# Terminator Dark Fate Review (no spoilers)



## Zardnaar (Nov 2, 2019)

Last night we went out for dinner right beside the movie theatre. So we decided to go see it and got drunk afterwards.

Probably should have got drunk first.

  So this movie is being called the best Terminator movie since T2. I'm a fan of T3 and thought that one was better but it's better than Salvation and Genysis.

It's not a disaster in terms of being entertaining. Looks like it's going to bomb.

  The main negative to this movie IMHO us bad CGI. What you saw in the trailers is what you see in the movie. T3 used more practical effects less cgi. It similar in quality to T3 imho, I prefer T3 ymmv.

Linda Hamilton and Arnie are back and do a decent job and Arnie gets some great one liners. MacKenzie Davies as Grace is also very good.

The character of Dani is completely miscast.  She's not a convincing actor and they try to shoe horn her into a new Sarah Connor but she short, lacks the screen presence and her lines fall flat more than a few times. Also overshadowed by Linda and MacKenzie Davis.

Gabrial Luna as the Rev9 also falls a bit flat. He's not scary as the Rev9, to much CGI is used. He lacks the physicality of Arnie in T1&2, and the nuance of Robert Patrick. The Rev9 isn't even as interesting as the Terminatrix in T3. Due to bad CGI his character had that weightless feel in to many scenes.

  And some very massive plot holes.

  On a positive note not all the CGI is bad and the effects used to de age some characters are amazing. Arnie's characters gets in a few jokes but it never crossed the line into self parody that T3 did. The 30 or so people watching it got a few chuckles.

The action scenes are basically dumb fun entertainment but better than the Michael Bey school of explosions approach.

In addition to being great Grace manages to overshadow Sarah Connor. She's very good.

Complete rehash though and they lifted a few concepts from T3 and Salvation and the TV show. It's not great but not terrible.


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 2, 2019)

I enjoyed it,much better than any of the others, I never watched the show so I can't say much about that.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 2, 2019)

Did you laugh at Arnie?


----------



## Mercurius (Nov 3, 2019)

I have no officially only seen one-third of Terminator movies...just the first two. I just find the premise somewhat worn out and formulaic. I mean, how many variations on the same basic plot can there be? But I mention this less to bag on someone else's fun, and more just to remark on my surprise that I haven't see a new Terminator film since T2 came about, 28 years ago.

Feeling old.

p.s. Mackenzie Davis is one of my favorite young actors - she was especially great in _Tully _and _Izzy Gets the F*ck Across Town, _but also in secondary roles like _What If_ and_ Bladerunner 2049. _She just stands out in whatever she's in.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Nov 4, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Arnie's characters gets in a few jokes but it never crossed the line into self parody that T3 did.




I saw T3 when it came out and after when I left the theater I thought Ive seen comedies that werent that funny.  I was thinking of seeing this but think I'll pass, at least until PPV.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 4, 2019)

R_J_K75 said:


> I saw T3 when it came out and after when I left the theater I thought Ive seen comedies that werent that funny.  I was thinking of seeing this but think I'll pass, at least until PPV.




 DF is between T2 and T3 in terms of comedy.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Nov 4, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> DF is between T2 and T3 in terms of comedy.



IIRC, theres was next to no comedy in T1 which is why they probably shouldve just stopped there.  I cant remember the last time I saw good original movie.  Joker was crap.  Everything is either a remake, reboot or reimagining.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 4, 2019)

R_J_K75 said:


> IIRC, theres was next to no comedy in T1 which is why they probably shouldve just stopped there.  I cant remember the last time I saw good original movie.  Joker was crap.  Everything is either a remake, reboot or reimagining.




T1 had horror elements. The nuclear war thing was probably more relevent when the USSR was around. 

 You really notice the tonal differences when you watch them now.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Nov 4, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> T1 had horror elements. The nuclear war thing was probably more relevent when the USSR was around.
> 
> You really notice the tonal differences when you watch them now.




Id say the nuclear war premise is more relevant more now than then.  Back then it was beat into our heads, with movies like the Day After.  With North Korea testing missiles now and not mention that when the USSR fell alot of nuclear. Weapons went missing and have never been accounted for.  I wouldnt be surprised if a small scale nuclear war happens sooner than later.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 4, 2019)

R_J_K75 said:


> Id say the nuclear war premise is more relevant more now than then.  Back then it was beat into our heads, with movies like the Day After.  With North Korea testing missiles now and not mention that when the USSR fell alot of nuclear. Weapons went missing and have never been accounted for.  I wouldnt be surprised if a small scale nuclear war happens sooner than later.




Maybe it doesn't have the same cultural impact though.


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 4, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Did you laugh at Arnie?



Only at the sense of humor comment


R_J_K75 said:


> Id say the nuclear war premise is more relevant more now than then.  Back then it was beat into our heads, with movies like the Day After.  With North Korea testing missiles now and not mention that when the USSR fell alot of nuclear. Weapons went missing and have never been accounted for.  I wouldnt be surprised if a small scale nuclear war happens sooner than later.





Zardnaar said:


> Maybe it doesn't have the same cultural impact though.




As someone who dabbles in Cold War History and Nuclear War, the premise of an all out intentional war between the East and West at the time of the original Terminator's release year '84 was very very likely*
 and in the for front of a number of folks' concerns. The Day After had just been on tv the year before. A month before Terminator, Threads** had just been on tv in the UK.  Red Dawn two months before.

