'Terminator' fans triggered by latest Hollywood SJW effort

ancapailldorcha

If people are really annoyed about this, why not just vote with your wallets and not see it? It's been decades since the last good Terminator film.

I'm so tired of modern whinging and whining culture.

fxotoole

fxotoole wrote: »

You could easily say the same about **** movies with weak male characters. It goes both ways. The problem isn’t Hollywood trying to push an SJW agenda or being pro-feminist. The problem is ****ty writers not being able to write interesting characters.

No, the problem is a lack of balance. There's no attempt to bring in both male & female roles to act together. Instead, as in Terminator, Oceans, and Ghost busters, all the main characters have to be female. Everything becomes
"Team Female". All these sequels follow the same format... and it's pathetic.

Hollywood is pushing a SJW or feminist agenda because we're not seeing films with strong male and female roles acting together (which is what we had previously). Instead, we're getting this effort to show "strong"/"smart" women working together against obstacles which are male/masculine in nature.

Wonder will the Terminator central AI still be portrayed as being female?

Blazer

I remeber the BSG remake and Starbuck and Boomer were women. I remember thinking goddamn stupid gender balance bull**** and nearly didn’t watch it.
Luckily I did and it turned out to be one of finest tv shows ever that had both excellent male and femail actors in it.
The terminator poster looks like some real gender pandering bull**** though in fairness which will really backfire on them if the mainly male fan base said to hell with it.

Fighting Tao

fxotoole wrote: »

You could easily say the same about **** movies with weak male characters. It goes both ways. The problem isn’t Hollywood trying to push an SJW agenda or being pro-feminist. The problem is ****ty writers not being able to write interesting characters.

Ah don't be spoiling it for the boo-boys. They haven't even seen this movie and it's the worst ever made! There is always a chance that good writers were involved and there will be interesting characters, but it is easier for people to write off the film straight away and then they can always say "I told you so" if it is crap (as it is expected to be crap solely due to the other Terminator films).

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

No, the problem is a lack of balance. There's no attempt to bring in both male & female roles to act together. Instead, as in Terminator, Oceans, and Ghost busters, all the main characters have to be female. Everything becomes
"Team Female". All these sequels follow the same format... and it's pathetic.

Hollywood is pushing a SJW or feminist agenda because we're not seeing films with strong male and female roles acting together (which is what we had previously). Instead, we're getting this effort to show "strong"/"smart" women working together against obstacles which are male/masculine in nature.

Wonder will the Terminator central AI still be portrayed as being female?

I didn't realise gabriel luna was female. Have you let him know?

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

I didn't realise gabriel luna was female. Have you let him know?

Wasn't she portrayed as the AI personality?

ancapailldorcha

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Ah don't be spoiling it for the boo-boys. They haven't even seen this movie and it's the worst ever made! There is always a chance that good writers were involved and there will be interesting characters, but it is easier for people to write off the film straight away and then they can always say "I told you so" if it is crap (as it is expected to be crap solely due to the other Terminator films).

I did the same with the Ghostbusters remake when it came out. Then, I had to vacate my flat one night and it was the only thing on at the cinema. Turned out to be quite good. Not genre defining but a very good laugh.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Wasn't she portrayed as the AI personality?

GL is the new terminator. Jude someone is john connor

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

GL is the new terminator. Jude someone is john connor

You're confusing AI's/Characters. I wasn't talking about the Terminator personality. I wasn't referring to Arnies Terminator or any of the physical terminators that chase our heroes around the place. I referred to the mainframe AI Skynet, which did have a female personality in one of the movies.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

You're confusing AI's/Characters. I wasn't talking about the Terminator personality. I wasn't referring to Arnies Terminator or any of the physical terminators that chase our heroes around the place. I referred to the mainframe AI Skynet, which did have a female personality in one of the movies.

You also referred to ALL the characters being replaced with women.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

You're confusing AI's/Characters. I wasn't talking about the Terminator personality. I wasn't referring to Arnies Terminator or any of the physical terminators that chase our heroes around the place. I referred to the mainframe AI Skynet, which did have a female personality in one of the movies.

You're referring to the end of Terminator: Salvation where Skynet cycles through a list of people familiar to Marcus before choosing the woman he met at the start of the film.

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

You also referred to ALL the characters being replaced with women.

I referred to the main characters being replaced by women.

I then asked whether skynet would remain with a female personality....

You're referring to the end of Terminator: Salvation where Skynet cycles through a list of people familiar to Marcus before choosing the woman he met at the start of the film.

Yup.

