Post by TrekBeatTK on Jul 3, 2015 16:52:39 GMT -5
I saw the new Terminator movie. I'll try to keep this spoiler free for now, though there are aspects I'd love to discuss when/if more people see it.
I re-watched all the previous movies before this one, and I'd recommend watching the first one again before going to this one. It makes the first half of the movie more fun. Essentially what we have here is an attempt to "Back to the Future Part II" the Terminator franchise by revisiting the first movie. This is clever in some ways, other angered me but we can debate those later. The movie follows the trend of recent "semi-reboot" sequels that follow continuity of the first one or two good movies and ignore later sequels ("Superman Returns" being the prime example). Terminator 3 is completely ignored. While it's got a buttload of problems, completely ignoring the movie sits a little funny with me. They also slightly retcon some of Terminator Salvation, which I saw no need for. It's also a little strange watching these new actors supposed to be the originals. They've even replaced Linda Hamilton with Emilia Clarke in the famous photograph. Watching the first 20-30 minutes made me kind of wish they'd made this movie in 1994 with the original cast. Some of those scenes would have been great with Michael Biehn. But the rest of the movie wouldn't have worked that way.
It's certainly a better movie than Rise of the Machines, which really only had 2 good ideas (Judgment Day is inevitable and Skynet was software so it couldn't be destroyed, along with the notion that Arnold had killed John Connor in the future). It plays well with some interesting themes. There's a subtext about growing old and how just because something's new and flashy doesn't make it good. And they've taken Cameron's themes of the first films and updated them for today's times. The first movie is very much a product of the Cold War "WarGames" mentality where the big threat was computer-defense systems that would nuke the world. Today's threat in the wake of the NSA, the Sony hack, etc. is cyber-terrorism and so the new Skynet threat, taking a cue from T3, is essentially an operating system. That's a smart way to use all the relevant themes and still make social commentary on today's world. And it's eerie that it comes out just as Apple tries to foist Apple Music in its new iOS on its iPhone users.
While I appreciate some of what it's trying to do, unfortunately the temporal mechanics all start to fall apart. The movie plays like a "greatest hits" of the first two films in places, with too much Bill and Ted logic to its time travel. The brilliance of the first movie was that it was a self-contained loop. T2 originally was much more about changing fate, and it's first ending was just that. But Cameron must have realized it didn't make any sense (a future John Connor appears in that ending, who could never have existed if Kyle never went back in time), so he wisely cut it out. But this movie wants to be all about changing timelines. But it doesn't put in the work to properly explain the set-ups to get where he goes. This series also needs to stop with the "lovable Terminator bodyguard" trope. Stop trying to rekindle T2. T2 was special, and it was properly set up. Here, although Arnold gets some wonderful moments, his very reason for being there is never fully explained.
I do appreciate from an intellectual standpoint the inversion of a lot of the themes of the first films. I can see why Cameron liked it. At first, it's much more respective of continuity than T3 was, which couldn't even get dates right. And yet, the more it went on, the more it felt like Looper to me; the movie thinks it makes sense, but doesn't quite. It wants to have it both ways with causality loops and changed futures. Ultimately I say to myself certain things about it are impossible and I don't see how any of this works UNLESS Judgment Day is inevitable. Oh, and there's a mid-credit moment to probably set up potential sequels (please no) which just proves my point. But if changing timelines is your thing, and if you really dug the Sarah Connor Chronicles (which I've just finally started), you might dig the movie.
But lest I be too harsh on it, there is one reason to see this movie: the hot 19-year-old Sarah Connor in Emilia Clarke. The biggest flaw in the first movie for me is Linda Hamilton's bad '80s hair. This time, even though it's the same character in the same time period, she gets much more attractive hair. Emilia Clarke is beautiful and is such a stunning brunette that it bothers me she has to wear that silly blonde hair on Game of Thrones. Also kind of funny that both she and Lena Headley (also of GOT) have played Sarah Connor. This is without a doubt the most beautiful of the three Sarah Connors. A shame that we don't even get a little partial nudity even for time travel. This movie is too PG-13 for its own good. In fact, I don't think anyone ever even really dies onscreen. Terminators mostly just fight other Terminators, so when it's robot on robot, it loses the shock of the first couple movies. We don't need them saying "fuck" every other word like in T2 (it's a little hilarious watching it again), and there's only one in this one, which is a quote from the first film. But still, it feels too sanitized and too CG. A little practical effect can go a long way. That's why T2 with it's improved animatronics combined with new CG is so awesome. But I'm distracting myself from the point of this paragraph, which is that Emilia Clarke is beautiful and I love her brown ponytail and I want to see her in more stuff so I can ogle her. Even though I've already seen her naked on Game of Thrones, I still kind of felt teased by this movie. I mean, we saw Linda Hamilton's boob in the first movie. So why so coy? Not saying it needs to be exploitative or full frontal or anything. It was just a little strange to me.
Anyway, I was ultimately disappointed with where it ended up, but there's some fun to be had. It certainly doesn't warrant the 3D release. Given the attempt at returning to the first film, the 3D actually seems like a big mistake. There are other problems that I'd love to discuss. But until others have seen it I'll say it's not terrible. The first half is better than the second. It's better than T3, but that doesn't mean the merits outweigh the flaws. Some of you might want to wait for the DVD. But it's a notable curiosity at least. While not entirely successful, it's not the same kind of trainwreck the other film was.
