Can you still watch The Terminator? Or T2? Or (eek!) T3? by chrisisall

Hey Chrisisall

I'm going to have to go with The Terminator.

The sequels as good as they are are just too damn slick looking for me. I really loved the grainy grubby look of the first one. It came across so much more convincing, the music was more harmonious with the look too, where as with Terminator 2 I felt the music was just not matching the visuals.

Sure the effects are nice and everything and a big shout out to Robert Patrick as the T1000. I mean c'mon his running is awesome - but ultimately Arnie as the ultimate evil killer robot in the first Terminator is what his casting was all about. He was literally physically made for that role! Softening him down because Arnie had become all lovable, and our delicate ninetees sensibilities couldn't cope with Arnie being bad anymore, was just limp...

The
Somnambulist

www.cirqus.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 3:04 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Well, I thought the role reversal in 2 was great.

At the beginning of the film, it is not entirely clear that Arnie is the good guy.

And that scene where he comes out of the elevator in the mental ward and Conner sees him, backpedaling in fear, I'll remember it forever.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 3:17 AM

MAJORCLOD

T2 will always be one of my favourite films. T1 is quite good too, but like a lot of people my age we saw T2 first, so its kinda what we grew up with.

I was looking forward to T3, and the ending was really quite cool, but it completely screwed over the whole point of the first two films.

"No fate but what we make" - That is what they were about, being in control of your destiny and the world around you... T3 came in and literally said no, its going to happen and you can't do SFA about it.

Sure it had some good sequences etc, and the ending was cool, but I really hate the fact that it made the second almost meaningless.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 3:17 AM

STARPILOTGRAINGER

Haven't seen T1 in quite a while, but remember it being okay, but nothing that really drives me to rewatch it. T2 is one of those movies that if it's on, and there's nothing else on more important, I'll usually watch it.

I saw T3 in the theatres, and it wasn't great, but it wasn't bad either, and I give them big points for the ending. I'd watch it again if I happened across it.

Star Pilot Grainger
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down."
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/newnumber6 (real)
http://www.livejournal.com/users/alternaljournal (fictional, travelling through another world)
Unreachable Star: http://www.unreachablestar.net - Comics & SF News/Reviews/Opinions

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 3:20 AM

MAJORCLOD

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 3:46 AM

CALHOUN

Quote:
CALLMEATH wrote:
Saturday, May 14, 2005 16:50

The part when Arnold says "talk to the hand" nearly made me leave. And some people actually laughed! Unbelievable.

Hey! I was one of those people that laughed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 4:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheReaver:
One of the punks at the beginning was Hudson in Aliens and a cop in Predator 2. He has been killed by an alien, a predator and a terminator.

lol, that's quite a distinctive rap sheet! No other actor in the world can say that!

This ain't happinin' man Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 4:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
I'm going to have to go with The Terminator.
The sequels as good as they are are just too damn slick looking for me. I really loved the grainy grubby look of the first one.

That first one was a low budget masterpiece.
The second was a grand production, but slick (as you said) and bloated. Action was great, but 'liquid metal'? That always bothered me.
The first one had a perfect harrowing ending, and needed no sequel, really.
And, effects aside, I hated 3.

I think we agree.

But still, how did John Conner send Reese back to be his father if John's father(Reese) hadn't met Sarah in the original timeline to ever create John?
Edited to include: I think I answered that question based on some info from Manwithpez. See below.

And speaking of 'Timeline', did you like it? I thought it was okay, but not enough to own a copy.

Tic-toc Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 4:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MajorClod:
T1 is quite good too, but like a lot of people my age we saw T2 first, so its kinda what we grew up with.

Quick, turn on your TV!
There's a really good episode of Teletubbies on!

Love funnin' with the youngsters Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 4:39 AM

JCKNIFE

Loved T1 and T2 but T3 invalidated the whole premise. I hope to never see T3 again (and yet I own it on DVD to complete my set...).

There is no fate but what we make for ourselves.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 4:52 AM

Some made a good point about it depending on which movie you grew up with.
However, I also agree with the sentiment that sequels are never as good as the original. T2 and T3 make the same mistakes that the Raiders sequels as well as others have.
They try to inject 'humor' and 'in-jokes', kind of like a wink at the audience into the films.
A perfect example is, as someone else said, making Arnold cuddly in T2. The character still could have been a good guy without the whole..."Hasta la Vista baby" crap.
T2 would have been much better if Sarah had still been the primary focus of the film, not the kid and Arnold.