RayCun

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I'm all for empowerment of women and all that stuff but I agree with the backlash here. I don't go to the cinema for politics or to have this SJW stuff forced down my throat. I just want to see hopefully a good movie with great characters (male and female) and leave that sh!t at the door.

A poster has three women on it, and you see that as political?
A poster with three men, what would that be?
A poster with two men in close-up, and a smaller inset of a woman with her ass to the camera?

You say you want a movie with "great characters", but you are complaining about this even though you know **** all about the characters, except that they are women.

Pathetic.

listermint

The people who give out about this are he same people who will watch it so they can give out about it.


The word triggered makes me flinch everytime I see it.

It's a film , who cares I probably won't watch it I probably will who cares.

. meanwhile outside the sun is shining

alchemist33

I haven't read through all the posts but isn't the odd thing here that the first poster about a new Terminator film features no Terminator and no John Connor? It only has Sarah Connor (appropriately) and two new characters. They're not casting male characters as women but they are ignoring the two "males" (one is a cyborg) of the three staple characters of the franchise.

RayCun

ebbsy wrote: »

Let's ram things down people throats for the sake of it.

:rolleyes:

Someone makes a movie and the poster doesn't have any men on it, and you feel this is being rammed down your throat?

Maybe this is a bit Freudian, no?

You'd quite like something rammed down your throat, but haven't worked up the courage to do anything about it, so you just bring it up in conversation a lot and hope someone picks up on what you're putting out there...

RayCun

alchemist33 wrote: »

I haven't read through all the posts but isn't the odd thing here that the first poster about a new Terminator film features no Terminator and no John Connor? It only has Sarah Connor (appropriately) and two new characters. They're not casting male characters as women but they are ignoring the two "males" (one is a cyborg) of the three staple characters of the franchise.

If Arnie is in it, you can bet that there will be a poster with him on it.

And a poster with just him on it would be okay.

And a poster with just him and John Connor would be okay.

But a poster with three female characters on it is £"$£":mad::eek::(:mad::mad:*&%*&%

alchemist33

RayCun wrote: »

If Arnie is in it, you can bet that there will be a poster with him on it.

And a poster with just him on it would be okay.

And a poster with just him and John Connor would be okay.

But a poster with three female characters on it is £"$£":mad::eek::(:mad::mad:*&%*&%

No, it's just a little bit odd to ignore 2 out of the 3 main characters and start with 2 new ones. Ignoring Sarah wouldn't be good either.

RayCun

alchemist33 wrote: »

No, it's just a little bit odd to ignore 2 out of the 3 main characters and start with 2 new ones. Ignoring Sarah wouldn't be good either.

I'm sure there will be multiple posters

Fighting Tao

alchemist33 wrote: »

No, it's just a little bit odd to ignore 2 out of the 3 main characters and start with 2 new ones. Ignoring Sarah wouldn't be good either.

There is usually a suite of promotional posters and not just one. All we have seen here is one. How does everyone know what is on the other posters?

super_furry

Fighting Tao wrote: »

There is usually a suite of promotional posters and not just one. All we have seen here is one. How does everyone know what is on the other posters?

People are just desperate to be outraged. Three women on a poster for a film with a history of having a strong female lead? To the internet!

Irish Guitarist

I thought Terminator Genisys was a decent film. It was nowhere near as good as the original or Judgement Day but it was a lot better than I expected. I would have liked to have seen a sequel.

Sonics2k

I'm not sure if I'm 100% missing the point here. But is the all the complaining about a female Terminator or 3 female characters?

What the hell is wrong with you people?

Penn

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm not sure if I'm 100% missing the point here. But is the all the complaining about a female Terminator or 3 female characters?

What the hell is wrong with you people?

I mean, they have a point. Three women on a movie poster? What is the film supposed to be; Terminator, or Sex In The Post-Apocalyptic City?

Everyone knows you can't defeat a Terminator with a handbag, and Jimmy Choos are impractical to run in.

Zulu

bluewolf wrote: »

You also referred to ALL the characters being replaced with women.

I think you owe him/her an apology Bluewolf.

Zulu

Zulu wrote: »

I think you owe him/her an apology Bluewolf.

For what?
They said all the main characters "have to be" female. I said gabriel luna and jude whatsit aren't female. They then started talking about the AI. They did agree they said the main characters were replaced with women so we were on the same page there.

Keepaneye

Will Sarah Connor be replaced with a man?

Penn

It's Ter-MAN-ator! Not Ter-Lady-ator!

batgoat

My only complaint is that it's a terribly designed promotional poster. 3 women on it, who cares? One who is pretty iconic, I'm actually more intrigued by the idea of Connor coming back as she was bloody cool. As cool as Arnie ever was.

