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

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.

tylercheribini

Corvo wrote: »

Yes, and far too much pace to those scenes.

Relentless "****ing of the frame" ala Michael Bay.

sirmanga

I've made my points excellently, and with incredible examples. That others have to resort to ad hominem tactics is disappointing.

Corvo

Just on another note, I was wondering during the movie how a Terminator could grow a conscience when it is said in T2 that Skynet specifically turns off their leaning CPU, but only read that was only in the special edition and the theatrical version is canon. I blame seeing T2 in the cinema not too long ago!

tylercheribini

pixelburp wrote: »

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.

True,but I just found it all the more noticeable in this when its supposedly big heavy steel robots involved. I suspend disbelief that bit more when its humans.

jill_valentine

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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.

Grace is too big. Also Dani is too small.

jill_valentine

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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.

It also visually articulates when she's hurt or going into shock far more immediately - you can see it from the cheap seats because she goes from being a foot taller and scarier than everyone else to being a staggering deadweight the 5 footers have to prop up.

py2006

Did ya'll notice the mansplaining scene?? :pac:

Chris_Heilong

py2006 wrote: »

Did ya'll notice the mansplaining scene?? :pac:

Dont forget that the boss of the car company that wanted to fire Dani's brother was also a straight white American male :rolleyes:.

jill_valentine

pixelburp wrote: »

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

I hope you still have it handy anyway.

jill_valentine

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.

I thought it was really inconsistent. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't.

Something I only know from an actor interview is that the new Rev 9 dude is meant to be physically far lighter than a Skynet terminator because he's built out of some kind of carbon composite rather than metal. They don't state that in the movie though, and when the endoskeleton walks around on its own they give it big heavy metallic footstep sound effects, so it's kind of hard to get a handle on what its weight physics are meant to be.

Also if Carl had tossed the endo straight into the turbine rather than up onto the mezzanine, everybody could have lived. Oh well?

Kermit.de.frog

Corvo wrote: »

Just on another note, I was wondering during the movie how a Terminator could grow a conscience when it is said in T2 that Skynet specifically turns off their leaning CPU, but only read that was only in the special edition and the theatrical version is canon. I blame seeing T2 in the cinema not too long ago!

Best not to think about anything in this movie tbh.

SirLemonhead

jill_valentine wrote: »

Also if Carl had tossed the endo straight into the turbine rather than up onto the mezzanine, everybody could have lived. Oh well?

Yeah, that really bugged me.

And yep, the CGI fight scenes aren't great - there's no weight to anything being thrown around so it looks incredibly fake. And yer man spidermanning up the walls looked terrible too.

Compared to the fight scenes in T2, those guys REALLY feel like they're fighting. Especially when Arnie is getting bashed in the face by that giant steel girder. A bit of rubber painted up trumps CGI

mrmorgan

Just back.... thought it was crap.

but fell in love with the blonde!! those eyes

expectationlost

py2006 wrote: »

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!".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGZk_AO0GJQ

she said "...its okay"

expectationlost

expectationlost wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGZk_AO0GJQ

she said "...its okay"

Well that tells me everything, best avoided so, nearly went to it yesterday, bullet dodged i'd say.

Talk about beating a dead horse, they should just put this out of its misery, or just go a different direction with different characters.

But the ending probably left us with the possibility of another film? am i right?

Greyfox

Deleted User wrote: »

or just go a different direction with different characters.

That's what they are doing so you shouldn't be so quick to judge a film you haven't seen yet

As it happens the film is a lot better that you'd expect, it's much better than the last 3 films and that's the best we could of hoped for.

Excellent film

Homelander

I'm mixed on this. It's undeniably very enjoyable but then again so was Genisys despite it's major flaws. I'd say it'd be unfair to lump this in with Genisys though, it's a better film though it has similar problems, particularly a huge over-reliance on CGI and radically OTT set pieces.

I wish they would go back to a low-key, body horror thriller like the first movie and give it a proper reboot that wouldn't cost much to pull off and carry little to no risk. Like what did Dark Fate cost, $200 million? 10% of that would make an excellent film in the vein of the original.

Anyway, back to Dark Fate. As someone who finds Genisys a pretty 'OK' film, this one has the same unfortunate in-your-face CGI approach, but the script is better, as are the characters and acting, which automatically elevates it above its predecessor.

I find it strange that Arnie plays essentially the same character in both but he's so much better in this, even if the back-story's incredibly flimsy in this one, more so than Genisys. I wasn't buying into it at all initially but they kinda pulled it back when we get to the point where Arnie admits he cannot feel love like humans do and I felt it earned a pass, though it could've done with a little more exposition in the credibility department. He is good overall though with some great lines, as much as I feel like the franchise needs to cut that cord, Arnie is the best part of the movie (as he has been in every entry at this point).

I see a lot of people praising the first 30 minutes but I have to admit I didn't love it, much preferred the middle section. I did however like the scene where John gets whacked, best use of CGI in the movie hands down. I found a lot of the movie generally way too over-designed and reliant on CGI driven spectacle.....the action just felt disconnected, weightless, and far too 'been there, done that', run-of-the-mill blockbuster stuff....nothing at all like the sense of real presence felt in T1 or T2.

The whole franchise is constantly trying to outdo itself with the ridiculous constant evolution of Terminators to be 'bigger and better' until they start to become farcical and resemble something from hundreds of years into the future (or a Marvel movie) rather than a few decades. They were at their best in T1 and T2, they need to go back to that particular well rather than try and crossover into the comic book realm, which they've been doing since T3. This is what annoys me most about the newer movies.

Overall a grand movie, somewhat better than T3 or Genisys, a lot better than Salvation, but still just an average sequel that's far too reliant on in-your-face CGI spectacle. That doesn't make it bad, I'd say it's one of those unremarkable but solid 3/5 type movies that passes the time handily enough.

Also was it just me or were the future scenes quite naff? The ones in Genisys are a lot better by comparison, having watched it the other day in anticipation of Dark Fate.

They need to strip the fat from this franchise if they want to continue, bring it back to what made it great. A simple but incredibly well told horror-thriller-action story about tangible, not-over-elaborate robot killers from the future posing as humans to exterminate threats to Skynet's reign over the remains of the earth. None of this check-box stuff with ridiculous explosion/set piece/over-engineered opponent/etc quotas.

Anyway, Dark Fate. A grand, functional movie but another unremarkable Terminator sequel as expected.

Kermit.de.frog

The only thing Genisys did right was it's depiction of the future war. And it did it superbly well imo.

The reason to me was down to how the scene was filmed and the color palette they used was 100% in keeping with the T1 and T2 (the night time visuals, bright lasers and very similar machines...)

How the rest of the film was then so sh!t having had that great intro is beyond me.

DF is a better film but it's such a low bar.

I agree this film is fun and average at best. OTT CGI action scenes and cringey plot points mean same old problems for the franchise.

If they went back to basics - simple horror story with some action (and less CGI) - fans would LOVE it but they can't resist screwing it up.

Greyfox

Greyfox wrote: »

That's what they are doing so you shouldn't be so quick to judge a film you haven't seen yet

As it happens the film is a lot better that you'd expect, it's much better than the last 3 films and that's the best we could of hoped for.

Excellent film

Well not really they still had Hamilton, Arnie in this, they should totally break away from the old characters and take the story somewhere else.

Granted i didn't see it but when you have one of your main stars saying the movie was "ok", go figure?

I'm not bashing it, it just sounds and looks like more of the same, if you enjoyed it fair enough👍

Hector Savage

This is a spoiler laden review ...

looks like absolute scutter