'Terminator' fans triggered by latest Hollywood SJW effort

kunst nugget

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Ripley was originally Martin Roby in Dan O'Bannon's original script.

The production’s reasons for making Ripley a female was less about girl power, and slightly more cynical. “We were looking it over, Walter and I,” Giler said in 2003, “and we thought, ‘Here’s this one character, not too interesting,’ and this studio, I hate to say this, but for very cynical reasons, this studio is making Julia and Turning Point and they really believe in the return of the woman’s movie – bet we get a lot of points if we turn this character into a woman.” Giler was sure to add, “And it’ll just make the character more interesting.”

“No one on that film was a feminist,” Sigourney Weaver told Total Film in 2006. “Everyone thought, ‘Who will ever think the woman is gonna be the survivor?’ So it was just one big gag.” Weaver had told Starlog in 1994 that making Ripley female “was a commercial decision. The producers thought, ‘Here’s this movie about six guys landing on a planet. What can we do to make it more interesting to a wider audience?'”

https://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/roby-to-ripley/

PlaneSpeeking

Keepaneye wrote: »

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

Maybe they'll do a reboot with James Corden.

If the Queen bit his head off, I'd pony up 11 euro to see that!!!

Cantona's Collars

Just wait until they remake Saving Private Ryan with an all female lead cast.

kunst nugget

Bring back Edward Furlong!!! He has the right amount of sass for the role.

gmisk

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

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

"Cool wine aunt" aka Sarah Connor (who is a terrific character from terminator and T2) played by Linda Hamilton.
Look it might well be rubbish but it would be pushing it to be as bad as terminator genisys (with Arnie being hulkingly bloody useless), plus it is directed by Tim Miller who did deadpool.



Also what the hell is a soy boy?!?
Is it something to do with Soy sauce?

Sonics2k

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

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.

Maybe they did get the best actors for the role and you're just assuming this is just PC crap.

Maybe. Just maybe, they know what they're doing and did hire the most suitable actors.

Can't be any bloody worse than the last 3 Terminator movies.

DickSwiveller Returns

Sonics2k wrote: »

Maybe they did get the best actors for the role and you're just assuming this is just PC crap.

Maybe. Just maybe, they know what they're doing and did hire the most suitable actors.

Can't be any bloody worse than the last 3 Terminator movies.

Maybe you're right. Perhaps it's an enormous, gigantic coincidence all right. I don't watch children's films so I haven't seen any.

Sonics2k

Sonics2k wrote: »

Maybe they did get the best actors for the role and you're just assuming this is just PC crap.

Maybe. Just maybe, they know what they're doing and did hire the most suitable actors.

Can't be any bloody worse than the last 3 Terminator movies.

Don't you know the most suitable actors for anything are clearly always men!

DEFTLEFTHAND

I don't get the empowerment of women in film line.

There has always been strong female character in movies dating back to the days of Silent film.

What this is about is shoehorning women into testosterone fueled macho roles which were written for men. Nobody wants to see that, just like nobody would want to see a man play Catwoman or something.:D

RayCun

The funny thing about this is that when people say, "oh what next, remaking X with an all-female cast, ho ho", there are thousands of movies to choose from, and thousands more that are majority male, or where the only names that appear over the title are male.
But no-one notices that, they just talk about how ridiculous it would be to gender-swap the movie.


(yes, yes, I know you couldn't make "Saving Private Ryan" all-female)

kunst nugget

gmisk wrote: »

Also what the hell is a soy boy?!?

It's the latest right wing slang, straight out of America, for men that aren't 'Real Men'.

"Soy Boy" is a pejorative which is often used in right-wing online communities to describe men lacking masculine characteristics, bearing many similarities to the slang term "cuck". The term is based on the presence of phytoestrogens contained within soybeans, which have led some to conclude that soy products feminize men who consume them.

If someone is sad enough to use it on an Irish forum, you know you can ignore everything else they are saying.

Lash Into The Pints

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's the latest right wing slang, straight out of America, for men that aren't 'Real Men'.



