• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

spookyduzt

Drive-In Mutant
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
10,842
I'm still shocked so many people are against it, even here we have "John deserved so much better.." Did you guys see T3, salvation, genisys? John Connor as a character was completely assassinated long before this movie ever had the audacity to do it.

In the last film we literally had him become a Terminator because there was no where else to take the character but straight into the ground, I think it was clearly the right decision to move away from it, both because it makes sense in a world where you can change the future, and because there was nothing interesting left to do with the character.

Sure, the character has been dragged through the mud, but those were three different older actors portraying the character. This was teenage Edward Furlong, the real John Connor, looking like a T2 post credits scene unearthed 28 years later getting blown away by Uncle Bob. People don't give a fuck about T3-Genysis John, they care about T2 John. He was our hero, went through hell escaping the T-1000, and stopped Judgment Day. It's like if they'd had the T-1000 rip Sarah's head off in the opening moments of T2 after we'd seen her go through so much shit in the original film.
 

Grimsen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,260
The CG in that scene was fucking trash. Didn't even loo like de-aging, just video game CG. Even Sarah Connor, I don't know why people say it was well done, it really wasn't.
 

Deleted member 21709

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
23,310
I thought the CG looked very good in this scene.

That fucking opening scene alone made me skip the movie entirely. What a spit to the face after T2.

So someone spoiled it for you, and you decided to skip Dark Fate?
Or did you walk out of the theater?
Or you read the script?
Or did you download an illegal cam and stop watching it?
 

RavFiveFour

Banned
Dec 3, 2018
1,721
Terminator fans should expect good chase scenes, push from a killer robot and that's it, because this whole thing of toppling the franchise's best is obviously never going to happen.
 

BojTrek

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
337
Chicago
I love T2, really like T1... the rest are mediocre. But this is a true T3, I really enjoyed it... I was very nervous in the final scene wondering how they could even win.

I wish the John scene was longer and that Sarah and John had a final conversation.

I left this movie wanting to immediately watch it again... even with poor REV-9 morphing and other bad CGI.

This scene was really great for de-aging on Sarah and John... the Arnold CGI in that scene looked weird to me... I want to rewatch it now!
 

Astral

Member
Oct 27, 2017
28,051
This scene actually confuses me. IIRC, they blow up Skynet in T2 so I guess John doesn't become a leader? There is no Resistance? But then where does this Terminator come from to kill him and why?
 

Pyccko

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,868
Good movie, but it felt like it was trying to do the Fury Road never-lets-up-for-a-minute infinite chase thing, but couldn't pull it off. Problem is the director doesn't have as deft a hand as George Miller, but who does? Still an order of magnitude better than any of the last 3 though.
 

DiipuSurotu

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
53,148
This scene actually confuses me. IIRC, they blow up Skynet in T2 so I guess John doesn't become a leader? There is no Resistance? But then where does this Terminator come from to kill him and why?
The same place and time the first Terminators were sent from. Skynet in the future sent a T-800 to 1984, a T-1000 to 1995, and several other T-800s to specific years after 1995, all to make sure that John wouldn't escape death.
 
Nov 13, 2017
9,537
The CGI was mind blowing. In twenty years, they will be able to reboot the sequel to T2 using de-aging that starts Sarah and John and young Arnie.
 

Astral

Member
Oct 27, 2017
28,051
The same place and time the first Terminators were sent from. Skynet in the future sent a T-800 to 1984, a T-1000 to 1995, and several other T-800s to specific years after 1995, all to make sure that John wouldn't escape death.

So at the end of T2 they only manage to save John for the moment and had to be on constant lookout for any other Terminators? I should watch the movie again.
 

thediamondage

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,248
This scene actually confuses me. IIRC, they blow up Skynet in T2 so I guess John doesn't become a leader? There is no Resistance? But then where does this Terminator come from to kill him and why?

you sorta have to hand wave it away as "skynet existed at SOME point, it sent back a bunch of terminators at different timelines (a bunch of T-800s specifically) to kill John Conner, one of them happened to succeed 2 years after Sarah and John finally prevent Judgement Day by (indirectly) killing Miles Bennett. At that point Skynet is no longer created in the future, but the terminators it created already still went back in time. It could have sent 1 million terminators to different points in time and they would have all been sent.