Culturally, Nuclear war with Russia isn't really a high point anymore,it's more of NK launches a nuke or a stolen/dirty bomb goes off in a major city.

But Terminator 1 is more horror than sci-fi,just switch robot killer to masked killer. (Jason,Haloween etc) And considering James Cameron originally based the movie on a nightmare he had of a robot skeleton emerging from a fiery explosion and coming after him. 

*likely to the point of almost happening twice in '83

** It's on youtube, not for the faint of heart


----------



## Imaculata (Nov 4, 2019)

I saw T3 in theaters, and it was entertaining, but certainly not good. Any Terminator flick after T2 has T2's magnificent shadow lurking over it, because T2 is one of the greatest action movies and one of the greatest sequels ever made.

Seeing the trailer for Dark Fate does not make me want to go to the theater. Bringing Arnold back feels incredibly contrived, especially after the death of his character at the end of T2. Seeing an old Landa Hamilton in action scenes just seems kind of silly as well. Don't get me wrong, her character in T2 was one of the best action ladies in film history. But seeing an old woman fire a rocket launcher without breaking her arm, just stretches credibility to a ludicrous degree.

There's also the problem that a lot of the premise of Terminator just doesn't make much sense in the world of today, as it did back when T2 came out. Maybe it is time to move on? This franchise is dead. Maybe leave it buried?


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 4, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> I saw T3 in theaters, and it was entertaining, but certainly not good. Any Terminator flick after T2 has T2's magnificent shadow lurking over it, because T2 is one of the greatest action movies and one of the greatest sequels ever made.
> 
> Seeing the trailer for Dark Fate does not make me want to go to the theater. Bringing Arnold back feels incredibly contrived, especially after the death of his character at the end of T2. Seeing an old Landa Hamilton in action scenes just seems kind of silly as well. Don't get me wrong, her character in T2 was one of the best action ladies in film history. But seeing an old woman fire a rocket launcher without breaking her arm, just stretches credibility to a ludicrous degree.
> 
> There's also the problem that a lot of the premise of Terminator just doesn't make much sense in the world of today, as it did back when T2 came out. Maybe it is time to move on? This franchise is dead. Maybe leave it buried?




 Probably buried.

The only place I can think a new trilogy can really go is the future war. 

 1st one judgement day 1st 5 minutes, graphic nuclear explosions. Robots killing innocent etc R16, timejump to John Connor leading humans, t-800 battle scenes, dark, similar to scenes in T1/T2. Movie ends with Kyle Reese sent back maybe a scene with T-1000 prototype.

 Second movie Skynets getting a bit smarter but still losing, T-1000 gets sent back in time, John blows Skynet to bits but Skynet downloads into T-800 chasis. Left over Terminators become free willed.

 Last one future war is resolved one way or another it subvert expectations via a peace treaty or something. Main points being dark,gritty, violent, nuclear horror, no over the top new machines until maybe third movie. Tie them to T1&2 vs rehash. 

 Maybe go with T3s ending setting up the 1st movie.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 4, 2019)

It's bombing at the box office. Most reviews put it as the third best Terminator film (after T1 and GT2). I'm going to see it tomorrow.


----------



## GreyLord (Nov 4, 2019)

One of the complaints I've heard are about the changes to the history and such or the future.

However, as they changed the future in T2, wouldn't that mean that past also changes.  Wouldn't that mean John Connor was no longer the absolute necessary chap as the past and future had changed?  It could be someone else instead.

Same with Sarah Connor, as the past and future have changed, it would make sense that someone else would be the new "Sarah Connor" in regards to whatever future or past is occurring.

I suppose it depends on whether one feels time is more a thing where there are unchangeable events and characters that always have to do the thing time assigns them, or whether they feel time is malleable and can change completely.


----------



## lowkey13 (Nov 4, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## BookBarbarian (Nov 4, 2019)

I haven't seen it yet but I read John Scalzi's review: Terminator: Dark Fate Review which makes me want to see it.

Also finding out Joe Abercrombie (one of my favorite authors writing today) is responsible for the idea of Grace (whom I've heard is the best part of the film) tips me towards seeing it too.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Nov 4, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Maybe it doesn't have the same cultural impact though.




Agreed.  Thats what I was thinking too.


----------



## lowkey13 (Nov 4, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## ccs (Nov 5, 2019)

Well, that was...... Unimpressive.

It wasn't suspenseful - like the original.
It wasn't funny - at all.
It had no wow factor as far as far as the FX - something Cameron's films usually deliver.
It wasn't entertaining.
It didn't even throw in a "surprise" & kill off Sarah, Dani, or both. 

Plot holes?  Yes.  I will ignore them because it's a movie who's premise is time travel.

In the end all it was was a mediocre re-run of the original film with bits of the other installments spliced in (liquid metal/shape shifting termies, T-800 acting with the good guys, augmented humans).
At least in this regard it's better than that other recent marquis re-run: SW: TFA - it didn't turn into a parody of its original & piss all over the story/beloved original characters....



Oh, and the Rev9 being able to separate its skin & skeleton?  It's not all that impressive.  
The 1st time you're like "Huh.  That's weird."  But, after the first couple times you see the Rev9 reanimate &/or separate its liquid skin from its endo-skeleton (a trick it does alot), it gets pretty tedious.
And I was left wondering "Why doesn't the endo-skull have a top?".


