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

biggebruv

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Question: How does a scene from 1984 be better than any scene since 1992!?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyFM19DHKlw

Answer: The basics are right, the story is right, the screenplay is right, the tension is right, and there is no CGI. You don't need it.

You obviously need cgi to tell the stories we get now in cinema do you know how difficult and time consuming it was to make the movie on a low budget it’s just not practical now to lose so much time with crew and cast waiting around while they make animatronics move a certain way just to get a couple of shots that can be done in post with cgi

Like everything if it’s done from a place of passion and care the end product will reflect that there was very few complaints about cgi in avengers endgame or game of thrones season 8

James Cameron put everything into them first 2 movies aswell as aliens

Steven Spielberg done the same with Jurassic park which is why they hold up as the classics they are now and both T2and JP used cgi but built the scenes around it to use only when needed

It’s impossible to create some of the stories or action scenes they have now in modern action/superhero movies without cgi whether you think it’s any good or not is upto you

Also it’s James Cameron lol who’s one of the best in the business regarding directing movies

pixelburp

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Question: How does a scene from 1984 be better than any scene since 1992!?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyFM19DHKlw

Answer: The basics are right, the story is right, the screenplay is right, the tension is right, and there is no CGI. You don't need it.

On the flipside, the scene from that same film where Arnie fixes his scars in the mirror looks awful and has dated horrrrribly (to the point where at a screening in the cinema, the audience laughed), so swings and roundabouts.

CGI is just a tool, and like any tool can make great or terrible things depending on who wields it. David Fincher uses tonnes of CGI in his films yet you'd barely notice, while Fury Road, a film lauded as a champion of practical effects work, also applied a lot of CGI.

I said it already before in another thread that dovetailed into this topic but when it comes to CGI, the prevailing rule is: you can have it quick, good or fast, but constraints means picking only two.

biggebruv

pixelburp wrote: »

On the flipside, the scene from that same film where Arnie fixes his scars in the mirror looks awful and has dated horrrrribly (to the point where at a screening in the cinema, the audience laughed), so swings and roundabouts.

CGI is just a tool, and like any tool can make great or terrible things depending on who wields it. David Fincher uses tonnes of CGI in his films yet you'd barely notice, while Fury Road, a film lauded as a champion of practical effects work, also applied a lot of CGI.

I said it already before in another thread that dovetailed into this topic but when it comes to CGI, the prevailing rule is: you can have it quick, good or fast, but constraints means picking only two.

Considering the age of the film I don’t think it’s that bad

Venom

biggebruv wrote: »

Considering the age of the film I don’t think it’s that bad

Agreed. The fact that a little indie film made for less than $7 million back in 1984, has held up so well is kinda mental in this day and age.

SMC92Ian

pixelburp wrote: »

On the flipside, the scene from that same film where Arnie fixes his scars in the mirror looks awful and has dated horrrrribly (to the point where at a screening in the cinema, the audience laughed), so swings and roundabouts.

CGI is just a tool, and like any tool can make great or terrible things depending on who wields it. David Fincher uses tonnes of CGI in his films yet you'd barely notice, while Fury Road, a film lauded as a champion of practical effects work, also applied a lot of CGI.

I said it already before in another thread that dovetailed into this topic but when it comes to CGI, the prevailing rule is: you can have it quick, good or fast, but constraints means picking only two.

I wish Cameron would Lucas the first film. Go back and re-do the repair scene and the skinless skeleton at the end. Fix it all with CG from ILM.

pixelburp

Venom wrote: »

Agreed. The fact that a little indie film made for less than $7 million back in 1984, has held up so well is kinda mental in this day and age.

That's kinda my point though, Terminator didn't have the money to make better prosthetics (1984 wasn't that prehistoric, given it was the era of Rob Bottin, Rick Baker et Al), so the mirror scene looked bad.
CGI is no different; if the time or money isn't given to these things, they tend to look crap. Good CGI you don't even notice. Saying CGI is the root cause for poor FX doesn't fly, cos it's just another tool in the box, like puppetry, animatronics and so on.