Its real wonky, it doesn't follow the Back to the Future thing where once past events change future events also change and affect past events (Marty starting to vanish) but that movie was inconsistent anyways since later Doc says past events changing create ALTERNATE futures so what you do creates divergent timelines, its sort of the infinite multiverse idea where anything that can possibly happen in any configuration will happen.

My biggest disappointment with the results of the opening, which I thought were GREAT, was that it has no real impact on anything. John Conner dying means the future is REALLY different now, even if Skynet emerges some other way in 20 years it won't be John who leads the fight back. Awesome idea, its fucking tiring to see the same shit of "leader rises up, skynet sends back terminator to kill leader". Oh, wait, you aren't changing a FUCKING THING are you, just swapping John with a new leader? Awesome. It got even more silly when everything in the future is hand waved with one or two lines, "We don't have Skynet we have Legion which is a cyberwarfare AI". Which creates the exact same looking terminators, also creates a time travel machine, which the resistance also manages to infiltrate and use. JESUS CHRIST REALLY?

Its a bit of the Hitler paradox, going back to kill baby Hitler may not change a single thing about the 20th century as another leader may very well rise up and take his place and more or less do the same things. Its sad they didn't reach a little bit more, and have 2 or 3 movies (or a TV show) where an AI realizes that just killing a few people in the past won't change anything for it, and it needs to do something else. What that else is... would be the movie magic. Salvation and Genisys and T:SCC tried to tackle that idea, none of them did it extraordinarily well, but I appreciate that more than Dark Fates which is just a reskin of T2.
 

CaptNink

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,119
B.C, Canada
I'm still shocked so many people are against it, even here we have "John deserved so much better.." Did you guys see T3, salvation, genisys? John Connor as a character was completely assassinated long before this movie ever had the audacity to do it.

In the last film we literally had him become a Terminator because there was no where else to take the character but straight into the ground, I think it was clearly the right decision to move away from it, both because it makes sense in a world where you can change the future, and because there was nothing interesting left to do with the character.

This 100% all day, every day. Movie was great.
 

shintoki

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,079
I'm still shocked so many people are against it, even here we have "John deserved so much better.." Did you guys see T3, salvation, genisys? John Connor as a character was completely assassinated long before this movie ever had the audacity to do it.

In the last film we literally had him become a Terminator because there was no where else to take the character but straight into the ground, I think it was clearly the right decision to move away from it, both because it makes sense in a world where you can change the future, and because there was nothing interesting left to do with the character.

I wouldn't be surprised if that why is Cameron suggested it. Kill him off, it is a great idea!
 

DiipuSurotu

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
53,148
So at the end of T2 they only manage to save John for the moment and had to be on constant lookout for any other Terminators? I should watch the movie again.
Basically yeah,except that they didn't know they had to do that. They didn't know more Terminators were coming which is why they weren't quite prepared when Carl showed up out of nowhere and attacked John. The future Resistance didn't know either, as they only send Kyle Reese and the T2 reprogrammed T-800 back in time.
 

Stu

Member
Nov 2, 2017
134
I feel like this wouldn't be such a big deal if they hadn't hyped Furlong as returning ...or at least give John a better death. Still, I thought it was a good movie.
 

Deleted member 16365

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,127
Sure, the character has been dragged through the mud, but those were three different older actors portraying the character. This was teenage Edward Furlong, the real John Connor, looking like a T2 post credits scene unearthed 28 years later getting blown away by Uncle Bob. People don't give a fuck about T3-Genysis John, they care about T2 John. He was our hero, went through hell escaping the T-1000, and stopped Judgment Day. It's like if they'd had the T-1000 rip Sarah's head off in the opening moments of T2 after we'd seen her go through so much shit in the original film.