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 5, 2019)

On track to 120 million loss.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Nov 5, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> If you want to see it in the theater, don't wait too long.



I've got 2 toddlers. Seeing anything in the theater is a lot of effort. So I'm inclined to let this one slide to streaming.


----------



## lowkey13 (Nov 5, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Kaodi (Nov 5, 2019)

I kind of wanted to see it in theatre because Linda Hamilton being an action goddess at her age is actually really important in the fight to reduce sexist ageism in entertainment. That is an opportunity that is afforded a good number of men but almost no women. But I live out of town and can be kinda out of the way to go to the theatre - especially since I usually have to borrow a vehicle. So not sure if I should go to the trouble of seeing it, especially with Frozen 2 and Episode IX coming up soon.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 5, 2019)

Just came out of the cinema. More thoughts later.

It was pretty good. Definitely the third best Terminator film and better than T3, Salvation, and Geysis by a large margin. Couple of bits too over the top, but a solid third part that make sense in the evolution of Sarah Connor and the T101.

Would recommend. Nobody’s going to see it though on account of the last three, which is a shame because it’s way better than those. We were the only ones in the cinema.

Liked it. Better than the last three attempts by a large margin. Bit over the top in one of the big action set pieces, but a really solid T3. Shame they didn’t do it like that three films ago!


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 5, 2019)

$120 million dollar lose might be optimistic. They spent up large on marketing. They probably spent close to 300 million all up.

They've made $120 million or so but the studio will only see about half that maybe slightly more.

Second weekend often loses 30 to 50%. Third weekend is something similar

At 30% which is optimistic drop off that's maybe another 100 million or so.

They get half of that or slightly more. I'll go with 250 million of which they get half.

That's going to be more than 120 million. If it trends lower than 30% drop off that's going to more.


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 6, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> That's going to be more than 120 million. If it trends lower than 30% drop off that's going to more.



Did you like take Finance or Economics in college or some other money related major or minor? You seem to always focus on money and numbers...


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 6, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> Did you like take Finance or Economics in college or some other money related major or minor? You seem to always focus on money and numbers...




Yes. Did some accounting, economic, marketing papers. 

 I find it interesting how movies are made and financed as well. Logistically as well, the differences between producer/director. 

 Won't know for another 5 or 6 days.


----------



## Nebulous (Nov 6, 2019)

Why does the remorseless Ah-nold kill John Connor, then stick around and start an effing family and start feeling bad about being a killer robot?  Oh yeah, because they had to shoehorn a 72 year actor into the franchise somehow.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 6, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> Why does the remorseless Ah-nold kill John Connor, then stick around and start an effing family and start feeling bad about being a killer robot?  Oh yeah, because they had to shoehorn a 72 year actor into the franchise somehow.




I wouldn't have done that myself. My twist would have been Arnie hangs around to kill Rev9 but new mission is to bring back Skynet.

Failing that fake marriage a'la the TV show.

I think they thought James, Arnie, Linda together again would sell the movie.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 6, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> Why does the remorseless Ah-nold kill John Connor, then stick around and start an effing family and start feeling bad about being a killer robot?



Because of the reasons it says in the movie?


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 6, 2019)

Morrus said:


> Because of the reasons it says in the movie?




His main point is it's stupid, or at least the execution.

Terminators going free willed has been done before in the TV show but they built it up long term.

In a movie you can't really do that. Its to fast/rushed. Over a trilogy sure.


----------



## Nebulous (Nov 6, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> His main point is it's stupid, or at least the execution.




Yes, that.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 6, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> His main point is it's stupid, or at least the execution.



It worked fine for me. It's not "stupid" at all. I thought it an interesting evolution of the "emotional learning" character he played in T2. It was definitely the next logical step with that, and clearly what would have eventually happened had that Terminator not been destroyed.

Sorry it didn't work for you.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 6, 2019)

Morrus said:


> It worked fine for me. It's not "stupid" at all. I thought it an interesting evolution of the "emotional learning" character he played in T2. It was definitely the next logical step with that, and clearly what would have eventually happened had that Terminator not been destroyed.




Kinda sorta. The draperies no sex thing married was poor though. A little bit ham fisted, and the whole humor thing was a bit much. It was more nuanced in T2.

I watched T1 a few weeks ago and big tonal shift. Not quite as bad as T3 in that regard.

It was also silly how he could detect temporal displacements in advance and sent Sarah to the freeway instead of the landing zone from the timejump. Arnie did well with the material but yeah.

One if the writers was from the TV show, I think the trilogy needed to go and n that direction but with Skynet not Legion.

 Then the whole lot would be a timeloop.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 6, 2019)

After the last couple of Terminator movies, don't know that I am all that interested in watching a new one. Will wait for this to come out on Netflix or Prime (or on demand). Based on the reviews and synopsis I've read, my main concern is it seems like it undercuts the ending of part 2 (which doesn't make sense if you are billing it as the real sequel to the first two films and trying to win back that fan base). That said, I still think part 1 is the best in the franchise. It is a solid film, and works from beginning to end for me (and like someone mentioned it has a horror element that really works). I enjoyed part 2 as well, but I think the franchise worked better when it wasn't going for that blockbuster vibe and taking almost more of a 70s grit approach. Don't get me wrong, I think part 2 actually pairs well with part 1 because it deviates so much. But my problem with the franchise is part 2 has become the blueprint rather than part one (and by blueprint I don't mean they should recycle the same plot over and over again, just I want a terminator movie that feels more like part one felt)


----------



## Morrus (Nov 6, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> After the last couple of Terminator movies, don't know that I am all that interested in watching a new one.