"If I was in this business for the business, I wouldn't be in this buisness."

Opus

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 5:31 AM

Agreed, Opus. The cuddly crap took some of the edge off it.
Only one great line stands out for me: "It's in your nature to destroy yourselves." That was kind of a chilling line, played straight.
But mostly it's kinda corney.

Corn's to eat not to watch Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 6:29 AM

I don't see that line as corny, a bit preachy, maybe.
The unnecessary humor,detracts from the movie as a whole, and hurts the impact lines such as that have on an audience.
At least in my opinion.
Imagine the film with all the humor removed, a much, much darker film. They seem to be afraid to make darker films anymore.
"The Thing" remake was a very good and dark film, and was condemed for it.
My all time favorite horror movie "The Exorcist" couldn't be made today. It's a serious, dark, relentessly intense film.
With that said, I do enjoy T2 for what it is and to a lesser extent T3. It's just that they could be so much more.

"It can't be bargined with, it can't be reasoned with, it doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear and absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead"

Opus

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 7:42 AM

Opus, I see the first one as being the only one even remotely possible.
For John to send Kyle back to protect Sarah, Kyle, by necessity, could not have been his father IN THE ORIGINAL TIMELINE. So with Kyle being the father in this timeline, what changes will take place? Will the 'new' John still be a leader? Let's hope so, and that all other things remain the same, or John won't send Kyle back to protect his mom in the past, setting up the world for a paradox from which it will never escape!* And if you buy that, the other two are flat out impossible. Even if you don't buy that, the other two are flat out impossible.
While the events in Terminator might work themselves out (Kyle did mention ' one possible future, from your perspective' allowing for much), the additional events in T2 have to lead nowhere but hopless paradoxes, nomatter whether Arnold's 'detailed files' are of the first or second timeline, destroying Cyberdine only prevents the war (which would be catastrophic, timeline-wise) or deviate from his files accuracy, changing the war enough to make sending terminators back in time unwarrented and we have a paradox again. But all of this is academic. Terminator was made as well as Cameron could make it. Just not to have sequels. (anyone catch the clever Blade Runner paraphrase?)

T is science fiction.
T2 and T3 are fantasy.

I have spoken Chrisisall

* thanks to Manwithpez for valuable time-travel info that made the first T watchable for me again.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 9:29 AM

DRAGONWINE

Aside From Bill Paxton let's not forget Lance Henrickson! He was a cop in T1 and got killed by Arnie, then in Aliens as an andriod he was torn in half (ok so he wasn't killed, but close) by the queen, then in AvP as the human Bishop he got snuffed by a Predator. We can also add Pumpkinhead, or not.
But to the question at hand, T1 and T2 very good, T3 very bad. Just one long stunt. T3 will never be in my dvd collection.

It's a nothing part til you don't got one, then you have to go to ebay.....aaaaagh!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 10:32 AM

DECKROID

I too like the first two. I have only seen 30 mins of T3. It was on HBO and I caught enough to make me change the channel.

Now here is something... with everyone and their brother remaking TV shows and some movies (I think most of Hollywood has run out of fresh ideas... exception: JOSS!!) how long will it be before some freak pitches a new "sytlized" remake of T1?

They have made the TV shows of my early childhood into movies. They have remade movies that I grew up with. Its just a hunch that within 10 years, we are going to see remakes of early 80s flicks.

Electric Boogaloo coming in 2011. GAAA! Why God, WHY?!?

Of course, T1 will have more speaking parts. Ah-nold didnt have a whole hell of a lot to say in that flick...

"Give me yur ahd-ress dere!"
"#$@# You, $#% 'ole"
and of course
"Ahl be bahck!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 12:14 PM

I'm waiting for a really needless remake. Maybe Planet of the Apes.

And don't forget Gumby, what they could do with that now Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 12:22 PM

Deckroid wrote:

Quote:
They have remade movies that I grew up with. Its just a hunch that within 10 years, we are going to see remakes of early 80s flicks.

