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

Uncle Charlie

Kirby wrote: »

They did. And it tanked. The box office is awful.

It's kind of like last year when the gaming series "Battlefield" put female allied soldiers front and centre in their World War II game. There was backlash and those that weren't happy were accused of being sexist for pointing out there were hardly any female soldiers in combat during this time for the Allies. Apparently, pointing out historical fact is being sexist and we should be more "woke".

Then the games lead developer said "If you don't like it, don't buy it!". And people listened. And it tanked. And they had to do a mea culpa for destroying their own cash cow.

Nothing good ever comes of insulting your audience.

Its great to see that this feminist sh1te has failed.

Now can we get back to some "toxic masculinity" like the old films of the 80s.

tylercheribini

Uncle Charlie wrote: »

Its great to see that this feminist sh1te has failed.

Now can we get back to some "toxic masculinity" like the old films of the 80s.

Funny thing is the original terminator film is about as feminist as a film of that genre could get.

Homelander

SirLemonhead wrote: »

I liked how in Genysis, he went off and did construction work while he was waiting. That made some sort of sense, unlike being a draper... considering the fella can only see in shades of red

One thing I genuinely loved in Genisys was the part where he tells Kyle Reese that he's "old, but not obsolete".

Then later in the movie, when he's feeding rounds into a magazine, his hand starts twitching uncontrollably, dropping rounds, he bangs it several times off the table, looks at Reese and just says "old."

That was touching on a human level, without compromising on him being an indifferent machine.

Arnie put in a much better performance in Dark Fate but I much prefered the general credibility of the T800 in Genisys.

In between both is a good film, sadly both went in opposite directions off-centre instead of meeting in the middle with the good ideas.

Chris_Heilong

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Depends on what phrasing is used. People whining about some sort of political agenda are just being overly sensitive. They could always just.. I don't know... stay at home and not watch it.

Well that is what has happened and why it failed.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've criticised the pacing above and questioned whether or not Arnie should have been left out altogether. Legit criticism is fine but implying that this is some sort of anti-male propaganda is just pathetic.

It is completely obvious that hollywood has an anti male agenda, it is just to what degree, this film had it but not in your face. From all these "strong" female main character films which keep being made were the women just act like a caricature of a strong male to having men act like idiots/creeps while the women have it all together, I think in time these portrayals of men will be seen as the equivalent of the dumb Blonde female character from the movies in the 1950s/1960s that we now look back on with a "what were they thinking?" attitude. Perhaps this has been going on so long you dont even question it anymore, I think a lot of us are like that but it is there.

Here is just a small example.

Stark

Dr. Evil was a woman?

pixelburp

In my day, we just had bad writing, and an over-reliance on stereotypes.

No, now it's "anti male agenda". God we're such snowflakes really.

cdgalwegian

Lucky for me I have no social media account so I had been ignorant of Miller's comments until I read the previous posts just now. I saw the film last night, and I really enjoyed the action scenes; proper popcorn-munching action scenes, strung together with eye-rolling moments of nonsense, and pained retro-fitting of a Terminator narrative which I never payed a whole lot of attention to.
It's a pretty good sci-fi flick, especially if you ignore the Terminator franchise's ins and outs (or ups and downs); worth going to see for brainless action, though I'd say many have voted with their feet and not gone for the differing reasons in the posts: me-too tiredness, continual wrecking of a franchise that had so much potential, and maybe just too many eye-rolling moments. It's a pretty forgetful film, but enjoyable at the time imo.

Greyfox

Steyr 556 wrote: »

Give us the god damn future war - grim death, radiation sickness, eating rats and cockroaches, no natural light, living in **** and dying in droves hunted by relentless machines

I'd say everyone would love this too and it would do very well at the box office, sadly Hollywood are too fond of making movies that cater to everyone rather then realising some films shouldn't be made with kids in mind

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

It is completely obvious that hollywood has an anti male agenda

It's not as they don't have one, there's just too many people out there who want to get offended

TheIrishGrover

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Personally, I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say audience apathy towards Terminator - now illustrated across three consecutive sequels - was far more consequential for this film’s box office than anything Tim Miller said about Internet whingers.

^^^^^^^^ This more than anything else.

God I hate that term "Woke".

I haven't seen this yet. I will get around to it eventually but not yet.