I think that's a terrible shame. This one is way better than the last three. If they'd just made this one, and not them, the Terminator franchise would be just fine. As it is it's gonna die because the las three are stopping people from seeing this one.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 6, 2019)

I would add that for the first time since T2 they got the "remorseless, it will just keep on coming, and will never stop" feeling. They didn't capture the desperation of fleeing something that just won't stop ever in any of the last three movies. This one - as it should be - was just a simple flight for survival.


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 6, 2019)

Morrus said:


> I would add that for the first time since T2 they got the "remorseless, it will just keep on coming, and will never stop" feeling. They didn't capture the desperation of fleeing something that just won't stop ever in any of the last three movies. This one - as it should be - was just a simple flight for survival.



I think they showed that quit well during the detention center attack,where despite almost everybody piling on him,he kept going.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 6, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> I think they showed that quit well during the detention center attack,where despite almost everybody piling on him,he kept going.



It was more in the acting of the pursued. They didn't stop fleeing, and they knew they couldn't. They remained desperate, the whole time, knowing that whatever they did all they were doing was buying a slight delay before he caught up again. They portrayed that hopelessness well.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 6, 2019)

Morrus said:


> I think that's a terrible shame. This one is way better than the last three. If they'd just made this one, and not them, the Terminator franchise would be just fine. As it is it's gonna die because the las three are stopping people from seeing this one.




Probably the last two. T3 did alright box office wise, had better plot, better twist, and more original. Looks better as well due to practical effects.

 This one might stop anyone seeing more. 

 The TV show is the highlight of the franchise after T2 looking at the overall scores.


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 6, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> The TV show is the highlight of the franchise after T2 looking at the overall scores.



you should read the books by Stirling, the pick up right after T2


*T2: Infiltrator (Terminator Series Book 1)
T2: Rising Storm
T2: The Future War*


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 6, 2019)

Morrus said:


> It was more in the acting of the pursued. They didn't stop fleeing, and they knew they couldn't. They remained desperate, the whole time, knowing that whatever they did all they were doing was buying a slight delay before he caught up again. They portrayed that hopelessness well.




I think they over did it though.

In the 1st 3 the Terminators take damage or in the T-1000 case starts to lose control of it's shape changing, Terminatrix onboard weapon is damaged.

  There's no nuance to the Rev9. The actor doesn't have the physique and they didn't use the quiet menace approach in T2.  For example the way the T-1000 tilts his head when he impales someone. Even the Terminatrix was subtle and she was more a high tech infiltrator model.

Its the Michael Bey approach I suppose.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 6, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I think they over did it though.
> 
> In the 1st 3 the Terminators take damage or in the T-1000 case starts to lose control of it's shape changing, Terminatrix onboard weapon is damaged.
> 
> ...



I get it. You didn’t like it.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 6, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> you should read the books by Stirling, the pick up right after T2
> 
> 
> *T2: Infiltrator (Terminator Series Book 1)
> ...



He’s big on the EU. He’ll definitely read them.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 6, 2019)

Morrus said:


> He’s big on the EU. He’ll definitely read them.




Probably not never seen them.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 6, 2019)

Morrus said:


> I get it. You didn’t like it.




It was enjoyable in a dumb sort of way.

Rehash and some misses here and there with some very bad decisions made like killing John Connor. That right there is a big one IMHO. Why would you expect people to go to a Terminator film to see him get killed is beyond me. Tim Miller gave an explaination that was silly.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 6, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> It was enjoyable in a dumb sort of way.
> 
> Rehash and some misses here and there with some very bad decisions made like killing John Connor. That right there is a big one IMHO.



You've called it stupid, criticised one of the lead actors' physiques, misspelled Michael Bay's name twice, said this one will stop people watching any more, said it made some very bad decisions, said the CGI was bad, said you should have gotten drunk first, that Dani was completely miscast, that she's not a convincing actor, that she lacks screen presence, that the Rev9 isn't interesting, or scary. Did I miss anything? Or is there more to come?


----------



## Morrus (Nov 6, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Probably not never seen them.



Woosh!


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 6, 2019)

Morrus said:


> Woosh!




I got it thought I would reply anyway.

I'll rephrase. If some pitched a Terminator movie at you where they killed John Connor would you invest in it?

ENworld publishing is worth something would you use that value to invest in that movie using your own money?

Or would you keep doing what you're doing or buy a new house or something?

 Assume you're not an orange headed stable genius from the US.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 6, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I got it thought I would reply anyway.
> 
> I'll rephrase. If some pitched a Terminator movie at you where they killed John Connor would you invest in it?
> 
> ...



If the previous three hadn’t soured audiences in the franchise, and this was the first new one since T2, totally. But this could be the best film ever made, and still people won’t go to see it because of the last three movies.