I wonder about this. I'm still trying to fathom the logic behind the latest incarnation of Batman?

Why?

The
Somnambulist

www.cirqus.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I'm waiting for a really needless remake. Maybe Planet of the Apes.
now Chrisisall

Well Scooby Doo - that was pretty needless. Then Scooby Doo 2 was so beyond needless it almost split the fabric of the universe.....
...at lest it almost did in my head.

The
Somnambulist

www.cirqus.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 2:11 PM

I wasn't really getting into the time paradox and timeline stuff, just the basic content and style of the films.
If you really want to get into timeline/paradox problems the Back to the Future films takes it to a whole new level.
T1 was Cameron making a film really for himself.
T2 was Cameron making the film for the (at least in part) focus groups. Get rid of the fluff, still a salvagable story.

Opus

"Who? Whuba how with huh?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 2:16 PM

Quote:
...let's not forget Lance Henrickson! He was a cop in T1 and got killed by Arnie,

Henrickson, if I'm not mistaken was the original choice to play the Terminator. The original concept being the Terminator would be someone who would just blend in.

Opus

"My life is strewn with cow pats from the devils own satanic herd"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 2:44 PM

CALLMEATH

Quote:
Originally posted by montanagirl:

But they all had cool music.

That reminds me, I've got the Terminator theme as a ringtone. It sounds kinda crappy, and only fans would recognize it, but I love it. Always makes me think of the opening to T2, which is one my favorite movie openings ever. EVER.

"Invader's blood marches through my veins like giant radioactive rubber pants. The pants command me! Do not ignore my veins!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 2:51 PM

Back to the Future was a sitcom. A really good one, but not what I'd call a 'science fiction' film. I don't hold goofy movies to the same scientific standards. T1 was action/ sci-fi, and T2 was action (really GREAT action)/ fantasy.
And Back to the Future was funny.

Outta Time Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 2:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

I wonder about this. I'm still trying to fathom the logic behind the latest incarnation of Batman?

Why?

Old answer. Deniro, mi amigo.
Next we will get
'Buffy: the kindergarden years'.
'Peter at 13; before the arachnid angst'
'Teenage Cobb: rebel without a Vera'
'Krypton'

I should work for Faux Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 2:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Opus, I see the first one as being the only one even remotely possible.
For John to send Kyle back to protect Sarah, Kyle, by necessity, could not have been his father IN THE ORIGINAL TIMELINE.

I decided to comment about your timeline idea. John could not exist without Kyle as his father, regardless of any timeline.
The only way John would not exist is if the machines never came to power, thus negating the reason to send someone back in time to protect Sarah.
John's very existance and the machines rise to power are inseperable.
Older John would know that sending Kyle back basically would just ensure his own conception. John knows what happens, what they did wrong in the past, (the events in T2 and T3 ) and could have very easily armed Kyle with the knowledge of how to stop the rise of the machines,or for that matter the reprogramed Arnolds.
But he didn't.
Which leaves the question, was older John really trying to help his mother and mankind, or just protecting his own ass by withholding information?

Did I read that right chrisisall? Did you work for Troma?

Opus

"as useless as a crotchless chastity belt"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 3:57 PM

Yeah, I was a stuntman in Toxic Avenger 4: Citizen Toxie. I'm visible as the only guy hurled over a wall by Toxie in a four way splitscreen during a fight scene; I'm also a policeman in the car chase driving the chase car.
But the timeline thing: John would have to be born first, before he could send anyone back for anything, therefore someone else beside Reese must have been his father in the ORIGINAL timeline, as Reese hadn't gone back in time before that. In the timeline WE see in Terminator, Reese replaces that 'someone'. Any other answer doesn't make logical sense (that I'M aware of). John was trying to keep the timeline from being disrupted, well, too much, anyway.
Now my brain hurts.

Time and Terminators wait for no man Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 6:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
But the timeline thing: John would have to be born first, before he could send anyone back for anything, therefore someone else beside Reese must have been his father in the ORIGINAL timeline, as Reese hadn't gone back in time before that. In the timeline WE see in Terminator, Reese replaces that 'someone'. Any other answer doesn't make logical sense (that I'M aware of). John was trying to keep the timeline from being disrupted, well, too much, anyway.
Now my brain hurts.