That wasn't Uncle Bob. That was Carl.
 

jett

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
44,653
It's really bizarre that Cameron signed off on this, knowing his feelings on what was done to his characters on Alien 3

"I thought [the decision to eliminate Newt, Hicks, and Bishop] was dumb," he said (via io9). "I thought it was a huge slap in the face to the fans. ['Alien 3' director] David Fincher is a friend of mine, and he's an amazing filmmaker, unquestionably. That was kind of his first big gig, and he was getting vectored around by the studio, and he dropped into the production late, and they had a horrible script, and they were re-writing it on the fly. It was just a mess. I think it was a big mistake. Certainly, had we been involved we would not have done that, because we felt we earned something with the audience for those characters."

 
Nov 11, 2017
2,249
It wasn't really 'de-aging' as it was a full cg replacement. A lot of the same team that did the Irishman work at ILM Vancouver.

If people were convinced by it, that's quite impressive.
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,753
It's really bizarre that Cameron signed off on this, knowing his feelings on what was done to his characters on Alien 3

"I thought [the decision to eliminate Newt, Hicks, and Bishop] was dumb," he said (via io9). "I thought it was a huge slap in the face to the fans. ['Alien 3' director] David Fincher is a friend of mine, and he's an amazing filmmaker, unquestionably. That was kind of his first big gig, and he was getting vectored around by the studio, and he dropped into the production late, and they had a horrible script, and they were re-writing it on the fly. It was just a mess. I think it was a big mistake. Certainly, had we been involved we would not have done that, because we felt we earned something with the audience for those characters."


That's why I don't trust Cameron's endorsement of anything anymore.

As I said earlier, this movie played straight into the much hated Alien 3 syndrome. They had no reason to kill John, especially in such a short timeframe after the magnificent ending to Terminator 2. If they wanted new protagonist and new "future leaders", they could have kept John alive as an advisor or something. Fuck this movie. I really hope that its bombing in the box office means this franchise is dead for good.
 

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
115,549
That's why I don't trust Cameron's endorsement of anything anymore.

As I said earlier, this movie played straight into the much hated Alien 3 syndrome. They had no reason to kill John, especially in such a short timeframe after the magnificent ending to Terminator 2. If they wanted new protagonist and new "future leaders", they could have kept John alive as an advisor or something. Fuck this movie. I really hope that its bombing in the box office means this franchise is dead for good.

It really wouldn't have been hard for them to contrive a different story, like Skynet decided that rather than trying to blow up John himself, they'd destabilize his power base by taking out his lieutenants instead.
 

DiipuSurotu

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
53,148
because the T800 that was sent back to kill John had to complete his mission and then had to grow old as Carl with time to find what it meant to be human.
Physically, they could just have said he ages faster due to being artificial.

Mentally, he's an AI, he should learn faster than humans to begin with. Skynet gained self-awareness in less than one month.
 

Bob White

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,931
I'm still shocked so many people are against it, even here we have "John deserved so much better.." Did you guys see T3, salvation, genisys? John Connor as a character was completely assassinated long before this movie ever had the audacity to do it.

In the last film we literally had him become a Terminator because there was no where else to take the character but straight into the ground, I think it was clearly the right decision to move away from it, both because it makes sense in a world where you can change the future, and because there was nothing interesting left to do with the character.

I'm confused. You're saying, since other films did nothing with John, that it gives THIS film a free pass on doing nothing with the character? No where else to take him? He's the resistance leader that grows into so much of a legend that the machines try to kill him in the past. There's so much more you could do with the character. That's like saying the guy in your avatar has been fully explored and it makes sense to just do away with him. Like, what?

Legendary characters are kinda a pillar of story telling.
 

Masterz1337

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,787
Basically yeah,except that they didn't know they had to do that. They didn't know more Terminators were coming which is why they weren't quite prepared when Carl showed up out of nowhere and attacked John. The future Resistance didn't know either, as they only send Kyle Reese and the T2 reprogrammed T-800 back in time.
The way T2 was intended to start, and Genisys followed it almost to a T (no pun intended) was that you'd see Reese be sent back, and then John would go back and send T2 Arnie. Genisys of course stops the second part from happening, buts everything else is taken directly from Cameron's storyboards.

