Terminator: Dark Fate **Spoilers from post 983**

sirmanga

jill_valentine wrote: »

You know what, my eyes are open. You're right, and you should take the tampon truther movement further. This could be big. This could be Facebook Live big!

I'd hate to think that you've taken every movie you've ever watched at face value. In Jurassic Park, when Sam Neil is on the helicopter near the start and he can't get the seatbelt tied, it's because the belt has two female parts. It won't work. So he just ties them together in a knot. He makes the two female parts work. It foreshadows what happens later in the movie. By your thinking, he just had trouble tying his seatbelt and it's got nothing to do with the rest of the film.

If you don't think that a scene where a female protagonist is hunched in pain while a well lit shelf of tampons are in frame was done on purpose, then the entire history of filmmaking as an art contradicts you. I guess all the literature on symbolism in films needs to be torn up and replaced with a single line: "just a coincidence, nothing to see here."

Unearthly

That was much better than I expected. I hated the trailers but the actual film was entertaining. Nothing new here and it went back to basics by having a proper villain who is there from start to finish. The CGI at the start is very impressive although a bit creepy. Will acting be automated in the future :pac:

Loved Arnie in it to.

Goodshape

sirmanga wrote: »

If you don't think that a scene where a female protagonist is hunched in pain while a well lit shelf of tampons are in frame was done on purpose, then the entire history of filmmaking as an art contradicts you. I guess all the literature on symbolism in films needs to be torn up and replaced with a single line: "just a coincidence, nothing to see here."

Maybe the filmmakers were trying to make a symbolic link between our hero's need for regular medication and what every woman goes through on a regular basis on account of their menstrual cycle.

But like... so what?

sirmanga

Goodshape wrote: »

Maybe the filmmakers were trying to make a symbolic link between our hero's need for regular medication and what every woman goes through on a regular basis on account of their menstrual cycle.

But like... so what?

Yes, but I'm being told here that it's outrageous to even suggest the link between the two. That I'm off the wall or something. But it's so obvious and heavy handed that it's laughable, that's my problem. It's awful filmmaking.

jill_valentine

Goodshape wrote: »

Maybe the filmmakers were trying to make a symbolic link between our hero's need for regular medication and what every woman goes through on a regular basis on account of their menstrual cycle.

But like... so what?

As bad as my period pain has ever been, I've never needed to manage it with shotglasses full of drugs administered through veterinary syringes. She's going into something closer to diabetic shock - none of her symptoms or presentation remotely resembles period pain. What she's doing is closer to the use of combat drugs by special forces to extend their useful deployment, but visually reads closer to drug addiction.

It's also part of her characterization as being built for burning out (further illustrated by having her constantly eating in the background). She's got superpowers, but they come at a pretty heavy, constant cost.

I take your point that it wouldn't *matter* if that's what they were going for, but I am also a human adult who has been in a chemist. It's an incredibly silly thing to chase down a rabbit hole because a woman walks into a pharmacy to do some world building.

pc7

I loved it, turn the brain off, enjoy the ride, great nostalgia and cheese, can't understand all the hate.

sirmanga

jill_valentine wrote: »

As bad as my period pain has ever been, I've never needed to manage it with shotglasses full of drugs administered through veterinary syringes. She's going into something closer to diabetic shock - none of her symptoms or presentation remotely resembles period pain. What she's doing is closer to the use of combat drugs by special forces to extend their useful deployment.

It's also part of her characterization as being built for burning out (further illustrated by having her constantly eating in the background). She's got superpowers, but they come at a pretty heavy, constant cost.

I take your point that it wouldn't *matter* if that's what they were going for, but I am also a human adult who has been in a chemist. It's an incredibly silly thing to chase down a rabbit hole because a woman walks into a pharmacy to do some world building.

But it's symbolism. For heaven's sake, they're not going to write it into the script that this character's weakness is her period. Like the example I gave above about The Catcher in the Rye, you wouldn't have the main character start telling other characters that he's currently reading The Catcher in the Rye and he can see parallels between himself and Holden Caulfield. That would just be silly. I at least give Dark Fate credit that it isn't that obvious with its symbolism. But it comes damn close.