RayCun

Keepaneye wrote: »

Will Sarah Connor be replaced with a man?

I know people think this is a great table-turning response, but it isn't really.

Most action movies have male leads. Even in Terminator 2, Sarah Connor wasn't the lead.

So adding female leads to action movies is increasing representation and variety.

Adding male leads to action movies is making them just like every other movie.

seamus

Whenever I watch something, I like to look on IMDB for Trivia, and that kind of thing.

I recall looking at the page for Star Trek: Discovery when it was first released, and there was a single review tih one star with a title like, "SJWs strike again".

The review complained that, "This is the usual PC nonsense ruining great franchises. They've just pandered to the SJWs by making half the cast female!"

/facepalm

Keepaneye

Will it be sponsored by special k?

Will I Am Not

I won’t be watching it but I’ll be here for the arguing

Keepaneye

RayCun wrote: »

I know people think this is a great table-turning response, but it isn't really.

Most action movies have male leads. Even in Terminator 2, Sarah Connor wasn't the lead.

So adding female leads to action movies is increasing representation and variety.

Adding male leads to action movies is making them just like every other movie.

Ah I see right. So by making the same movies only this time with female leads, we right the wrongs of male leads in the past? Sure why not recreate sex and the city with an all male cast? Oh that's right because it would be sexist innit. Girl power.

Vegeta

Agricola wrote: »

Back then the concept discussion would have been "Oh I know, lets have a female terminator, lets make her really hot in a tight leather outfit and she will of course be naked at some point.... basically a sex robot killing machine"

Ha ha this could be describing Arnold from T2. Dude was in amazing shape, was naked in the movie and his outfit had a lot of leather.

Fighting Tao

Vegeta wrote: »

Ha ha this could be describing Arnold from T2. Dude was in amazing shape, was naked in the movie and his outfit had a lot of leather.

Some guys prefer to see naked men rather than naked women.

Penn

Keepaneye wrote: »

Sure why not recreate sex and the city with an all male cast?

They did

TomSweeney

Deleted User wrote: »

It's such absolute nonsense.

Look at movies like Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri and you'll find an amazing performance and a genuinely strong female lead.. That's an empowering role and relateable to women instead of just ticking some boxes.

This fúckery of replacing men with women is saying "Women are stronger when they act like men." Why not have them just be strong women?

Spot on.
But this franchise is long dead anyway, even if they got an Arnie look alike and a cast full of macho macho manly men the film will be an absolute pile of steaming ****e.
Just like every T film since T2.
T3 had a decent ending tho.

RayCun

Keepaneye wrote: »

Ah I see right. So by making the same movies only this time with female leads, we right the wrongs of male leads in the past? Sure why not recreate sex and the city with an all male cast? Oh that's right because it would be sexist innit. Girl power.

No, you haven't understood my point.

I didn't say anything about righting the wrongs of male leads in the past.

I'm pointing out the fact that most movies have male leads, and most movies have male-dominated casts, particularly action movies. So there's nothing edgy or groundbreaking about remaking Terminator 2 with the Sarah Connor part played by a man. That's just like, "Congratulations, you managed to make an action movie where all the major parts are played by men! Here's your medal!"

People lose their **** about a movie like Ghostbusters having four female leads, but movies where that gender ratio is reversed are completely unremarkable.

Sonics2k

Keepaneye wrote: »

Ah I see right. So by making the same movies only this time with female leads, we right the wrongs of male leads in the past? Sure why not recreate sex and the city with an all male cast? Oh that's right because it would be sexist innit. Girl power.

I think they did, it was called Entourage.

Grayson

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I agree but look at the recent Ghostbusters release all-woman cast and the movie was awful.

If the movie is good I don't care, but if it's terrible what was the point of new terminator again?

You're saying that having men in the movie would have made it good?

All ghostbusters proved is that an all female cast can profit from an unnecessary reboot as much as men.

Actually, that's not all. The fact is that these movies are doing pretty well at the cinema. Not Titanic well but still making a healthy profit. I read an article which analysed the takings for these female led movies and they are doing well. It appears that people, and especially women, want to see women play the lead in movies that aren't chick flicks. Studios have realised this and are cashing in. Unfortunately they aren't making amazing movies.

What the original post in this thread shows is that there's a group of guys who are whiny little bitches and think that it's some kind of oppression when a woman takes the lead in an action movie.

Wibbs

Hollywood goes through phases looking for the next big thing that rakes in the cash. They got it into their heads not unnaturally that aiming at 50% of the population that were underrepresented, or represented in a particular manner was good for cashflow. The largest transfer of wealth in US history has been into women's hands over the last 30 years.