Carl being sent back would be something John didn't know about, and therefore wouldn't send a protector because at the start of T1 and T2, he is only aware of the terminators that tried to attack him and failed. Judgement Day from his POV happened in 1997, and thus there was no need for a third terminator to go back to kill him. Post T2 they got sloppy and weren't preparing for more Terminators, and they paid the price for letting their guard down.
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,753
It really wouldn't have been hard for them to contrive a different story, like Skynet decided that rather than trying to blow up John himself, they'd destabilize his power base by taking out his lieutenants instead.

That would have been pretty cool. Personally I hate stories where everything goes back to the previous status quo after a successful and satisfactory resolution (Star Wars Sequel Trilogy, and Terminator, for example). What was the point of eliminating Skynet if "not-Skynet" appears immediately afterwards? Why not keep using Skynet, if Legion is basically the same thing?

While I watched the opening to Dark Fate, I felt the same disgust as when I saw Newt and Hick's lifeless bodies at the beginning of Alien 3. Just fuck that noise. "Remember that amazing and endearing ending from the previous movie? Well fuck all that, because in our new amazing story, all of that goes straight to the toilet and we killed your favorite characters".
 

thecouncil

Member
Oct 29, 2017
12,333
Physically, they could just have said he ages faster due to being artificial.

Mentally, he's an AI, he should learn faster than humans to begin with. Skynet gained self-awareness in less than one month.
They wouldn't be sending a young T800 back in 2012 because T2 changed the future. No more T800s were coming back. It's explained in the movie that the T800 that finally catches up with John is carrying out a mission from a future that no longer happened.
So, at best, what you wanted was for Sarah and John to battle that T800 for 20 years before he finally killed John and without Sarah and John killing the T800 first.

The T800 found this in what? 3 days in T2?

T800 was sent back reprogrammed in T2, no? He came back as a good guy. And then he learned how to smile.
 

LabRat

Member
Mar 16, 2018
4,231
it's alien 3 and newt all over again, maybe even worse. just a huge fuck you to the fans.
 

Bad_Boy

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,624
Yeah the cg de-aging was the best ive seen. I actually said holy fuck, how did they do that. I was convinced they had earlier footage of sarah john and arnold.

Anyways, i am one of the few that liked the movie.
 

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
115,549
That would have been pretty cool. Personally I hate stories where everything goes back to the previous status quo after a successful and satisfactory resolution (Star Wars Sequel Trilogy, and Terminator, for example). What was the point of eliminating Skynet if "not-Skynet" appears immediately afterwards? Why not keep using Skynet, if Legion is basically the same thing?

While I watched the opening to Dark Fate, I felt the same disgust as when I saw Newt and Hick's lifeless bodies at the beginning of Alien 3. Just fuck that noise. "Remember that amazing and endearing ending from the previous movie? Well fuck all that, because in our new amazing story, all of that goes straight to the toilet and we killed your favorite characters".

It's the same logic that the Star Wars sequel trilogy is using: we want to profit off of your nostalgia but we can't use it forever so we're just gonna kill everyone you liked and replace them with new characters who will experience the exact same struggles because we don't actually want to tell a new story, just the same one but with new faces attached.
 

cake

Member
Oct 25, 2017
565
I was so confused by the opening scene since I kept expecting Furlong to appear proper at some point based on the early press.

Same, I could have sworn Furlong did a scene. I was expecting the guy they called for the emp to be future John (Furlong) who sent himself back before the timeline changed and was helping Carl keep an eye on his mom.
 

DiipuSurotu

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
53,148
They wouldn't be sending a young T800 back in 2012 because T2 changed the future. No more T800s were coming back. It's explained in the movie that the T800 that finally catches up with John is carrying out a mission from a future that no longer happened.
So, at best, what you wanted was for Sarah and John to battle that T800 for 20 years before he finally killed John and without Sarah and John killing the T800 first.

Wait what

I thought "Uncle Bob" and "Carl" were sent back from the origin point in the future (the Future War before the timeline was averted), to different destination points in the past (1995 and 1998). Are you suggesting that Carl was actually sent back to 1995 and we just didn't see him during T2?