And that's the thing. I haven't seen it yet. Not because of some imaginary anti-male agenda. Jesus F*cking Christ. It's a TERMINATOR MOVIE!!!!!!! You do know Sarah Connor was ALWAYS a woman, yes? Not just since 2018.

Whenever I hear people talking this tripe I think of that rubbish "article" on BBC about how The Matrix dated badly because it involves a white male savior. Even though the part was offered to Will Smith first and then Sandra Bullock.

So no, I don't care about "Hollywood's anti-male agenda" (Which is NOT real. Hollywood is a business and will make whatever they believe will make most money. They don't care about flavour of the month terms and they don't care about people's personal opinions unless it affects the bottom buck. Do you really think they were thinking: You know what? We would make more money if we did this but I have an anti-male agenda so we will replace men with women and who cares if it loses money?.

No, haven't see it yet because it, unfortunately, as Johnny has said, mediocre sequels have dulled my enthusiasm for a new Terminator movie. And that's the one, the ONLY reason I haven't gone to see it.

silverharp

Greyfox wrote: »

It's not as they don't have one, there's just too many people out there who want to get offended

What they have is such a pandering to Wamen that it appears like an anti male bias, in doing so they are writing worse characters and plot lines. You could probably say they have an anti male character bias in movies.
Someone should tell them men buy more cinema tickets than wamen and that they will often lose money if they don't recognise this :pac:

Homelander

pixelburp wrote: »

In my day, we just had bad writing, and an over-reliance on stereotypes.

No, now it's "anti male agenda". God we're such snowflakes really.

It's really this simple. I don't understand how people get so obssessed with this imaginary anti-male agenda.

If you start trying to analyse things through that warped and unfounded lens, you'll find pretty much every film ever made is anti-something.

Chris_Heilong

Homelander wrote: »

It's really this simple. I don't understand how people get so obssessed with this imaginary anti-male agenda.

If you start trying to analyse things through that warped and unfounded lens, you'll find pretty much every film ever made is anti-something.

As I said I did not find this film offensive at all, it did have its cringe lines here and there "there is nothing special about you, It is your womb that is special" or what ever the line was.

Maybe agenda is the wrong word, Let us be real here, at the moment it is in fashion and considered modern in film and TV to prop up non whites, women, gay people. Can you at least admit this is a fact?

Sad Professor

Warning: Spoilers from this post onward. If you haven't seen the film yet and don't want to be spoiled, stop reading!

Homelander

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

As I said I did not find this film offensive at all, it did have its cringe lines here and there "there is nothing special about you, It is your womb that is special" or what ever the line was.

Maybe agenda is the wrong word, Let us be real here, at the moment it is in fashion and considered modern in film and TV to prop up non whites, women, gay people. Can you at least admit this is a fact?

Prop up is entirely the wrong word, inclusivity maybe is a more appropriate one, but again, I feel it's people who go deliberately looking for this alleged stuff that find it via confirmation bias.

Don't get me wrong; there are rare films that try 'too hard' to have tokenistic roles in every perceivable area.....but these are exceptionally rare, for the most part, I find it's simply confirmation bias as said above.

New Terminator for example. Not once did it cross my mind that it was anti-male, pro-female, female empowering, male-dismissive, progressive, regressive, any of that buzzword stuff.

It just was.

Frank Bullitt

Saw this at the weekend and was fairly entertained.

Of course, it will never have a patch on the first 2, but it had good action and good CGI. Nice nods to the old ones as well.

Kermit.de.frog

Sad Professor wrote: »

Warning: Spoilers from this post onward. If you haven't seen the film yet and don't want to be spoiled, stop reading!

If you have seen T1 and T2 there is nothing to spoil!

CinemaGuy45

j.s. pill II wrote: »

I was very curious about this myself. According to Wikipedia, it was James Cameron!

"Cameron devised the idea of a T-800 Terminator that is "just out there in this kind of limbo" for more than 20 years after carrying out an order, becoming more human "in the sense that he's evaluating the moral consequences of things that he did, that he was ordered to do back in his early days, and really kind of developing a consciousness and a conscience". Cameron considered this iteration of the character to be more interesting than those featured in his first two films, saying, "We've seen the Terminator that was programmed to be bad; you've seen the one that was programmed to be good, to be a protector. But in both cases, neither one of them have free will." Schwarzenegger enjoys interior decorating, so Cameron suggested that his T-800 character in the film have a drapery business."

