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

jill_valentine

sirmanga wrote: »

Also, what was the point of the female half machine thing (can't remember her name, forgettable character, uninspiring actress) having all of these fainting spells and needing medication? What did that add to the story? Surely it couldn't have been so we have that scene in the pharmacy when they show a lingering, in focus shot of a big shelf of tampons? Then again...

Just gonna quote this for posterity.

sirmanga

jill_valentine wrote: »

Just gonna quote this for posterity.

Yeah, well the feminist message in this movie isn't exactly subtle, so it wouldn't surprise me. The funny thing about it all is they had one of the greatest, most believable, organic badass female heroes at their disposal in Sarah Connor and they wasted her.

jill_valentine

To summarise, your problem with the movie was not, in fact, the ways you didn't realise it was faithfully abiding by T2's rules, but that if you squint past all three speaking characters in the foreground, including the one holding a gun and having a seizure, you might see a tampon box on a shelf in a pharmacy in a film set on planet earth; and that this is all definitely proof the movie's out to get you and not at all a profoundly weird thing to get hung up on.

Grand so.

Goodshape

Alan Smithee wrote: »

Overall much better than any Terminator film post T2 but that isn't exactly a high bar to start with. The first half hour is absolutely fantastic a real throw back to past glories (but in a good way) unfortunately it never reaches those highs again save a scene or two. Still it's a decent film and worth a watch.

It's good that different people can get different things from it; I thought that first half hour was a pretty boring rehash of the well established Terminator tropes tbh. The big truck vs the old station wagon and all that. The saving grace was that it did all happen in the first 30 minutes, getting the "homages" out of the way.

Actually most of the big action set pieces were a bit eye-rolly. CGI people beating up CGI people is still just dull. But the pace of the whole film meant that by the time I'd finished the eye-roll they'd pretty much moved on in most cases.

It was the character stuff I enjoyed more – to my surprise. Really appreciated that they didn't spend too long over-explaining how and why they got where they are. No time spent explaining why Arnie's Terminator aged. Just a line or two to get past the fact he's a family man now (programmed as an infiltrator – I'd never really copped it before! Made perfect enough sense in little time), and unlike previous post-T2 sequels Arnie's performance actually sold it. No "talk to the hand" or silly glasses or finding another leather jacket and motorcycle.

So the story, as thin as it was, made enough sense. The action, as over the top as it was, never outstayed it's welcome. The performances were all good or good enough. And the pace of the film made up for the shortcomings.


And really, they didn't shove any "feminism" down any throats. The lead characters didn't have dicks. It barely mattered. Sarah Connor had a line or two about her

dead

son being important and not her. Seems a perfectly reasonable thing to be a bit annoyed about tbh.

Greyfox

sirmanga wrote: »

Also, what was the point of the female half machine thing (can't remember her name, forgettable character, uninspiring actress) having all of these fainting spells and needing medication? What did that add to the story? Surely it couldn't have been so we have that scene in the pharmacy when they show a lingering, in focus shot of a big shelf of tampons? Then again...

I thought the actress did a very good job, very different to her performance in that amazing Black Mirror episode, San junipero. The needing medication was a very good way of making sure the bad terminator was far stronger than her and why she volunteered was a interesting reason.

sirmanga

Greyfox wrote: »

The needing medication was a very good way of making sure the bad terminator was far stronger than her and why she volunteered was a interesting reason.

Yes, because they couldn't have just gone with the idea of the man Terminator being much stronger than her anyway. Had to give the woman an excuse of a regular, recurring medical issue, and then include the subtext of the tampons. The director said this would be a feminist movie, but boy was it ever heavy handed.
I love female action heroes, as long as they're believable and as long as they're not trying to be men. I mean, she even took a man's clothes. Spare me.

jill_valentine

The subtext of the tampons, you guys.

pixelburp

I'm only half in and out of this thread, before I get a chance to see this myself so just glancing at the general consensus ...

But WTF? "Subtext of the tampons?" No facepalm big enough.

sirmanga

jill_valentine wrote: »

The subtext of the tampons, you guys.