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 6, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I got it thought I would reply anyway.



the whoosh was because you missed his point,which was a dig at your SW"..in the EU..." thing that you do time and time again. Or that's how I took it.
Here's the description of the first book by S.M. Stirling, it was published back in '01 


Spoiler



Sarah Connor and her son, John, know the grim tomorrow that awaits their species if the Cyberdyne Corporation gets their Skynet system on-line. Targeted for annihilation because of their future destinies, the Connors have already survived two separate attempts on their lives by advanced Terminator killing machines. But enough T-800 detritus remains from their last life-and-death struggle to enable Cyberdyne to recover.

The nightmare is back on track. And the most fearsome and relentless cyborg weapon of all has been dispatched through time to ensure Skynet's victory: a machine so like its human prey that detection is virtually impossible.

Considered a dangerous terrorist by the U.S. government and hiding out in Paraguay, Sarah sees another T-800 similar to the cybernetic killer from whom she once narrowly escaped. But while his form and features will eventually be duplicated on many Terminator units, former counterterrorism operative Dieter von Rossbach is very much a man, irresistibly drawn to the puzzling, beautiful, deadly serious Sarah Connor and her brilliant teenage son. And once Sarah reveals her dark history and awakens him to the impending possible extermination of all human life, Dieter is drawn to her revolution as well.

But the machine masters of the near future have ensured that they will not be thwarted again. A new breed of enforcer, one designed to effortlessly infiltrate the ranks of the enemy, has been firmly entrenched in the uppermost level of Cyberdyne Corporation. With a vengeance-seeking FBI agent on a tight leash and the inexhaustible resources of Cyberdyne to support the hunt for the Connors and their allies, the 1-950 Infiltrator is relentless, programmed to pursue Skynet's goal until all targets are dead. But unlike its technological predecessors, the Infiltrator understands how humans think and feel...and she truly enjoys the blood and the chase.

Exploding out of the long shadows cast by Terminator 2: Judgment Day -- the cinematic action masterwork that rocked the world -- T2: Infiltrator marks a bold new beginning in the stunning apocalyptic epic that has already become a legend.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 7, 2019)

Morrus said:


> If the previous three hadn’t soured audiences in the franchise, and this was the first new one since T2, totally. But this could be the best film ever made, and still people won’t go to see it because of the last three movies.




T3 didn't sour people that much it seems.

It's rated somewhat well and did decent box office.

Even the last one did better in China. Blaming Genysis would be a factor but Dark Fate flopped there as well.

I think they chose the wrong point of divergence from the timeline. T3 wasn't a reboot so probably should have gone from there.

 It made 600 million adjusted for inflation.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 7, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> T3 didn't sour people that much it seems.
> 
> It's rated somewhat well and did decent box office.
> 
> ...



People aren’t going to see it. They don’t know if it’s good or not. They’re not going because of the previous three. Franchise fatigue, with some crappy movies in there.

(I was always going to see it, but I must admit that your dislike for it encouraged me; I’m almost always diametrically opposite you in opinions in anything!)


----------



## Morrus (Nov 7, 2019)

I was a little disappointed by the score - not much Terminator music in there. The occasional hint of the drums, but that’s it. I missed that music — it’s very atmospheric and sets the mood well.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 7, 2019)

Morrus said:


> People aren’t going to see it. They don’t know if it’s good or not. They’re not going because of the previous three. Franchise fatigue, with some crappy movies in there.
> 
> (I was always going to see it, but I must admit that your dislike for it encouraged me; I’m almost always diametrically opposite you in opinions in anything!)




I have a fairly high tolerance of bad Terminator movies. The only one I actively disike is Genesis.

Had they made this in 2003 it would have done better than it did. IDK if it would have done better than T3 and it's online scores are settling in T3 range on IMDb and Metacritic.

 Trending well o. Rotton Tomatoes though.


----------



## Nebulous (Nov 7, 2019)

Morrus said:


> If the previous three hadn’t soured audiences in the franchise, and this was the first new one since T2, totally. But this could be the best film ever made, and still people won’t go to see it because of the last three movies.




I think you're right, if Dark Fate had come after T2 it wouldn't have done bad at the box office, it would have had droves of people coming to see Arnold take up the role again.  And Sarah.  But I think killing off John (so damn easily) sort of ruins the epic struggle he had in T2 staying alive.  It's not a bad movie by any means.  I imagine when it's released on Blue Ray and more people see it the movie will be better remembered in the future.


----------



## Nebulous (Nov 7, 2019)

Morrus said:


> I was a little disappointed by the score - not much Terminator music in there. The occasional hint of the drums, but that’s it. I missed that music — it’s very atmospheric and sets the mood well.




There was a whiff of it when Arnold was about to put the glasses on but didn't.  I kinda wished he had.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 7, 2019)

Between Dark Fate, T3, Salvation and the TV show there's a good trilogy in there somewhere. In terms of concepts.

 Dark Fate had better characters, T3 had better plot both had flawed execution.


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 7, 2019)

I have to wonder,can you act like the TV show didn't exist then rate Dark Fate?


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 7, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> I have to wonder,can you act like the TV show didn't exist then rate Dark Fate?




 It wouldn't change. 7/10 for dark fate. 

 Wasn't great basically enjoyed it for the most part.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 7, 2019)

Morrus said:


> I think that's a terrible shame. This one is way better than the last three. If they'd just made this one, and not them, the Terminator franchise would be just fine. As it is it's gonna die because the las three are stopping people from seeing this one.