As stated in a previous post, this scene prompted me to walk out. I'm still hurtin'! :eek:

What may I ask prompted you to walk in?:D
I have not seen this mess but I know I have missed nothing.

high_king

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's better, no? Seeing the thing and whinging about it is just pointless. If people don't want something and they vote with their wallets then it'll just disappear.

You might not like anyone having an opinion that disagrees with your anti male and sexist politics . . . but tough.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

If nothing living can be sent through the Time Displacement Device, how did the Rev 9 go back in time? There is no living tissue on that machine.

CatFromHue

Steyr 556 wrote: »

If nothing living can be sent through the Time Displacement Device, how did the Rev 9 go back in time? There is no living tissue on that machine.

none on the T1000 either but because T2 was so good everyone just forgot that bit

j.s. pill II

SirLemonhead wrote: »

I liked how in Genysis, he went off and did construction work while he was waiting. That made some sort of sense, unlike being a draper... considering the fella can only see in shades of red

Ah - I never watched Genysis (ironically, because I thought watching it would ruin the other movies in my mind...Thank you Dark Fate). Wasn't aware a previous iteration of T-800 had tried to make a life for himself outside of the time-traveling assassin business

Lillian Fit Dolphin wrote:

Surely he did it to completely ruin the movie so that only his films remain untarnished? It’s bonkers. We saw in T2 that the Terminator CPU is set to read only and can’t think for itself ie learn, just follow orders. Cameron just pulled that out of his ass.

I never even copped this - that's absolutely bang on!

CinemaGuy45 wrote:

What may I ask prompted you to walk in?
I have not seen this mess but I know I have missed nothing.

There was a time when I really enjoyed Sci-fi! What a horrible time to be alive...:pac:

Goodshape

Actually in T2 the T-800 was said to be a learning computer. Sarah comments that it makes him a more efficient killer.

It was only the (inferior) "Special Edition" which included the bit about the learning chip being turned off, and the scene where they switched it back on.

McDermotX

Goodshape wrote: »

Actually in T2 the T-800 was said to be a learning computer. Sarah comments that it makes him a more efficient killer.

It was only the (inferior) "Special Edition" which included the bit about the learning chip being turned off, and the scene where they switched it back on.

Was Sarah's line not in reference to him having "detailed files on human anatomy" ?

In any case, not sure why anyone is getting hung up on the whole learning/family thing in Dark Fate. It was just a sloppy, ridiculous plot device to get Arnie back into the franchise.......it doesn't need to be over analysed IMO.

The whole T-800 learning things from John in T2, and lets just stick to the theatrical release, was fine back then, but it's one of the areas where T2 now shows its age IMO - part of the reason why the original arguably stands the test of time better for me. Not to slight T2 at all, but in the cold light of day, it's hard to see past those parts.

brianregan09

Weren't Terminators also detectable by dogs in one of the 1st films , yet mr drapes was living with one I'm sure I didn't imagine that

McDermotX

brianregan09 wrote: »

Weren't Terminators also detectable by dogs in one of the 1st films , yet mr drapes was living with one I'm sure I didn't imagine that

Aye.....but it's so in your face, what with him patting one out lounging in the back garden, that it's intentional. Very overt, like much of the references to the first two.
Similar to the dog barking when the Rev9 shows up looking for Dani at her place.

It's such a predictably sloppy film.

SMC92Ian

I enjoyed it for what it was.

Goodshape

McDermotX wrote: »

Was Sarah's line not in reference to him having "detailed files on human anatomy" ?

Oh yeah, I think you're right. But otherwise my point still stands . In the cinematic version he was a learning computer. Only in the Special Ed. was it switched off.

SirLemonhead

Goodshape wrote: »

Actually in T2 the T-800 was said to be a learning computer. Sarah comments that it makes him a more efficient killer.

It was only the (inferior) "Special Edition" which included the bit about the learning chip being turned off, and the scene where they switched it back on.

Yeah, the special edition isn't considered canon. Sure, he's learning in the first movie too - The choice line he uses in response to "hey buddy you got a dead cat in there or what?" having been learned from the punk at the start of the movie

SirLemonhead

One thing I found funny - Kept thinking of the plot of Universal Soldier, when Grace was having here first post fight crash. Was wondering would they have her in a bath of ice next to cool down, like Van Damme kept having to do

brianregan09

They literally said that line and Sarah said have you seen the bathtub