And please don't mistake this as me hating strong women characters. I said it throughout this thread that I love female action heroes, as long as they earn their right to exist. You must suspend your disbelief to another level to buy a female action hero, because women are traditionally physically weaker than men. So when a film can get you to believe, and invest your emotions in a female action hero, like Sarah Connor, then it's truly a delight. It feels earned.

Like, what would have changed in Dark Fate if they made the Dani character a man? Or they made the female terminator hybrid a man? Nothing would change. They were simply women playing the roles of male archetypes. Conversely, in the original, the entire premise is hinged on the fact that Sarah Connor is a woman.

I see films like Dark Fate as the opposite of what they are trying to achieve. Instead of being empowering to women, I just see them as saying to women that if you can't beat men, join them. Act like them, dress like them and make yourselves interchangeable with them, and forsake all of the qualities that make you women. Try not to be a brilliant woman, but instead just be a man.
You can't get anymore anti-feminist than that.

Goodshape

jill_valentine wrote: »

I take your point that it wouldn't *matter* if that's what they were going for

Yep, that's all I'm saying really. "So what if it was?"

To be honest I didn't even notice the dreaded feminine sanitation abominations.


Girls are so icky.

jill_valentine

Goodshape wrote: »

Yep, that's all I'm saying really. "So what if it was?"

To be honest I didn't even notice the dreaded feminine sanitation abominations.


Girls are so icky.

Yeah, it's almost as if they're incidental set dressing appropriate to the shop they're in.

pixelburp

I swear to god, when I see this film, if these "symbolic" tampons aren't centre frame while the camera holds of them for seconds, this entire strand of discussion is going to come across even more bizarre than it already is. Weird how some folk just go a bit nuts at the mere sight of sanitary products.

sirmanga

pixelburp wrote: »

I swear to god, when I see this film, if these "symbolic" tampons aren't centre frame while the camera holds of them for seconds, this entire strand of discussion is going to come across even more bizarre than it already is. Weird how some folk just go a bit nuts at the mere sight of sanitary products.

You see that's the problem, I don't go nuts at the sight of them. Nobody does. But the filmmakers are trying to say that people are offended by the sight of them and they think they are making a wickedly original, feminist statement. Tampons, big deal. It's part of life.
My issue is that its so uninspired, unoriginal, and downright naff that it's cringe inducing. It's like that episode of The Simpsons where Lisa tries to join the football team and asks the coach if he has a problem with a girl wanting to join, then the coach (Flanders?) tells her there is no problem and that they've already got girls on the team. And then Lisa runs off crying.

My point is that it's simply bad filmmaking with an outdated sense of "sticking it to the man."
I'll tell you how outdated this movie is with its ideas, at the start they have characters in dismay that machines are taking their jobs, in yet another heavy handed piece of symbolism. Machines taking our jobs is an issue for characters in a film in 2019? What is this, the 1970s?

jill_valentine

pixelburp wrote: »

I swear to god, when I see this film, if these "symbolic" tampons aren't centre frame while the camera holds of them for seconds, this entire strand of discussion is going to come across even more bizarre than it already is. Weird how some folk just go a bit nuts at the mere sight of sanitary products.

It's going to be the second one, I promise.

Goodshape

sirmanga wrote: »

I'll tell you how outdated this movie is with its ideas, at the start they have characters in dismay that machines are taking their jobs, in yet another heavy handed piece of symbolism. Machines taking our jobs is an issue for characters in a film in 2019? What is this, the 1970s?

As if women need jobs anyway! She doesn't even have a boyfriend ffs!! amIright?!?

sirmanga

Goodshape wrote: »

As if women need jobs anyway! She doesn't even have a boyfriend ffs!! amIright?!?

Erm, well I'm actually talking about the part when Dani's brother was told the machine was doing his job. You know, a man. So your sarcasm doesn't work, sadly.