SMC92Ian

pixelburp wrote: »

That's kinda my point though, Terminator didn't have the money to make better prosthetics (1984 wasn't that prehistoric, given it was the era of Rob Bottin, Rick Baker et Al), so the mirror scene looked bad.
CGI is no different; if the time or money isn't given to these things, they tend to look crap. Good CGI you don't even notice. Saying CGI is the root cause for poor FX doesn't fly, cos it's just another tool in the box, like puppetry, animatronics and so on.

Ex Machina and Chappie had amazing CG with tiny budgets. Where as Endgame the Iron Man suits look ****e.

pixelburp

SMC92Ian wrote: »

Ex Machina and Chappie had amazing CG with tiny budgets. Where as Endgame the Iron Man suits look ****e.

Indeed, and as I said, more often than not the equation is: you can have it Fast, Good or Cheap but you have to pick two. The MCU I'm fairly sure leans on the fast and cheap part (for a relative value of "cheap" here), whereas indie flicks can build themselves in relative autonomy.

DrumSteve

pixelburp wrote: »

Indeed, and as I said, more often than not the equation is: you can have it Fast, Good or Cheap but you have to pick two. The MCU I'm fairly sure leans on the fast and cheap part (for a relative value of "cheap" here), whereas indie flicks can build themselves in relative autonomy.

Gotta agree, the last few MCU films have had fairly jarring CGI (namely Iron Man with out the helmet and that abomination with Mark Ruffalo in the hulk Buster suit.)

SMC92Ian

pixelburp wrote: »

Indeed, and as I said, more often than not the equation is: you can have it Fast, Good or Cheap but you have to pick two. The MCU I'm fairly sure leans on the fast and cheap part (for a relative value of "cheap" here), whereas indie flicks can build themselves in relative autonomy.

The MCU CG is far from cheap, it's that they have so much CG they outsource to multiple companies for different scenes and it looks odd at times. Thanos is amazing and looks real yet the human Iron Spider or Iron Man look like wonky bobbleheads with the helmets off.

The White Wolf

Anyone going to chance that new game? I've read some reviews that have the mentality of "if you accept that this didn't have much of a budget then you'll find the game has a certain charm." Might get before Christmas.

SMC92Ian

The White Wolf wrote: »

Anyone going to chance that new game? I've read some reviews that have the mentality of "if you accept that this didn't have much of a budget then you'll find the game has a certain charm." Might get before Christmas.

It was great. If your a fan get it.

pixelburp

So given this has shown to be a box office failure, next step is of course for those involved to step out and say "not my fault!". Enter Tim Miller: sounds like things weren't too harmonious on-set with this, Miller clashing with Cameron on choices for the script; the article summaries an audio interview so haven't actually listened to the interview itself yet.

https://news.avclub.com/tim-miller-has-some-thoughts-on-terminator-dark-fate-b-1840037407

Miller also talks about some of the disagreements he and Cameron had during production, saying that even though Cameron got final say as a producer, he still felt the need to fight for certain “poetic and beautiful” moments that Cameron didn’t care about. Another disagreement involved the original Terminator director wanting the future timeline to involve the humans winning in the war against the machines, as had been the case in his movies (which is what made the machines so desperate to kill John Connor), while Miller thought it made more sense to have the humans on the ropes (because then it raised the stakes for the new machine threat).

All in all, the bad experience with Dark Fate actually soured Miller on any hypothetical future projects with Cameron, saying it has “nothing to do with whatever trauma” he got from the experience, he just doesn’t want to make another movie where someone else can stop him from doing what he thinks is right.

