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

sirmanga wrote: »

No, they are clearly in the frame, with the brand name on display (which is how you know a movie wants you to notice) while she is standing at the counter in pain. If things like that are framed in a movie, they are there for a reason. For example, and I know this is obvious, or at least it should be, but if you see a movie where a guy is at work or wherever, and we see a copy of The Catcher in the Rye on his desk, it is the filmmaker letting us know that there are parallels between Holden Caulfield and this character we are watching, or at least there is going to be allusions to The Catcher in the Rye. Things are framed in films for a reason, it's not by accident.

If I didn't read this I'd of never even known there was tampons in the scene. God some people look to be offended.

SMC92Ian wrote: »

I enjoyed it for what it was.

I didn't

The Guest is a great film, love it, shades of The Terminator and Universal Soldier. Exactly what I meant about Terminator needing to go back to it's roots and start again; The Guest cost $5m to make, a low-key rebooted Terminator could be made for $10-20m easily rather than the bloated 150-180m budgets for Genisys and Dark Fate.

Another recent low-budget film in that vein which is excellent is 'Upgrade', that one apparently only cost $3m though it looks like a film costing many times more than that.

The Red Letter Media review made a decent point that human-looking killer robots don't make as much "sense" in 2019 as they did in 1984 or 1991.

If you absolutely need to send a mechanical robot, why would you give it human form at all? Just send some twirly knife machine and go fu*k sh*t up.

Or send nanobots and turn everything into grey goo.

Or send a biologically engineered virus which specifically targets Sarah/John/whoever.

Or just send a laptop with a mobile network connection and some future AI software to hack satellites, find the target, nuke them from orbit.

Or a thousand other things which make more sense than a slow bipedal robot shaped like a bodybuilder.

Goodshape wrote: »

I've not seen The Guest but considering the wikipedia synopsis for it, which doesn't mentioned anything like Terminator themes, is comparing it to a Terminator film a bit (or a lot?) of a spoiler?

'The Guest' is more psycho on the rampage, than future robot on the rampage. There's strains in there that are similar but it's got nothing to do with 'The Terminator' really.

The poster had his tongue in his cheek when he said "it was the best sequel".

I suspect what he meant was that these films can be done fairly simply and don't need 100 million + silly money to produce. However, you can thank Cameron and that stupid liquid robot nonsense from 'Terminator 2' for that trend. Now every bloody Terminator has to have this ridiculous ability to morph into anything it wishes, but still have to have a scrap against Arnie. :rolleyes: That coupled with physics deifying, CGI drenched, set pieces, means a ludicrous mission creep for the bean counters and the budget gets out of hand.

But, none of it has resulted in a better film than the simple 1984 original and it never will.

I'm kind of happy that this has crashed, because hopefully that will be the end of this wretched franchise.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

People are calling DF the franchise killer.

T2 was the actual franchise killer (in a good way) because it left nothing to work with at all.

The story could not have been anymore finished.

People are morons. Genesis was far far worse. They should of had the balls to continue with the Salvation trilogy. The leaks about the 2 after sounded great.

SMC92Ian wrote: »

People are morons. Genesis was far far worse. They should of had the balls to continue with the Salvation trilogy. The leaks about the 2 after sounded great.

Yes, I loved salvation, was disappointed they didn't continue it.

The White Wolf wrote: »

Yeah it sounded wild. The future war brought to the present.

They could have done so much with it, some of the crazy theories out there on terminator and the timeline also lend themselves so well to story telling. Its a shame they don't expand on it.

I wanted to see more Salvation aswell but done better , Where's the saving private ryan with Terminators we deserve haha

Honestly though that would work with them searching for a young John Connor instead of Private Ryan

Steyr 556 wrote: »

Homelander is spot on, they need to drop Terminator for 10 years imo, and when they come back to it, no megastars, no massive budget. Possibly don't even call it Terminator. Possibly a riff on the Cloverfield series, they've had two movies closely related, set in the same universe, but not exactly the same.

I disagree, I think they should stop making terminator movies altogether. T1 was excellent, still holds up today. T2 was absolutely terrific and closed the story - they should have just left it at that. For me, thats the franchise.

T3 was embarrasing, Salvation was meh, Genisys was one of the worst films I've ever seen, an absolute mess. And now this nonsense.

The whole sending people back in time to kill the future leader of the world is jaded and boring, its been going on since 1984.

Just let it die, put it out of its misery.