Goodshape

sirmanga wrote: »

Erm, well I'm actually talking about the part when Dani's brother was told the machine was doing his job. You know, a man.

FINALLY! A decent set of testicles in this picture. Proper order.

You're right – he should keep his job.

jill_valentine

Goodshape wrote: »

As if women need jobs anyway! She doesn't even have a boyfriend ffs!! amIright?!?

Here, hang on, you're telling me she didn't at least mention having been in love with a man at some point during the 36 hour window she ran for her life from a shapeshifting murderbot from the future?

RoryMac

pc7 wrote: »

I loved it, turn the brain off, enjoy the ride, great nostalgia and cheese, can't understand all the hate.

I went not expecting much just a half decent action movie and hated it after the opening 30 mins. Beginning to think I watched the wrong movie when I see people praising it

Wayne Jarvis

El Duda wrote: »

The discussion on this last page is enough to make me cancel my plans to see it tomorrow night.

Don't watch this movie El Duda. Just buy a box of tampons and watch that instead. I'm looking at a box of tampons right now and it's like seeing the movie all over again.

Leaving aside the fact that the script and the acting might be shoite (i haven't seen it), for those who have see it, is it just a good action movie on its own?

TinCool

Deleted User wrote: »

Leaving aside the fact that the script and the acting might be shoite (i haven't seen it), for those who have see it, is it just a good action movie on its own?

Being a massive T1, T2 fan, and putting those aside for a moment, yes, I enjoyed it. More so then the other big movie that's out at the moment. I don't understand why some people on here or so hyper critical about it. I mean, look at some of the other action hit movies, with next to no plot which can be summed up in one sentence.

Die Hard - a guy stuck in a building overrun by terrorists at christmas
Predator - a team of soldiers being picked off by an alien in a forest
Aliens - a team of soldiers being picked off by aliens in a deserted base
T1 - two people being chased by a killer robot
T2 - a few people and a robot being chased by another killer robot

It's all the same. Just switch off and enjoy it, and don't bother with all this tampon talk. I didn't notice them.

ebbsy

Guy Person wrote: »

Don't watch this movie El Duda. Just buy a box of tampons and watch that instead. I'm looking at a box of tampons right now and it's like seeing the movie all over again.

You must be going through a bad period at the moment.

tylercheribini

Bleedin awful, the visual overload/clutter in the action sequences were just another Transformers clone of machines flying through the air, only often dodgier C.G in this. The villian is about as menacing as Barney The Dinosaur and all bar one of the films gags go down like lead balloons. Cant blame the director and writers for the derivative plot, the saga ran out of places to go a long time ago.

pc7

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Leaving aside the fact that the script and the acting might be shoite (i haven't seen it), for those who have see it, is it just a good action movie on its own?

Yeah I think so, but if you liked the originals there are good nods to them. I didn’t even notice the tampons!

jill_valentine

Deleted User wrote: »

Leaving aside the fact that the script and the acting might be shoite (i haven't seen it), for those who have see it, is it just a good action movie on its own?

Action wise the first 40 mins or so is quality, really great. It doesn't hit those highs again though, but I thought the border patrol stuff was very effective. There are some fairly ropey underwater sequences, but the last confrontation is good and makes a good gimmick of the venue, I think.

El Duda

Anyone have a rough time stamp for the tampons?

I'm not bothered about the rest of the film but i'm going tonight just to see the Tampon scene. The Guardian have recruited me to write a double page spread about menstrual cycle representation in sci-fi films.

jill_valentine

El Duda wrote: »

Anyone have a rough time stamp for the tampons?

I'm not bothered about the rest of the film but i'm going tonight just to see the Tampon scene. The Guardian have recruited me to write a double page spread about menstrual cycle representation in sci-fi films.

I mean I'm sure they're so well lit and in focus you'd be foolish to miss them.

Goodshape

El Duda wrote: »

Anyone have a rough time stamp for the tampons?