If someone is sad enough to use it on an Irish forum, you know you can ignore everything else they are saying.

Why do you boomers get so upset you see people using slang you don't understand?

RayCun

kunst nugget wrote: »

If someone is sad enough to use it on an Irish forum, you know you can ignore everything else they are saying.

it probably means they've been watching InfoWars and buying the supplements

kunst nugget

Ghostbusters reboot was shyte though, just like the reboots of Total Recall and Robocop were absolute muck.

pleas advice

Linda Hamilton did a fairly good job in the original two films...

kunst nugget

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

Why do you boomers get so upset you see people using slang you don't understand?

Would you g'wan to feck with your talk about boomers on an Irish forum. Ffs...

Lash Into The Pints

kunst nugget wrote: »

Would you g'wan to feck with your talk about boomers on an Irish forum. Ffs...

Oh dear. Language changes gramps. Don't let the young people scare you with their funny words.

Franz Von Peppercorn

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).

Ack, it’s bound to be crap. Can the present stop stealing from the past? Terminator was great but now is sh1te.

In the general theme here: I think the new Doctor will be fine. The latest ghostbusters was mediocre but wasn’t the “worst movie ever”. Yes the man children were upset because their past was destroyed somehow by the casting but in the other hand the casting was a bit in your face and was there a need for a reboot anyway? Are there no original ideas? How many 80s movies will be rebooted? How many spider men can there be? Will Spider-Man eventually be a woman?

How “radical” is it to have no ideas and just do a reboot of an 80s classic except with women. It’s likely a mediocre ghost busters would have been panned anyway. Look at the over the top reaction to the new Star Wars. And at least that’s a sequel not a reboot. A reboot has to have a reason, has to be at least as good and maybe better than the originals. The dark knight was an example of a success.

There were movies and TV shoes back in the past that were female centric - like Cagney and Lacey. Could get a movie out of that, I imagine there’s some residual love for it.

As an example of not in your face yet politically correct and multicultural TV I give you the excellent Brooklyn 99. People do love that, but it’s not a reboot of an all white and male TV show,l from the 70s, it’s original and good.

( Cop shows tend to have been ahead of the curve on ethnic diversity anyway. Maybe reboot Chips. )

jimgoose

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

Why do you boomers get so upset you see people using slang you don't understand?

Because we have no use for this American-style nonsense from either side of the politically correct "divide", thank you very much.

Mad Max Fury Road is another example of a sequel that was "modernised" a bit, and I thought it was a fine romp and a worthy successor - especially given the de-mothballing of the magnificent Hugh Keays-Byrne - with a strong female lead, in the person of the superb Charlize Theron as Furiosa, and a not-so-subtle "Silly men killed the World!!" undercurrent. :pac:

Grandeeod

What's next?

The Expendabelles

Boom_Bap

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

Why do you boomers get so upset you see people using slang you don't understand?

I'm upset about nuttin.

kunst nugget

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

Oh dear. Language changes gramps. Don't let the young people scare you with their funny words.

If you had any notion of the history of this country, you'd know that Ireland didn't experience the baby boomer phenomenon, so using the phrase boomer just shows you're pilfering all your nonsense straight from American right wing sites.

Lash Into The Pints

kunst nugget wrote: »

If you had any notion of the history of this country, you'd know that Ireland didn't experience the baby boomer phenomenon, so using the phrase boomer just shows you're pilfering all your nonsense straight from American right wing sites.

Words from different cultures have always come into fashion in other cultures. The internet just serves to speed up the process.

Now chill old man, no point getting upset over the internet. Go watch your grandson play Minecraft. You like that.

Grayson

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.

Female led movies are actually doing pretty well. The star wars that took a nose dive was Solo. The other Star Wars are doing ok.

The top three grossing movies in north america in 2017 were female led. Beauty and the beast, The last jedi and Wonder Woman.