It's like that old puzzle..if you went back in time and killed your grandfather, then you would never have been born...but if you had never been born how could you have gone back and killed him?
It's a paradox.
The ORIGINAL timeline, if Kyle never came back, doesn't automatically mean John had been sired by a different father. Without Kyle he NEVER existed.
The terminator could never succeed, if he did then the reason for him even going to the past never exists, which means he would never go back in time to begin with.
Which means Sarah or John wouldn't have been killed which then means he would have gone back in time...........AAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

Opus

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 6:26 PM

THEDARKSHAPE

I like the bits of discussion going on in this thread.

One thing I loved about Terminator 2 was its "No fate but what we make" message, and I was sorry to see it go (in fact, my mother, who actually enjoyed T3 quite a bit for what it was, won't watch the film again because it did away with that bit). That said, it was never the series' original agenda. The message Reese passes on to Sarah in The Terminator is nothing like what it eventually becomes in Judgment Day.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 8:57 PM

the movie is not the Series. Only the facts have been changed, to irritate the innocent; the names of the actors and characters remain the same

Quote:
Originally posted by dragonwine:
Aside From Bill Paxton let's not forget Lance Henrickson!

But was Lance ever killed by Jayne? Bill Paxton was (OK, by Adam Baldwin) in Next of Kin.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . . (wutzon) Stones, "Satisfaction"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 15, 2005 11:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yeah, I was a stuntman in Toxic Avenger 4: Citizen Toxie. I'm visible as the only guy hurled over a wall by Toxie in a four way splitscreen during a fight scene; I'm also a policeman in the car chase driving the chase car.

Still waiting for Toxic 4, to be released here in UK on DVD. I think it's imminent Big C. Really looking forward to catching your stunt work :)

Righto Timline thingy:

This is never easy without diagrams and serious amounts of coffee, but lets give it a whirl.

As I understand it (and this is just my interpretation) we each have a timeline. Therefore it's quite possible to go back in time and kill your grandfather and still exsist, because the current timeline that you possess is set and continues. However a new timline where you're grandfather is dead has now also been created and the consequences there off will manifest itself in a new 'History' so to speak. But you still excist.

So in terms of John Connor I find it's best to look at it this way. If you follow Reese' timeline first rather than John Connors then it can take shape. Of course then you have to wonder why he'd need to go back in the first place if there was no John Connor..... Oh man there's now that need for the coffee I was talking about....

The
Somnambulist

www.cirqus.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 16, 2005 12:14 AM

FRAY101

O J Simpson was another possibility to play The Terminator....

My brain always hurts too much when I think about this, so I'll take the cowards way out and post a link to an article I just found:

http://www.mjyoung.net/time/terminat.html

Shall now get back to sulking about how James Cameron abandoned the lovely Michael Biehn for (the admittedly brilliant!) Bill Paxton in his later works...

(Edited to add: doing this quickly while at work - just realised the article was written pre-T3 but should still give you enough anomolies to ponder...)

"Why would I want to leave Serenity?"
"Can't think of a reason."

Over 100 Serenity screencaps now available at www.destinything.com (yep, bought me a proper name!)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 16, 2005 2:43 AM

MANWITHPEZ

Important people don't do field work.

Yep, that's the website I sent Chrisisall when we were talking about this before. For my money, I think The Terminator is an excellent movie...quite possibly my favorite Science Fiction film of all time. It was original for the most part, it was moody. The hero was filthy, and mean to his charge, the villain seemed to have every advantage over them, and still they came out on top. Its a slick movie, made to look like something very grubby. Originality. That's why I prefer The Terminator to The Matrix. To me, The Matrix was just The Terminator with a holodeck.

I didn't enjoy Terminator 2 as much, because their wasn't as much story pushed forward as I would've liked. It was more like watching the first one again, with more money and better effects. I did like the idea that Skynet was still deisgning and refining their Terminators. But, I didn't like that they had a prototype. Its designed by machines...shouldn't it work coming out of the box? Robert Patrick was soooooo good in that movie though. And you know what they say about Skynet...whatever model number the Terminator is, then they have warehouses full of them! So, Cyberdine Systems Model 101...All look like Arnold...Model 102 would look like someone completely different...Maybe there's a warehouse full of Kristina Lokkens somewhere...