I'm not bothered about the rest of the film but i'm going tonight just to see the Tampon scene. The Guardian have recruited me to write a double page spread about menstrual cycle representation in sci-fi films.

Actual movie screenshot.

pixelburp

I'd heard some screenings are going to be in full "TD", where periodically some of the cinema staff will throw tampons in the audience. Damn feminism, being thrown in our faces like that!

Too much? :pac:

El Duda

Ha ha! Brilliant photoshop ^

ancapailldorcha

Why are people talking about Tampons?

El Duda

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why are people talking about Tampons?

Some GUY with a phobia of women cited product placement tampons as the films main flaw.

sirmanga

El Duda wrote: »

Some weirdo with a phobia of women cited product placement tampons as the films main flaw.

Mods. Name calling... Please sort it out. This is supposed to be an open discussion on the film.

sirmanga

And I didn't point out the scene with the tampons in frame as the main flaw. I gave it as an example of how badly made this film is. It's incredibly heavy handed. As for a phobia of women? As you will see from my other posts on this film, the fact that I love good female action heroes is why I hate this film's cringey, condescending "feminism". It's anti-feminist. Sarah Connor in T1 and T2 is a feminist icon.

py2006

Linda Hamilton was on Jimmy Kimmel last night and said she saw it for the first time with friends and family yesterday. When asked how was it, she said:

"it was...ok!".

El Duda

Sorry dude. I was only teasing.

You must admit that it was your Tampon comment that caused this thread to descend into a bit of a farce though. It does show that you're very observant at least.

I know how affecting negative comments can be. Again, i'd like to apologise for my post.

pixelburp

sirmanga wrote: »

And I didn't point out the scene with the tampons in frame as the main flaw. I gave it as an example of how badly made this film is. It's incredibly heavy handed. As for a phobia of women? As you will see from my other posts on this film, the fact that I love good female action heroes is why I hate this film's cringey, condescending "feminism". It's anti-feminist. Sarah Connor in T1 and T2 is a feminist icon.

All explained very astutely, but doesn't escape from the surreality of tampons suddenly being a serious focus of discussion in a mainstream hollywood blockbuster. 'Cos it's literally a first

jill_valentine

If literally none of the women here are coming away from your posts thinking "Wow, this guy sure is feminist", could it be time to reassess, dyou think?

Which thing do you think might have set off the proximity alarms do you reckon? The incidental background tampon fixation? The "She even steals mens clothes"? The bafflement that none of the characters "even mention being in love with a man!"?

Do you think maybe opening by pretending your beef with it were the plot points inherited from T2 - until you realised they were from T2 and then reversed course - *might* have given the game away a little bit, and maybe that's why you're not being taken very seriously?

ancapailldorcha

I didn't notice any tampons.

sirmanga

El Duda wrote: »

Sorry dude. I was only teasing.

You must admit that it was your Tampon comment that caused this thread to descend into a bit of a farce though. It does show that you're very observant at least.

I know how affecting negative comments can be. Again, i'd like to apologise for my post.

Every film should be studied for what it is, the visual medium. Every single shot has been storyboarded and thought out. Every set is dressed with the director's input or approval. Things that may look "incidental" were given weeks and months of thought. I am simply trying to look at this film from that perspective and figure out what they were going for. And from what I think they are going for, I don't like. I don't think it works. If that makes me a weirdo or scared of women then I dunno.

I guess I could just turn off my brain and not pay attention to what I'm seeing, but that's what radio plays are for.

jill_valentine

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I didn't notice any tampons.

Crazy. To think, that entire scene was clearly an excuse to display them, apparently, and yet they somehow passed you by like they were just filling a shelf in a chemist in a scene with a bunch of other stuff entirely happening.

ancapailldorcha

jill_valentine wrote: »

Crazy. To think, that entire scene was clearly an excuse to display them, apparently, and yet they somehow passed you by like they were just filling a shelf in a chemist in a scene with a bunch of other stuff entirely happening.

