.
|
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Oct 30, 2019 17:25:25 GMT
I thought it was as ok remake of T1/T2. I hated that it basically shits on the first 2 by making John Connor unimportant. And the bad Terminator loses any chance of being menacing when he gets bitch-slapped from the first encounter by the enhanced androgynous thing
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 30, 2019 18:50:14 GMT
Better than having a head made of tinfoil like you for being so fucking blind.
I base my beliefs on evidence. You base your beliefs on the voices in your head and twist any facts you encounter to support your nutcase ideology even when they are logically unrelated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 30, 2019 19:00:44 GMT
I base my beliefs on evidence. Ok so for the audience, can you tell us why Iger chose to bring up race and not box office or some other metric in his response to Scorsese?
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Oct 30, 2019 22:36:45 GMT
I base my beliefs on evidence. Ok so for the audience, can you tell us why Iger chose to bring up race and not box office or some other metric in his response to Scorsese?
Can you for one second articulate why that even matters, given your idiotic, broad conspiracy theory?
No, you can't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 30, 2019 23:57:13 GMT
Can you for one second articulate why that even matters, given your idiotic, broad conspiracy theory?
No, you can't.
Score Me: 1 You: 0
|
|