Which brings me to Terminator 3 and the glaring error of Skynet still being able to assert itself after John, Sarah, and the second T-800 destroy Cyberdine Systems. In the Dean Koontz book Lightning, there is a phrase that applies here..."Destiny struggles to reassert the pattern that was meant to be." A comforting thought, if you ever happen to build a time machine and go mucking about in history. According to the third T-800, Judgement Day can not be averted by any means. Only postponed. A unique way of looking at things, I thought. I did not enjoy this movie, where the things that were meant to frighten and thrill us in the first two, were played for laughs here. T-800 heads into a strip joint...please! I also didn't mind Edward Furlong being gone, because I know why he was missing, and if I'm right, then I would rather have the new actor. That kid...I can't remember his name, is a very good actor, I think. I did enjoy Claire Danes in this film as well...There is a passing resemblance between her and Linda Hamilton that I didn't notice till I saw her in this film. But, Terminator 3...bad idea! Don't get me started on the proposed fourth film...

Kaylee: "What's so damn important about being proper? It don't mean nothing out here in the black."
Simon: "It means more out here. It's all I have..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 16, 2005 2:51 AM

MANWITHPEZ

Important people don't do field work.

John has to exist first without Kyle being his father, in some way...some way that we are not shown. A man named Kyle Reese shows up to Sarah Connor one night in 1984, tells her he was sent by her son, John Connor. Kyle then sleeps with Sarah, Sarah becomes pregnant with a son she names John, and as we know, begins training him to become a strategic and military leader. Whether or not the John we see in T2 is the same John that sent Kyle back...(We know it is, Arnold says so) becomes secondary, and we know that this John Connor will still fulfill his role as a military leader. This does not necessarily mean that Kyle HAD to be the first John's father. We are never shown him. Kyle is sent back to save Sarah...the first John may not have known that Kyle would sleep with her. Afterwards, the new John does know, and must send Kyle back, or he will never be born...This does not mean that A John Connor will never be born. One has already been born independent of Kyle Reese already. Kyle also imparts key information about the war, and what role Sarah's son will play in it. As well as a bit of weapons training, and the forititude to carry on. Something normal 1984 Sarah may not have had the ability to do prior.

And, I'm rambling...

Kaylee: "What's so damn important about being proper? It don't mean nothing out here in the black."
Simon: "It means more out here. It's all I have..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 16, 2005 4:09 AM

STARPILOTGRAINGER

A couple points -

On T1's 'originality'... maybe as a movie, but you do realize that Cameron admitted that he ripped off many of the ideas from a couple Outer Limits episodes and Harlan Ellison sued him, settling out of court forcing him to put a credit in (and Cameron's attempted at least once to sneakily remove the credit from later releases, only to have Ellison lawyer's force him to put it back), right? Cameron may be a fine director, and I'd venture to say the movie is better than the stuff he 'took inspiration from', but original is another matter. :)

As to the 'no fate but what we make for yourself', I wouldn't say it's done away with by the third movie... the third movie even acknowledges that the apocalypse was averted... for a time. It just wasn't forever. Just because fate _can_ be averted, doesn't mean it necessarily always _will_ be - otherwise it's just a different kind of fate, after all. I'm a big fan of not every ending needing to be a happy one, and, as I said, for me the ending of T3 was a big plus in what was otherwise only an average popcorn movie.

And the whole 'time paradox' thing? Don't strain your brain... all three movies are about equally silly in that regard. Using a combination of alternate timelines and allowing the whole 'predestination paradox' (where you had to go back in time because if you didn't you would never have been able to go back in time) is about the only way to even sort of explain it without resorting to even more horribly improbable stuff. Personally, I see no logical problem with predestination paradoxes - it's only a problem if you take a particularly linear view of time. If you view all the universe as a single four dimensional construct then there's no reason an effect can't loop back and be its own cause.

All just IMHO of course.