It probably isn't fair on my part. But I also don't go to the movies very often and choose which ones I see in the theater carefully. With Terminator, definitely the last two being bad color my impression (honestly I kind of enjoyed part three, even though it was way below the quality of the first two). But also some of the plot details I am hearing about are a turn off for me as well. Spoiler warning I am going to discuss a major plot detail that is meant as a surprise in the following paragraph. 




Spoiler: Spoiler



The whole killing John Connor thing, just removes a major reason why I would want to see the 'real sequel' with James Cameron behind it. I would be interested in following the story of that character and Sarah Connor. I am not interested in getting to know two new characters as the protagonists. That said, maybe I see it on DVD and these characters are compelling enough that they win me over (that happens enough). Its just that plot detail is enough to not have me rushing to the theater to see it. What I was really hoping for was that they would do something that feels like a real continuation of the first two, or a redu of III. But this sounds to me more like a reboot approach (maybe a soft reboot but still kind of reboot). But then I am in my forties and so my taste is probably not the same as someone in their 20s. To me, killing Connor like that in the first beat is gimmicky, it undercuts the second film, and it takes away an important character that I had an interest in following. I could be wrong. It might be a necessary ingredient for something else they are trying to achieve. I'd also be on board for something totally new with Cameron in the helm, directing something he really wanted to do (like he did with the first terminator). But this doesn't feel like that to me from the promotions, ads and reviews I've seen. Again I could be wrong. Usually when I get this kind of impression of a movie, I wait six months to see it because I find that gives me the distance from the mood around it on the internet (both positive and negative) to appreciate it more objectively. For example I wasn't enthused by what I'd heard about Last Jedi, but after all the online discussion had died down and I wasn't being influenced by outside opinions, I sat down to watch it six months later and rather enjoyed it. I am hoping I have a similar experience with the new Terminator.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 9, 2019)

I enjoyed it a lot and is so far the best attempt at succeeding T1 and T2. It's a shame it is becoming a flop, really.

I think the only part I didn't like was one battle that was a bit over the top modern hollywood superhero action cliché that I just can't quite buy or relate to anymore. 
I probably wouldn't have gone this particularly direction  story-wise, but... no one is paying me any bucks to make movies, so what do I really know?


----------



## R_J_K75 (Mar 3, 2020)

ccs said:


> Well, that was...... Unimpressive.




I just wasted $6 on PPV, I agree.  I can only wait for "Indiana Jones: Dark Fate" which Im sure it will be now that Spielberg is not directing it.  Im sure Harrison Ford going to ang around so long before he jumps ship too.  And whatever happened to King Conan?  Last I checked its in development hell with Indy 5 and Fletch Won.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 3, 2020)

R_J_K75 said:


> I just wasted $6 on PPV, I agree.  I can only wait for "Indiana Jones: Dark Fate" which Im sure it will be now that Spielberg is not directing it.  Im sure Harrison Ford going to ang around so long before he jumps ship too.  And whatever happened to King Conan?  Last I checked its in development hell with Indy 5 and Fletch Won.




 Better than the last one though.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Mar 3, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Better than the last one though.




I'll give you that.  I rented that one too, I didnt watch the whole thing so I dont remember much.   

This one though the thing that really distracts me is the fight scenes.  I don't know if its how they film things these days, the FX or CGI but everything look so fake.  I watch the original not that long ago and even though the FX were dated they still looked better to me.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 3, 2020)

R_J_K75 said:


> I'll give you that.  I rented that one too, I didnt watch the whole thing so I dont remember much.
> 
> This one though the thing that really distracts me is the fight scenes.  I don't know if its how they film things these days, the FX or CGI but everything look so fake.  I watch the original not that long ago and even though the FX were dated they still looked better to me.




Excessive use of CGI. In fight scenes things tend to look a bit weightless. 

T1 and T2 used a lot of practical effects and T3 was often subtle with the CGI.

I liked Salvation a bit better in the rewatch. It's the only one of the sequels that tried something different.

The TV show also holds up well. Almost looked better as well lol.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Mar 3, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Excessive use of CGI. In fight scenes things tend to look a bit weightless.




That's a good way to put it.  That and I think the TVs and projectors are getting to the point where there almost too good.  I was watching a football game or a hockey game at my friends house awhile back and it looked weird to the point it was hard to follow.  Kind of wish Id have kept my state of the art 2005 CRT Sony WEGA.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 3, 2020)

R_J_K75 said:


> That's a good way to put it.  That and I think the TVs and projectors are getting to the point where there almost too good.  I was watching a football game or a hockey game at my friends house awhile back and it looked weird to the point it was hard to follow.  Kind of wish Id have kept my state of the art 2005 CRT Sony WEGA.




I think you start getting that uncanny valley effect as well. Something just doesn't look right.

I kind of wish I kept a CRT TV as I have old light guns for Nintendo/Sega and they don't work on modern TVs.

The T-1000 actor in T2 took some bumps and Arnie let him rough him up a bit to make it look good.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Mar 3, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> I think you start getting that uncanny valley effect as well. Something just doesn't look right.




Yep.  My brain kind of tweaks out after a few minutes.  In another thread we were talking about Dyson Logos' maps and after thinking about it with most of them being b&w it brings the crossed hatched negative space to forefront for me and draws my attention away from the important stuff.  I'm not knocking the guy I just finally realised why I dont care for his maps as much as others.