Hollywood also goes through political and cultural phases too. A good example would be the Star Wars franchise and how it changed over time. George Lucas, like his mate Spielberg was one of the pack of new directors and writers in the 70's that came out of a post world war two childhood, with a large dollop of 1960's counterculture from the universities they went to, which very much informed their output. Spielberg of course regularly delved into that era, as did Lucas. His first studio flic being American Graffiti a look back to 1950's America(which gave us the TV show Happy Days). Star Wars was essentially Flash Gordon with Nazi's and space battles by the Battle of Britain and the Dambusters(and a very "White" cast). The heroine was of the Howard Hawks type with some 60's feminist attached(and the most capable character in the line up. Solo is cool but a bit daft with it and Luke is utterly useless and needs help all the time).

Fast forward to today and the new Star Wars is informed by a different politic and culture coming from writers, directors and studio heads from a different generation(mostly those who graduated in the 90's). Hence you get the "post modernist" stuff and the more "progressive" stuff we tend to see. So we get Lucille Skywalker, a Disney princess who is awesome out of the box, with near zero growth or hero's journey going on and the men are nearly all dopes or tantrum throwing children and plot points are as much about confounding fan theories and playing to the "post modernists" than actual plot points. It's also much more informed by wider media especially online. No "SJW":rolleyes: conspiracy required.

What does seem to be different of late is how seemingly defiant in defence of their current culture the studios can be at times, even when many such flics make a big loss at worst or barely break even at best. Star Wars is a near surefire safe bet, but even there the numbers though huge were less than expected and interest dropped rapidly after the first few weeks. Ghostbusters was a flop, the recent Oceans so so. I suspect this Terminator won't do too well either. In the past of Lucas' time if there were a series of near misses or flops the studios would change tack as quickly as possible.

For me what gets me is how lazy things like this are. Take an existing franchise or characters and shoehorn in women, essentially swapping them out, thinking this will work. Rather than come up with new women characters and stories that stand on their own. With Terminator that's much less in play as the original had a woman as the central protagonist. Though IMHO the original worked because the antagonist was male and a huge bugger with it. A man/robot who dispatched men with ease, but not our Sarah(who grew from "delicate woman" running for her life to the heroine. Hero's journey stuff. Y'know, good writing and storytelling, which is really lacking of late).

The Aliens franchise ditto and for my money Ripley is a fantastic character who happens to be a woman. But she plays her as a woman, not as a part written for a man that they stuck a woman in. She doesn't beat up men twice her size or any of that nonsense*. She's tactical, she uses her brains and leadership, shows vulnerability and emotions and growth. She's realistic. Hell, even the antagonist, the queen alien is female. There's a lot of mother/child(ren) thing going on in that second instalment. Alien and Aliens are films with actual equality going on.





*with something like Buffy the Vampire slayer that's fine, she's "magic" so can do that. Plenty of similar male characters do it.

Sabre0001

Well, the poster did its job and got people talking anyways...

Maybe this will be good, maybe it won't. Impossible to judge from a poster. I'll wait to cast judgement until after I've seen it (trailers might point to a leaning one way or the other).

Hande hoche!

If it's anything like the last film, expect the trailer to give away a good chunk of the plot.

Wibbs

Grayson wrote: »

Actually, that's not all. The fact is that these movies are doing pretty well at the cinema. Not Titanic well but still making a healthy profit. I read an article which analysed the takings for these female led movies and they are doing well. It appears that people, and especially women, want to see women play the lead in movies that aren't chick flicks. Studios have realised this and are cashing in.

They're generally not strong performers at the box office. At best making up their production budgets and often not even that. Then there's the marketing budgets on top and other ancillary sales. EG Star Wars toys have taken a nosedive in sales, a drop that even impacted the toys from the original series. What can happen and happened in the case of Ghostbusters was although the film itself was a very poor performer it did raise interest in the overall franchise. The originals from the 80's started selling again, as did the merchandise(the old stuff, the new ended up in skips) and interest in other offshoots(IIRC there's a TV series in pre production), so not a loss for the studio over time. Oceans 8 actually did quite well alright. Doubling its money, though not as big a take as the previous Oceans.

DickSwiveller Returns

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think you have to go all the way back to Terminator 2 in the early 90's for the last good movie of this franchise.



Everyone is in favor of more women empowerment in movies as it is. Or at least I don't see anyone objecting.

I object; especially if it means pandering to this recent sort of cult that's grown around women. Everyone has to agree that they're great at everything; that any business would benefit immensely from having more of them; that if only there was more women in politics we would be in a much better place.

Here's a radical idea: Get the best actors for the role, whether they're black, yellow, disabled, gender neutral - I don't care. Just please stop with this endless box-ticking PC crap.