There have been some exceptions like Ghostbusters but the thing is that female led movies are actually performing better than their male led counterparts. The problem is that studios know this and cash in by making a lot of mediocre movies with a female led cast. The movie does better than it would have otherwise but to the outside it looks bad because people begin to identify these female led movies with crap. The fact is they would have made them anyway, it's just that now they get a box office bump because people want to see movies with women in them. Studios have just found a way to milk a few more cents from a mediocre movie. It's got very little to do with style or social justice and more to do with studios calculating the pay cheque.

BTW, I've always said that you could remake diehard with a woman in the lead and it would work and it could be amazing. However it needs to be exactly the right woman. A lazy studio exec would probably slap Angelina Jolie in and expect it to work. Or make it a comedy and throw in Melissa McCarthy. Both of which would suck and make people resent the director/actor for ruining a great movie.

jimgoose

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

Words from different cultures have always come into fashion in other cultures. The internet just serves to speed up the process.

Now chill old man, no point getting upset over the internet. Go watch your grandson play Minecraft. You like that.

The people from whom you acquired such terms as "Soy Boy" are about as cultured as a three-day-old porter and vindaloo shit.

Donald Trump

NIMAN wrote: »

Surely there's a man in that photo.....the middle one? No?

Look. It just makes the whole thing unbelievable.


You have these computers that gain sentience and ability to learn and develop on their own. They make a robot and send it back in time. Ok, not realistic or possible but entertaining enough to allow you to suspend disbelief for an hour or so to watch the film.



Now, I don't know about you, but if I wanted to send a female looking robot back to cause mayhem and chaos - the first thing I'd do is give her a cracking set of knockers. Else how the hell is anyone even going to want to bother talking to or acknowledging her?

gmisk

Grayson wrote: »

Female led movies are actually doing pretty well. The star wars that took a nose dive was Solo. The other Star Wars are doing ok.

The top three grossing movies in north america in 2017 were female led. Beauty and the beast, The last jedi and Wonder Woman.

There have been some exceptions like Ghostbusters but the thing is that female led movies are actually performing better than their male led counterparts. The problem is that studios know this and cash in by making a lot of mediocre movies with a female led cast. The movie does better than it would have otherwise but to the outside it looks bad because people begin to identify these female led movies with crap. The fact is they would have made them anyway, it's just that now they get a box office bump because people want to see movies with women in them. Studios have just found a way to milk a few more cents from a mediocre movie. It's got very little to do with style or social justice and more to do with studios calculating the pay cheque.

BTW, I've always said that you could remake diehard with a woman in the lead and it would work and it could be amazing. However it needs to be exactly the right woman. A lazy studio exec would probably slap Angelina Jolie in and expect it to work. Or make it a comedy and throw in Melissa McCarthy. Both of which would suck and make people resent the director/actor for ruining a great movie.

See the film Salt...originally written with a male lead (tom cruise) and the retooled for Angelina Jolie, i didnt think it was too bad at all and made decent money.


There have been really good action films with female leads (Atomic Blonde) and some utter dreck (proud mary).
I wouldnt judge this terminator film til i see it.

Donald Trump

Can't find the complete clip

Keepaneye

bluewolf wrote: »

Don't you know the most suitable actors for anything are clearly always men!

Who said that? Just because we are criticising a haphazard attempt to cash in on the girl power cult we hate all women actors? Cop on.

kubjones

Grandeeod wrote: »

What's next?

The Expendabelles

More like the expandables....

....Staring Amy Schumer.

nullzero

bluewolf wrote: »

Don't you know the most suitable actors for anything are clearly always men!

Tokenism doesn't equal the best actors for the role. It means a studio is striving to meet arbitrary gender quotas for the sake of it.
There have always been strong, competent female characters in all sorts of media, these days women are being patronized, that's what's offensive about things like this new terminator movie, there is no sincerity present just doing what's seen as trendy or required to not upset certain groups.

DEFTLEFTHAND

nullzero wrote: »

Tokenism doesn't equal the best actors for the role. It means a studio is striving to meet arbitrary gender quotas for the sake of it.
There have always been strong, competent female characters in all sorts of media, these days women are being patronized, that's what's offensive about things like this new terminator movie, there is no sincerity present just doing what's seen as trendy or required to not upset certain groups.