I watched Antman & Wasp recently and thought the FX were pretty decent.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 3, 2020)

R_J_K75 said:


> Yep.  My brain kind of tweaks out after a few minutes.  In another thread we were talking about Dyson Logos' maps and after thinking about it with most of them being b&w it brings the crossed hatched negative space to forefront for me and draws my attention away from the important stuff.  I'm not knocking the guy I just finally realised why I dont care for his maps as much as others.
> 
> I watched Antman & Wasp recently and thought the FX were pretty decent.




Haven't seen that one. Watched most of the MCU a few months ago.

I think movies are over using CGI. It's blowing the budget out and is often not needed. Some movie spent 5k on cgi dog poop. 

 Disney is getting very good with CGI though.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Mar 3, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Disney is getting very good with CGI though.




Yes they are.  And yes many movies are wasting money on crap CGI.  I dont remember seeing Jurassic Park since it was in the theater in 93-94.  That was the first movie I remember seeing CGI in.  I dont know if it was the beer ball we drank before we went or not but man they looked good.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 3, 2020)

R_J_K75 said:


> Yes they are.  And yes many movies are wasting money on crap CGI.  I dont remember seeing Jurassic Park since it was in the theater in 93-94.  That was the first movie I remember seeing CGI in.  I dont know if it was the beer ball we drank before we went or not but man they looked good.




It looked great at the time. Still look ok now.
T2 looks more out of date with the hairstyles than most if the special effects.  Except the fake Arnie they shot up. I think they only used 5 minutes of CGI though.


----------



## MarkB (Mar 3, 2020)

R_J_K75 said:


> Yes they are.  And yes many movies are wasting money on crap CGI.  I dont remember seeing Jurassic Park since it was in the theater in 93-94.  That was the first movie I remember seeing CGI in.  I dont know if it was the beer ball we drank before we went or not but man they looked good.



It's a matter of taking the time and effort to match the CGI action with the real-life footage. In Jurassic Park, they paid special attention to adding artificial film grain to the CGI shots, individually matched to the grain in the footage those shots were being integrated into. They also softened the focus of CGI shots to match the depth of field in the corresponding footage.

Pretty standard stuff in any decent quality production these days, but there's a difference between doing the bare minimum routine adjustments and actually thinking about the effects from a cinematographic perspective.


----------



## Beleriphon (Mar 13, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> It looked great at the time. Still look ok now.
> T2 looks more out of date with the hairstyles than most if the special effects.  Except the fake Arnie they shot up. I think they only used 5 minutes of CGI though.




The biggest usage in T2 is Robert Patrick flowing through the bars at the psych ward and similar effects, the floor match for example.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 13, 2020)

Beleriphon said:


> The biggest usage in T2 is Robert Patrick flowing through the bars at the psych ward and similar effects, the floor match for example.




 Yeah they didn't over do it.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 14, 2020)

You can tell that the CGI shots for both Jurassic Park and T2 were carefully planned out to make them look as convincing as possible. There's been a lot of movies since where the director didn't really plan anything out. Chronicles of Narnia is a great example of a movie where they just lazily shot an empty field of grass, and told the artists to just fill it with CGI creatures. Oh, and throw some random mermaids in the foreground of this shot while you're at it.

Both Spielberg and Cameron were very careful how long they showed a CGI shot, and how close they could put the camera to it. Marvel is aware of that too, which is why they had a different model of Thanos for his closeups. But many movies don't care about any of that.

One of my favorite scenes that involves a great mix of CGI and practical effects, is this scene from The Lost World.


Notice how much effort was put into this scene. They have a moving camera to help sell the integration of the CGI into the shot, which was difficult to do at the time. They shift focus multiple times, and physical objects react to the actions of the raptors. And they also make sure the timing and the eyelines of the actors match with where the raptors are at the time, during a longtake! The camera follows the action of both the actors and the raptors, as if they are both present in the scene. This had to be carefully choreographed, because some of the shots are so long and every interaction that the raptors have with the environment has to be timed at just the right moment.


----------



## Cyan Wisp (Mar 16, 2020)

T1 is my fav, mainly because of Reese and the love story with Sarah. T2 was amazing and still holds up. I love the calm, slow relentlessness of the T-1000. Hard to top. Both are burned into my psyche. My mum's fridge makes a three note jingle when you open it... I think of that beautifully desolate Terminator theme every time.

DF? I can barely remember it. It was forgettable (to me) and didn't really cover any new ground apart from having a (let's face it, largely unconscious) augmented human. High hopes but didn't hit the spot for me like the first 2. That rev9 guy seems to spend all of his time running sideways which got annoying quickly.


----------



## wingsandsword (Mar 24, 2020)

Cyan Wisp said:


> T1 is my fav, mainly because of Reese and the love story with Sarah. T2 was amazing and still holds up. I love the calm, slow relentlessness of the T-1000. Hard to top. Both are burned into my psyche. My mum's fridge makes a three note jingle when you open it... I think of that beautifully desolate Terminator theme every time.
> 
> DF? I can barely remember it. It was forgettable (to me) and didn't really cover any new ground apart from having a (let's face it, largely unconscious) augmented human. High hopes but didn't hit the spot for me like the first 2. That rev9 guy seems to spend all of his time running sideways which got annoying quickly.