Keepaneye

Wibbs wrote: »

Hollywood goes through phases looking for the next big thing that rakes in the cash. They got it into their heads not unnaturally that aiming at 50% of the population that were underrepresented, or represented in a particular manner was good for cashflow. The largest transfer of wealth in US history has been into women's hands over the last 30 years.

Hollywood also goes through political and cultural phases too. A good example would be the Star Wars franchise and how it changed over time. George Lucas, like his mate Spielberg was one of the pack of new directors and writers in the 70's that came out of a post world war two childhood, with a large dollop of 1960's counterculture from the universities they went to, which very much informed their output. Spielberg of course regularly delved into that era, as did Lucas. His first studio flic being American Graffiti a look back to 1950's America(which gave us the TV show Happy Days). Star Wars was essentially Flash Gordon with Nazi's and space battles by the Battle of Britain and the Dambusters(and a very "White" cast). The heroine was of the Howard Hawks type with some 60's feminist attached(and the most capable character in the line up. Solo is cool but a bit daft with it and Luke is utterly useless and needs help all the time).

Fast forward to today and the new Star Wars is informed by a different politic and culture coming from writers, directors and studio heads from a different generation(mostly those who graduated in the 90's). Hence you get the "post modernist" stuff and the more "progressive" stuff we tend to see. So we get Lucille Skywalker, a Disney princess who is awesome out of the box, with near zero growth or hero's journey going on and the men are nearly all dopes or tantrum throwing children and plot points are as much about confounding fan theories and playing to the "post modernists" than actual plot points. It's also much more informed by wider media especially online. No "SJW":rolleyes: conspiracy required.

What does seem to be different of late is how seemingly defiant in defence of their current culture the studios can be at times, even when many such flics make a big loss at worst or barely break even at best. Star Wars is a near surefire safe bet, but even there the numbers though huge were less than expected and interest dropped rapidly after the first few weeks. Ghostbusters was a flop, the recent Oceans so so. I suspect this Terminator won't do too well either. In the past of Lucas' time if there were a series of near misses or flops the studios would change tack as quickly as possible.

For me what gets me is how lazy things like this are. Take an existing franchise or characters and shoehorn in women, essentially swapping them out, thinking this will work. Rather than come up with new women characters and stories that stand on their own. With Terminator that's much less in play as the original had a woman as the central protagonist. Though IMHO the original worked because the antagonist was male and a huge bugger with it. A man/robot who dispatched men with ease, but not our Sarah(who grew from "delicate woman" running for her life to the heroine. Hero's journey stuff. Y'know, good writing and storytelling, which is really lacking of late).

The Aliens franchise ditto and for my money Ripley is a fantastic character who happens to be a woman. But she plays her as a woman, not as a part written for a man that they stuck a woman in. She doesn't beat up men twice her size or any of that nonsense*. She's tactical, she uses her brains and leadership, shows vulnerability and emotions and growth. She's realistic. Hell, even the antagonist, the queen alien is female. There's a lot of mother/child(ren) thing going on in that second instalment. Alien and Aliens are films with actual equality going on.





*with something like Buffy the Vampire slayer that's fine, she's "magic" so can do that. Plenty of similar male characters do it.

The early alien franchise is one of my all time favourites.

Maybe they'll do a reboot with James Corden.

jimgoose

The Terminator franchise went to hell in a handcart very fast mainly due to the powers-that-be apparently insisting that each sequel feature a freshly-3D-printed T800 with Arnie's face that has to be sent back in time in response to the latest crisis and blah blah blah, continuity and plot coherence be buggered. I thought Terminator Salvation was quite good, and of course that Tx be a fine lookin' thaaang. :cool:

cantdecide

Wibbs wrote: »

They're generally not strong performers at the box office. At best making up their production budgets and often not even that. Then there's the marketing budgets on top and other ancillary sales. EG Star Wars toys have taken a nosedive in sales, a drop that even impacted the toys from the original series. What can happen and happened in the case of Ghostbusters was although the film itself was a very poor performer it did raise interest in the overall franchise. The originals from the 80's started selling again, as did the merchandise(the old stuff, the new ended up in skips) and interest in other offshoots(IIRC there's a TV series in pre production), so not a loss for the studio over time. Oceans 8 actually did quite well alright. Doubling its money, though not as big a take as the previous Oceans.

And the studios avoid being dog-piled for being misogynist Nazis for another couple of years. Win win.

Lash Into The Pints

Poster shows token Latina, demi-fluid genderqueer non binary* and a 'cool wine aunt'.

This will be popular with the blue haired lesbians and soy boys