Well said.

RayCun

nullzero wrote: »

these days women are being patronized, that's what's offensive about things like this new terminator movie,

ah, I get it.

You don't have a problem with it per se, but you're offended on behalf of women.

#thisiswhatafeministlookslike

kubjones

nullzero wrote: »

Tokenism doesn't equal the best actors for the role. It means a studio is striving to meet arbitrary gender quotas for the sake of it.
There have always been strong, competent female characters in all sorts of media, these days women are being patronized, that's what's offensive about things like this new terminator movie, there is no sincerity present just doing what's seen as trendy or required to not upset certain groups.

Spot on.

Ellen Ripley was one of the most badass characters there has ever been in a movie, I can't think of a male character in anything I would consider more badass.

None of this "replacing male characters with Female characters" seems like female empowerment, but a middle finger to masculine stereotypes.

super_furry

Has anyone actually seen Terminator?

It's a female led film

gmisk

nullzero wrote: »

Tokenism doesn't equal the best actors for the role. It means a studio is striving to meet arbitrary gender quotas for the sake of it.
There have always been strong, competent female characters in all sorts of media, these days women are being patronized, that's what's offensive about things like this new terminator movie, there is no sincerity present just doing what's seen as trendy or required to not upset certain groups.

How do you know there is no "sincerity" present?


Looks its a hollywood film all they care about is making money, they would stick 3 adorable puppies as the leads if it would make them a bucket of cash.


The first 2 films are excellent in the franchise, since then it has been a disaster, no harm in trying something different.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

jimgoose

gmisk wrote: »

...The first 2 films are excellent in the franchise, since then it has been a disaster, no harm in trying something different.

But they're not trying anything substantially different, I believe the plan is to resurrect Arnold Schwarzenegger as the T800 yet again. This did not happen in the one sequel apart from T2 that I personally considered bearable, viz. Terminator Salvation. :pac:

super_furry

super_furry wrote: »

Has anyone actually seen Terminator?

It's a female led film

I actually wonder if they have. Or if they think there's a female terminator in this one. Which there isn't, but there was previously... I don't remember the outrage and pontificating for that!

Keepaneye

bluewolf wrote: »

I actually wonder if they have. Or if they think there's a female terminator in this one. Which there isn't, but there was previously... I don't remember the outrage and pontificating for that!

Again. No one is outraged about a female lead. You are seeing what you want to see because you've a planet sized chip on your shoulder about men.

gmisk

jimgoose wrote: »

But they're not trying anything substantially different, I believe the plan is to resurrect Arnold Schwarzenegger as the T800 yet again. This did not happen in the one sequel apart from T2 that I personally considered bearable, viz. Terminator Salvation. :pac:

TBH i have seen them all, but bar the first two films they havent stuck with me. Well you cant tell if its substantially different or any good without actually seeing it is my point. There are 3 woman on the poster woop de doo.

Terminator salvation I found an absolute trudge, Christian Bales on set rant being the best thing to come out of it.

kunst nugget

bluewolf wrote: »

I actually wonder if they have. Or if they think there's a female terminator in this one. Which there isn't, but there was previously...

I'd seen a video from some Irish Alt Right youtuber that someone was praising on AH about how the SJWs and liberals were taking over Star Trek with the launch of the Discovery series . It was slightly mind boggling given the racial and gender harmony promoted in the original series during a period of social unrest and racial tension.

kubjones

bluewolf wrote: »

I actually wonder if they have. Or if they think there's a female terminator in this one. Which there isn't, but there was previously... I don't remember the outrage and pontificating for that!

Person 1: Hey, I'm not a fan of the direction this movie is taking and I think it might be politically motivated.

Person 2: Hate the idea of powerful women taking charge for once? Obviously.

Person 1: No, I just think that its a cop-out to appeal to the current political climate and-

Person 2: Women are powerful too. Sorry if it hurts your little man feelings.


Basically every discussion of this nature.