Terminator was a true classic, a great film done on a shoestring budget.  At heart it was a monster movie, but instead of some undead abomination or mysterious "slasher", it was a cyborg. . .and instead of a sleepy small town or a summer camp, it was Los Angeles.

Terminator 2 was the best action film of its time, and there's a reason it's fondly remembered almost 30 years later.  It was outrageously expensive, but worth every penny, and was famously groundbreaking in special effects.  

There's a reason that all the various Terminator sequels and spin-offs agree on the first two films being canonical.

Terminator 3 started to drop into self parody.  The shot of Arnie putting on the silly stripper sunglasses briefly after getting his clothes made it clear they KNEW they were starting to dip into self parody.  They were trying to make ever-more challenging Terminators for him to fight, so they had the now absurdly powerful T-X.  Despite Reese's dialogue in the first film making it clear that Skynet had lost the war and that the Terminator time travel gambit was Skynet's last chance to win the war, Terminator 3 made it seem a lot more like they just kept sending people back in time over and over again.

To me, the best part of Terminator 3 was the "world building" of finding out that John Connor was "supposed" to get in touch with the military because his girlfriend/fiancee/wife's father is a USAF Lieutenant General and that's the connection he makes that has him become a leader in the resistance after the war.  The film was worth it for the scenes of Skynet activating, and Connor taking command at Crystal Peak as the whole world is wondering what's going on and why they're seeing missile launches going off.

Terminator: Salvation was part of that 2000's film trend of making everything as dark and grim as possible.  Grimdark Terminator without time travel.  The heart transplant ending was a last-minute plot change after test audiences absolutely HATED the original ending of Connor dying in that last attack, so that was a quick re-shoot change to let Connor live but not change a lot of scenes so the film could still come out on time.

The best part of that was the scenes with seeing the resistance actually fighting, like seeing them attacking Skynet bases.  

Geneysis and Dark Fate were both forgettable sensory-overload explosion-fests that seemed to be trying HARD to cash in on the Terminator name, but that's it.  Killing off John Connor in BOTH films was a huge mistake.  

Dark Fate's outright flop may well have finally killed the series, but it hadn't been the same since Terminator 2 and had been slowly going downhill.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 24, 2020)

wingsandsword said:


> Terminator was a true classic, a great film done on a shoestring budget.  At heart it was a monster movie, but instead of some undead abomination or mysterious "slasher", it was a cyborg. . .and instead of a sleepy small town or a summer camp, it was Los Angeles.
> 
> Terminator 2 was the best action film of its time, and there's a reason it's fondly remembered almost 30 years later.  It was outrageously expensive, but worth every penny, and was famously groundbreaking in special effects.
> 
> ...




 Did you watch the TV show? 

 A big problem the have had is they keep doing over the top Terminators even though as you said T1 and T2 were supposed to be Skynets last gasp.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Mar 26, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Did you watch the TV show?
> 
> A big problem the have had is they keep doing over the top Terminators even though as you said T1 and T2 were supposed to be Skynets last gasp.



I loved the show. They really nailed a John Conner that was transitioning from a young victim to someone that could be the leader of the revolution.


----------



## DammitVictor (Mar 27, 2020)

wingsandsword said:


> Geneysis and Dark Fate were both forgettable sensory-overload explosion-fests that seemed to be trying HARD to cash in on the Terminator name, but that's it.  Killing off John Connor in BOTH films was a huge mistake.




If you count the hastily-rewritten ending from _Salvation_, that's the last three movies and three in a row.

I doubt that's a coincidence, but it makes me wonder what the motivation is.


----------



## wingsandsword (Mar 27, 2020)

FaerieGodfather said:


> If you count the hastily-rewritten ending from _Salvation_, that's the last three movies and three in a row.
> 
> I doubt that's a coincidence, but it makes me wonder what the motivation is.




Given that the reason for the hasty rewrite to the end of Salvation was that test audiences hated seeing Connor die, you'd think they would have taken that as a hint to not do it in future films.

Yet they still pulled that same plot device in the next two films, both of which did poorly.

I'm almost wondering if it's that modern trend in filmmaking to deconstruct everything, make everything dark and grim, and kill treasured characters.


----------



## MarkB (Mar 27, 2020)

Technically they killed off John Connor in Rise of the Machines, too. The reason why the T-800 in that movie isn't programmed to obey John is because it was reprogrammed by his girlfriend, after it had successfully killed future John.


----------



## wingsandsword (Mar 27, 2020)

MarkB said:


> Technically they killed off John Connor in Rise of the Machines, too. The reason why the T-800 in that movie isn't programmed to obey John is because it was reprogrammed by his girlfriend, after it had successfully killed future John.




Yeah, but it wasn't on screen, so it didn't really impact the audience the same way.

I recall that the novelization of Terminator 3 said that he was lying about that, he was supposedly programmed to lie and say that Connor was killed.  I don't remember why, but even the author of the novelization didn't like it and tried to retcon that away.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 27, 2020)

The killing John Connor thing is basically every hack writer thinking they can do better and make Terminator their own. It's the same as old TSR writers doing realms shaking  events.

 Only way I would kill Connor is in the future ear right at the end where they win or resolve the war in another way. Even then it's debatable.

 If the franchise isn't dead and buried they need to go to lower budget character based stories away from John Connor. Maybe a future war setting up T1 and T2. 

 Reading the wiki there's some interesting sounding comics and novels.


----------