SMC92Ian

pixelburp wrote: »

So given this has shown to be a box office failure, next step is of course for those involved to step out and say "not my fault!". Enter Tim Miller: sounds like things weren't too harmonious on-set with this, Miller clashing with Cameron on choices for the script; the article summaries an audio interview so haven't actually listened to the interview itself yet.

https://news.avclub.com/tim-miller-has-some-thoughts-on-terminator-dark-fate-b-1840037407

I dunno how I'd blame Cameron for this mess. He did do T1/T2 and Dark Fate had barely any Cameron DNA on it so it seems it's all Miller imo. Deadpool was far from poetic and peaceful ha.

pixelburp

SMC92Ian wrote: »

I dunno how I'd blame Cameron for this mess. He did do T1/T2 and Dark Fate had barely any Cameron DNA on it so it seems it's all Miller imo. Deadpool was far from poetic and peaceful ha.

It's a corporation mandated blockbuster so TBH 'blame' is easily portioned off to a great number of cogs in the machine.

What it sounds like is that Cameron had more hands-on or veto powers than previous productions, which I guess caused a problem for the guy who was supposed to be making the film. Plus Cameron isn't known for being a collaborative team player (translation, he's a bit of a príck ).

At least Miller isn't blaming the audience.

Homelander

The general narrative in isolation was fine, very re-threaded and unoriginal but fundementally passable, what really bothered me was the need to check every box of the cliché CGI driven blockbuster, and go ridiculously OTT with absurd set pieces like it was a Marvel film rather than a Terminator one (ironically, while entirely missing what makes Marvel movies so good). Basically all other aspects of the film are tailed to suit those segments. That is why it's not a good movie, it's why Genisys was weak, it's why T3 was weak.

Go back to T2 and all the action and spectacular set pieces add to the film because they make perfect sense and drive the narrative forward in a meaningful way. There are some good parts to Genisys, T3 and Dark Fate, but they are drowned out by the blatant committee film-making which clearly dictated that each film needed more explosions, more CGI, more action for the sake of action, ALL NEW EXCITING TERMINATORS WE'VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE, all at the expense of proper character and world building and a sensible, coherent plot.

jill_valentine

SMC92Ian wrote: »

I dunno how I'd blame Cameron for this mess. He did do T1/T2 and Dark Fate had barely any Cameron DNA on it so it seems it's all Miller imo. Deadpool was far from poetic and peaceful ha.

Cameron cut a key future war scene Miller wanted to keep because it had significant character stuff and sketched out the circumstances of why Grace came back. This necessitated reshoots that resulted in what I consider the film's worst written scene by some distance, future Dani's speech about fate.

I have a strong hunch that making the reveal about Dani a "twist" was a last minute decision that wasn't baked into the script originally, and I also think that was likely Cameron's idea.

I really enjoyed the movie but would be curious to know the story Miller would have wanted to tell. I am at a loss as to why Cameron would want to do the John Connor stuff at the start if the point wasn't to open up different possibilities later in the war.

Jump_In_Jack

This instalment was totally unnecessary and underwhelming to say the least.
The whole story was a rehash of T2, but with extra terrible ideas thrown in such as Schwarzenegger’s character growing a conscience, Linda Hamilton’s character getting along with the Terminator that killed her son, the lead character Dani was utterly uninteresting, the dialogue was not convincing, and the back story was underdeveloped.
At the end, the entire film was utterly pointless as nothing was really explained, I mean what’s to stop another terminator just appearing again straight after the end and terminating Dani!
I hope they do another one but this time focus on new material and developing the story and writing some interesting dialogue and some decent characterisation.

biggebruv

jill_valentine wrote: »

Cameron cut a key future war scene Miller wanted to keep because it had significant character stuff and sketched out the circumstances of why Grace came back. This necessitated reshoots that resulted in what I consider the film's worst written scene by some distance, future Dani's speech about fate.

I have a strong hunch that making the reveal about Dani a "twist" was a last minute decision that wasn't baked into the script originally, and I also think that was likely Cameron's idea.

I really enjoyed the movie but would be curious to know the story Miller would have wanted to tell. I am at a loss as to why Cameron would want to do the John Connor stuff at the start if the point wasn't to open up different possibilities later in the war.