Penn

I think people are also forgetting, this is James Cameron. The guy who last year got in trouble for speaking out about Wonder Woman.

Well, you opened the door for the inevitable Wonder Woman question, so … you recently said in this summer's film, Gal Gadot was playing an "objectified icon."

Yes, I'll stand by that. I mean, she was Miss Israel, and she was wearing a kind of bustier costume that was very form-fitting. She's absolutely drop-dead gorgeous. To me, that's not breaking ground. They had Raquel Welch doing stuff like that in the '60s. It was all in a context of talking about why Sarah Connor — what Linda created in 1991 — was, if not ahead of its time, at least a breakthrough in its time. I don't think it was really ahead of its time because we're still not [giving women these types of roles].

Director Patty Jenkins responded by saying not every woman character has to look "hard, troubled and tough to be strong."

Linda looked great. She just wasn't treated as a sex object. There was nothing sexual about her character. It was about angst, it was about will, it was about determination. She was crazy, she was complicated. … She wasn't there to be liked or ogled, but she was central, and the audience loved her by the end of the film. So as much as I applaud Patty directing the film and Hollywood, uh, "letting" a woman direct a major action franchise, I didn't think there was anything groundbreaking in Wonder Woman. I thought it was a good film. Period. I was certainly shocked that [my comment] was a controversial statement. It was pretty obvious in my mind. I just think Hollywood doesn't get it about women in commercial franchises. Drama, they've got that cracked, but the second they start to make a big commercial action film, they think they have to appeal to 18-year-old males or 14-year-old males, whatever it is. Look, it was probably a little bit of a simplistic remark on my part, and I'm not walking it back, but I will add a little detail to it, which is: I like the fact that, sexually, she had the upper hand with the male character, which I thought was fun.

He's not exactly Mr. Pander SJW PeeCee esq. You complain about three women being on a poster in an action film while throwing out examples of how Sarah Connor and Ripley were examples of badass women, not because they were women, but because they were badass, while ignoring the fact that Cameron was responsible for one of those women (who is also now in this film), and if anything it's a sign (coupled with his comments as above) that it's not a "GIRL POWER!" movie but that he's trying to create better representations of women in these types of movies than the other types of movies you complain about (Ghostbusters etc). Surely that's a good thing? Also worth noting that two of the women aren't "replacing male characters", they're new characters.

What is it you actually want?

kubjones

kubjones wrote: »

Spot on.

Ellen Ripley was one of the most badass characters there has ever been in a movie, I can't think of a male character in anything I would consider more badass.

None of this "replacing male characters with Female characters" seems like female empowerment, but a middle finger to masculine stereotypes.

Which characters are being replaced?

kubjones

bluewolf wrote: »

Which characters are being replaced?

I this movie? No idea.
Know next to nothing about it.

Was more-so referencing movies like Ghostbusters, Oceans 8 and the gender switching of marvel characters and the like.

Fighting Tao

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

If the Queen bit his head off, I'd pony up 11 euro to see that!!!

Only if the head ripping is real.

kubjones

kubjones wrote: »

I this movie? No idea.
Know next to nothing about it.

Was more-so referencing movies like Ghostbusters, Oceans 8 and the gender switching of marvel characters and the like.

I did hear about a female hulk... If its not based on the comics it would be silly!

RayCun

kubjones wrote: »

Person 1: Hey, I'm not a fan of the direction this movie is taking and I think it might be politically motivated.

:pac:

try

"fans were looking forward to the new 6th installment .. UNTIL the first kinda poster teaser for the movie came out in recent days:"

OMFG there are three women in the poster

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhvaI07jmkA

pearcider

kubjones wrote: »

Person 1: Hey, I'm not a fan of the direction this movie is taking and I think it might be politically motivated.

Person 2: Hate the idea of powerful women taking charge for once? Obviously.

Person 1: No, I just think that its a cop-out to appeal to the current political climate and-

Person 2: Women are powerful too. Sorry if it hurts your little man feelings.


Basically every discussion of this nature.

Well said. Facts to a leftist are like salt to a slug.