I don't know. I just... had fun watching the film. Well, most of it anyway. Why do some people have to keep digging for some nefarious political agenda?

sirmanga

jill_valentine wrote: »

If literally none of the women here are coming away from your posts thinking "Wow, this guy sure is feminist", could it be time to reassess, dyou think?

Which thing do you think might have set off the proximity alarms do you reckon? The incidental background tampon fixation? The "She even steals mens clothes"? The bafflement that none of the characters "even mention being in love with a man!"?

My problem with her taking a man's clothes is that it was some kind of misguided feminist message that women have to become men to be a badass. Not true. And as for the characters not mentioning any love interests, yes that is stupid. Everyone in real life has a love interest, or at least wants one. Films these days, including this one, try to make female action heroes cold, emotionless asexual ass kickers. It's boring and uncinematic. Look at Sarah Connor. She was the epitome of feminism but she still had a loving side, she fell in love and had a child. A child who she protected with everything she had. Now there was a woman to look up to.

El Duda

sirmanga wrote: »

Every film should be studied for what it is, the visual medium. Every single shot has been storyboarded and thought out. Every set is dressed with the director's input or approval. Things that may look "incidental" were given weeks and months of thought. I am simply trying to look at this film from that perspective and figure out what they were going for. And from what I think they are going for, I don't like. I don't think it works. If that makes me a weirdo or scared of women then I dunno.

I guess I could just turn off my brain and not pay attention to what I'm seeing, but that's what radio plays are for.

Tbh I didn’t even see your original comment. I just saw that the thread had descended into Tampon chat and made assumptions about how the discussion started.


I agree with your comments about scrutinising every frame. You only have to have seen the doc ‘Room 237’ to see just how much people analyse and over-analyse things.

jill_valentine

sirmanga wrote: »

My problem with her taking a man's clothes is that it was some kind of misguided feminist message that women have to become men to be a badass. Not true. And as for the characters not mentioning any love interests, yes that is stupid. Everyone in real life has a love interest, or at least wants one. Films these days, including this one, try to make female action heroes cold, emotionless asexual ass kickers. It's boring and uncinematic. Look at Sarah Connor. She was the epitome of feminism but she still had a loving side, she fell in love and had a child. A child who she protected with everything she had. Now there was a woman to look up to.

Mackenzie Davis is six foot tall in a country where average female height is five foot two.

How long did you want her to run around in the nip for until she found a lovely sundress?

sirmanga

jill_valentine wrote: »

Mackenzie Davis is six foot tall in a country where average female height is five foot two.

How long did you want her to run around in the nip for until she found a lovely sundress?

They obviously cast her, in large part, due to her size. Her taking the man's clothes is in the script. She didn't turn up on set and they thought "oh god, she's six foot tall."

As I said, a lot of planning and thought goes into these things.

ancapailldorcha

sirmanga wrote: »

They obviously cast her, in large part, due to her size. Her taking the man's clothes is in the script. She didn't turn up on set and they thought "oh god, she's six foot tall."

As I said, a lot of planning and thought goes into these things.

Surely if she's to convincingly go toe-to-toe with an unstoppable killing machine then she'd have to be at least somewhat imposing? Honestly, I think you're seriously overthinking this.

tylercheribini

Anyone else find the physics of the battling robots really unconvincing? I know they have superhuman strength but they flew and bounced around like ragdolls.

pixelburp

Frankly I'm annoyed: I'm checking my "outrage bingo" card, and wondering who forgot to add "tampons!" to it.

Corvo

tylercheribini wrote: »

Anyone else find the physics of the battling robots really unconvincing? I know they have superhuman strength but they flew and bounced around like ragdolls.

Yes, and far too much pace to those scenes.

pixelburp

tylercheribini wrote: »

Anyone else find the physics of the battling robots really unconvincing? I know they have superhuman strength but they flew and bounced around like ragdolls.

Been a problem since Rise of the Machines, and any movie that liberally used CGI for its fights or action. Most of the time there's no heft or, as you say, physics involved. Everything from the MCU films to that Midway film coming out suffers from this so isn't an issue isolated to the Terminator franchise.