For sure when I rewatch this on blu I will be skipping Dani speech scene it was terrible rest was great though imo

1o059k7ewrqj3n

The White Wolf wrote: »

Anyone going to chance that new game? I've read some reviews that have the mentality of "if you accept that this didn't have much of a budget then you'll find the game has a certain charm." Might get before Christmas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmJcwMqJ5vM

Supposed to be quite decent!

jill_valentine

From looking at some of the deleted scene stuff floating around out there I think Dani was a bit of an editing casualty. I thought she was grand, but she definitely would have benefitted from some of the stuff that was cut.

It looks like she was originally meant to end the fight with the Rev 9 rather than Arnie, for example, and she's seen actively making decisions for the group more often. There’s also - imho - a much stronger sense of why she might be suited to leadership; not because she's especially tough or inspiring, but because she can make hard choices when she has to.

I think the pharmacy stuff and what she does to Grace in the end are traces of that, but it seems to have originally been a much clearer throughline. The original future war scene, terrible wig notwithstanding, would have been far more effective I think, and is a much better performance from Reyes, than the really bad teenage Grace flashback.

Some cuts made total sense, but some puzzling decisions too, the deleted scenes leave for some big fat continuity errors and the way everybody is behaving when Border Patrol apprehend them would way more sense if the previous gunfight had been left intact.

Slydice

It also looks like they tidied up some of the CG on the opening scene for the digital release.

Best scene of the film is still the call back to Sarah in T2 at the very start. What a performance!

BornIn84

impressive CGI sarah ..yes... horrendous film that s**ts on T1 and T2....yes.

jill_valentine

Slydice wrote: »

It also looks like they tidied up some of the CG on the opening scene for the digital release.

Best scene of the film is still the call back to Sarah in T2 at the very start. What a performance!

The fake VHS static over the logos and everything was brilliant.

just about worth a watch.

probably not any worse than the last 3 movies before it imo

it's not as if terminator movies haven't been fairly shyte for a long while now

effectively it's a vehicle that is not ever going to provide anything decent anymore as it has a built-in terminate / self-destruct mechanism -> the self-limiting story set-up.

jill_valentine

sugarman wrote: »

I really dont see where the franchise goes from here, theres only so many times you can keep dishing out the same diluted story.

From what I understand, if this one went down well, Cameron suggested he would have taken on the next one himself, and that he wanted to explore modern day technology and some of the transhumanist augment stuff more. I'm pretty sure, too, that based on the timeline laid out, Judgement Day is now supposed to be immediately imminent and the characters would have had to try to survive the social breakdown Grace describes.

Won't happen now, obviously, for now the movie aspect of the IP is on indefinite hold, but that was the plan. They hired a couple of sf novellists to brainstorm and hash out rules for the new Future War stuff they could follow up on in later sequels.

Slydice

On re-watch, I was wondering what the structures that go way into the sky are for.

Maybe the Alita sequel will go into that type of story.

AllForIt

I had though that this one was going to be good with the return of Sarah Conner but even cynical me didn't think it would be quite as bad as it was.

The idea that one of the Terminators hooks up with a human and sees the error of his ways is just so laughably ridiculous that if you told me this is what happens in a Terminator movie I wouldn't believe you.

I was quite looking forward to this but I have to say - it's not worth watching. Even Genisys was better than this imo.

steve_r

Haven't watched a Terminator film since T3 which I thought was meh - is this (or any of the sequels) worth watching at all?

Homelander

steve_r wrote: »

Haven't watched a Terminator film since T3 which I thought was meh - is this (or any of the sequels) worth watching at all?

Depends on where you are coming from. To be fair to them all, they are not bad brainless action films.

However they are entirely brainless, and if you thought T3 was meh, all of the sequels are even more so. You won't find a 'good' Terminator film in any of them.

Personally I think Dark Fate and Genisys are similar, both do certain things better than the other but end product is much the same. Salvation is quite different from any other Terminator movie at least, but I wasn't a fan.