Star Pilot Grainger
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down."
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/newnumber6 (real)
http://www.livejournal.com/users/alternaljournal (fictional, travelling through another world)
Unreachable Star: http://www.unreachablestar.net - Comics & SF News/Reviews/Opinions

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 16, 2005 4:19 AM

MANWITHPEZ

Important people don't do field work.

I enjoy the predestination paradoxes in these films...There's even one in the Back to the Future tilogy...I mean, why is that date one of such cosmic occurence? Is there something significant about November 5th 1955.

I know Cameron pulled ideas from other places, but I really dug the way it was presented. As Gale Anne Hurd put it "Tech-Noir". I don't think it really succeeded, but its enjoyable entertainment. That's the problem with the other two, I think...they take themselves too seriously. Or rather, have taken into mind that we take them too seriously.

Kaylee: "What's so damn important about being proper? It don't mean nothing out here in the black."
Simon: "It means more out here. It's all I have..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 16, 2005 5:10 AM

FLECHETTE

Has anyone else read S.M. Stirling's T2 series?

T2 : Infiltrator
T2 : Rising Storm
T2 : The Future War

Haven't got the last one yet but this series was far preferable to me than the last movie was.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 16, 2005 7:06 AM

SKYDANCE

T1 was an amazing movie, brilliantly-conceived for the time it came out, and the two leads were well-cast (I don't consider Ahnold a "lead" in T1, because he was mostly just action scenes).

T1 didn't need a sequel, but then someone eventually came along with, "No fate but what we make." Linda Hamilton did (I thought) a wonderful job of portraying a person haunted by a horrifying future (assuming the person didn't just go into shock ... which was what made Sarah Connor the mother of a savior). T2 was a big-budget tour-de-force, and made me proud as a fan of the first movie.

T3 was rubbish. No fate but what we make? Oops, sorry! *laughs* We really meant, "Whatever you'll pay for." The third movie totally invalidated the second one, and was a harsh sell-out. To my mind, the only good thing about T3 was that it re-introduced me to Claire Danes (who I had love in My So-Called Life, but didn't realize she had gone on to become a brilliant actress). She stepped onto the screen and gave that movie a purpose ... even if it was lame when compared to the previous two films.

All that being said ... I lived through the Highlander 2 fiasco. Nothing could be worse than that was, and by comparison, T3 was an acceptable addition to the Terminator franchise.

________
"They weren't cows inside. They were waiting to be, but they forgot. Now they see the sky and they remember what they are."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 16, 2005 7:37 AM

Aren't Terminator and 12 Monkeys both based on the short film 'La Jette' ?

The
Somnambulist

www.cirqus.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 16, 2005 9:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by manwithpez:
And, I'm rambling...

NO, actually you put it quite well. Perfect, in fact. I tend to make my little contributions here in small bursts of time, and a well thought out explanation of what I'm thinking sometimes requires more time than I'm able to spend on it, but you nailed it for me just fine.

If I could only ramble that coherently Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 16, 2005 9:39 AM

Am I the only one who found 12 monkeys a visually stunning yawnfest? I saw it (the ending) comin' a mile away. I wanted an ending I didn't expect.
It was mostly cool, though.

Unbreakable- now there was an ending Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 16, 2005 9:52 AM

STEVETHEPIRATE

Quote:
I lived through the Highlander 2 fiasco. Nothing could be worse than that was

Ooooh, bad. Bad, bad, bad. Why did you have to bring it up? Hadn't thought about that in a while.

"Ohh, let's make 'em be aliens." Great idea.

Morons.

----------------------------------------------
STEVEthePIRATE will probably end up watching Highlander tonight.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 16, 2005 10:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Am I the only one who found 12 monkeys a visually stunning yawnfest? I saw it (the ending) comin' a mile away. I wanted an ending I didn't expect.
It was mostly cool, though.

Unbreakable- now there was an ending Chrisisall

Funny I was just talking about this wih my best friend a few days ago. We were saying how as much as we like Terry Gilliam his work seems to suffer more than most from becoming dated very quickly. I always love his stuff first time around, but with the exception of Brazil, for me his stuff doesn't hold up to repeated viewing.
Certainly 12Monkeys falls into this category. Again maybe because as you mentioned the ending is very much predicted and predictable. I dunno? Weird.

The
Somnambulist

www.cirqus.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 16, 2005 11:44 AM