Yes. If you don't think it was done intentionally then you're being wilfully ignorant. The female machine is trying to compete with the male terminator, but she is hampered by a debilitating, naturally occurring issue which is preventing her from being on equal footing with the man Terminator. And when she goes to get meds for it we see an in focus shot of tampons, while she's hunched over in pain. It's like something a student film production would have included and think it was being wickedly clever.

Then we have the fact that this film has no strong male characters. Arnie is the closest, but he isn't even human and he has a "problematic" past. And the three main female characters never even mention being in love with a man. It's like some weird world where men aren't needed. I think they sent that message loud and clear by what happened on that beach at the start of the movie.

jill_valentine

Just to clarify for folks who haven't seen it - the drugs she's stealing are insulin for her overclocked metabolism, benzodiazepine to control her seizing, anti convulsants for a similar reason, and sodium polystyrene sulfonate, presumably to manage the effects of severe dehydration and prevent her kidneys failing.

The Tampon Subtext (tm) is that there happen to be some tampons among the other stuff on shelves in the background as she walks past to steal the above, exactly where tampons would be in a chemist. At no point are they actually anything to do with anything.

We're through the looking glass here people!

johnny_ultimate

I sometimes wonder if you can pinpoint the exact moment when bad faith American culture wars ruined online film discussion?

Chris_Heilong

It was good she had some weakness, I would have hated if she was "perfect" for no good reason like the Rey character from Star Wars. Grace was a better character than expected and yes they do have her wear the trousers in this film (literally) with the lack of a strong male but it was not offensive.

IMO The film would have been so interesting if Dani Raymon character died and the characters that are left alive realise they might be skrewed and have to come up with a new plan to prevent the future?

Goodshape

sirmanga wrote: »

And the three main female characters never even mention being in love with a man.

Genuine LOL.

sirmanga

jill_valentine wrote: »

The Tampon Subtext (tm) is that there happen to be some tampons among the other stuff on shelves in the background as she walks past to steal the above, exactly where tampons would be in a chemist.

We're through the looking glass here people.

No, they are clearly in the frame, with the brand name on display (which is how you know a movie wants you to notice) while she is standing at the counter in pain. If things like that are framed in a movie, they are there for a reason. For example, and I know this is obvious, or at least it should be, but if you see a movie where a guy is at work or wherever, and we see a copy of The Catcher in the Rye on his desk, it is the filmmaker letting us know that there are parallels between Holden Caulfield and this character we are watching, or at least there is going to be allusions to The Catcher in the Rye. Things are framed in films for a reason, it's not by accident.

El Duda

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I sometimes wonder if you can pinpoint the exact moment when bad faith American culture wars ruined online film discussion?

Ghostbusters 2016?

Goodshape

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

IMO The film would have been so interesting if Dani Raymon character died and the characters that are left alive realise they might be skrewed and have to come up with a new plan to prevent the future?

That might have been a (more) interesting take on it actually. And I kinda thought they were going that way for a moment,

maybe that no single person is the 'saviour' of humanity – that it's all of us, working together

, but they didn't bother. Maybe for the best to leave out that sort of preachy stuff though.

El Duda

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

sirmanga

El Duda wrote: »

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

Good call. Just rewatch T1 and T2.

jill_valentine

sirmanga wrote: »

No, they are clearly in the frame, with the brand name on display (which is how you know a movie wants you to notice) while she is standing at the counter in pain. If things like that are framed in a movie, they are there for a reason. For example, and I know this is obvious, or at least it should be, but if you see a movie where a guy is at work or wherever, and we see a copy of The Catcher in the Rye on his desk, it is the filmmaker letting us know that there are parallels between Holden Caulfield and this character we are watching, or at least there is going to be allusions to The Catcher in the Rye. Things are framed in films for a reason, it's not by accident.

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!

jill_valentine

sirmanga wrote: »

Good call. Just rewatch T1 and T2.

You were just criticising T2 for plotholes

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.