-TK
I re-watched all the previous movies before this one, and I'd recommend watching the first one again before going to this one. It makes the first half of the movie more fun. Essentially what we have here is an attempt to "Back to the Future Part II" the Terminator franchise by revisiting the first movie. This is clever in some ways, other angered me but we can debate those later. The movie follows the trend of recent "semi-reboot" sequels that follow continuity of the first one or two good movies and ignore later sequels ("Superman Returns" being the prime example). Terminator 3 is completely ignored. While it's got a buttload of problems, completely ignoring the movie sits a little funny with me. They also slightly retcon some of Terminator Salvation, which I saw no need for. It's also a little strange watching these new actors supposed to be the originals. They've even replaced Linda Hamilton with Emilia Clarke in the famous photograph. Watching the first 20-30 minutes made me kind of wish they'd made this movie in 1994 with the original cast. Some of those scenes would have been great with Michael Biehn. But the rest of the movie wouldn't have worked that way.
It's certainly a better movie than Rise of the Machines, which really only had 2 good ideas (Judgment Day is inevitable and Skynet was software so it couldn't be destroyed, along with the notion that Arnold had killed John Connor in the future). It plays well with some interesting themes. There's a subtext about growing old and how just because something's new and flashy doesn't make it good. And they've taken Cameron's themes of the first films and updated them for today's times. The first movie is very much a product of the Cold War "WarGames" mentality where the big threat was computer-defense systems that would nuke the world. Today's threat in the wake of the NSA, the Sony hack, etc. is cyber-terrorism and so the new Skynet threat, taking a cue from T3, is essentially an operating system. That's a smart way to use all the relevant themes and still make social commentary on today's world. And it's eerie that it comes out just as Apple tries to foist Apple Music in its new iOS on its iPhone users.
While I appreciate some of what it's trying to do, unfortunately the temporal mechanics all start to fall apart. The movie plays like a "greatest hits" of the first two films in places, with too much Bill and Ted logic to its time travel. The brilliance of the first movie was that it was a self-contained loop. T2 originally was much more about changing fate, and it's first ending was just that. But Cameron must have realized it didn't make any sense (a future John Connor appears in that ending, who could never have existed if Kyle never went back in time), so he wisely cut it out. But this movie wants to be all about changing timelines. But it doesn't put in the work to properly explain the set-ups to get where he goes. This series also needs to stop with the "lovable Terminator bodyguard" trope. Stop trying to rekindle T2. T2 was special, and it was properly set up. Here, although Arnold gets some wonderful moments, his very reason for being there is never fully explained.
I do appreciate from an intellectual standpoint the inversion of a lot of the themes of the first films. I can see why Cameron liked it. At first, it's much more respective of continuity than T3 was, which couldn't even get dates right. And yet, the more it went on, the more it felt like Looper to me; the movie thinks it makes sense, but doesn't quite. It wants to have it both ways with causality loops and changed futures. Ultimately I say to myself certain things about it are impossible and I don't see how any of this works UNLESS Judgment Day is inevitable. Oh, and there's a mid-credit moment to probably set up potential sequels (please no) which just proves my point. But if changing timelines is your thing, and if you really dug the Sarah Connor Chronicles (which I've just finally started), you might dig the movie.
But lest I be too harsh on it, there is one reason to see this movie: the hot 19-year-old Sarah Connor in Emilia Clarke. The biggest flaw in the first movie for me is Linda Hamilton's bad '80s hair. This time, even though it's the same character in the same time period, she gets much more attractive hair. Emilia Clarke is beautiful and is such a stunning brunette that it bothers me she has to wear that silly blonde hair on Game of Thrones. Also kind of funny that both she and Lena Headley (also of GOT) have played Sarah Connor. This is without a doubt the most beautiful of the three Sarah Connors. A shame that we don't even get a little partial nudity even for time travel. This movie is too PG-13 for its own good. In fact, I don't think anyone ever even really dies onscreen. Terminators mostly just fight other Terminators, so when it's robot on robot, it loses the shock of the first couple movies. We don't need them saying "fuck" every other word like in T2 (it's a little hilarious watching it again), and there's only one in this one, which is a quote from the first film. But still, it feels too sanitized and too CG. A little practical effect can go a long way. That's why T2 with it's improved animatronics combined with new CG is so awesome. But I'm distracting myself from the point of this paragraph, which is that Emilia Clarke is beautiful and I love her brown ponytail and I want to see her in more stuff so I can ogle her. Even though I've already seen her naked on Game of Thrones, I still kind of felt teased by this movie. I mean, we saw Linda Hamilton's boob in the first movie. So why so coy? Not saying it needs to be exploitative or full frontal or anything. It was just a little strange to me.
Anyway, I was ultimately disappointed with where it ended up, but there's some fun to be had. It certainly doesn't warrant the 3D release. Given the attempt at returning to the first film, the 3D actually seems like a big mistake. There are other problems that I'd love to discuss. But until others have seen it I'll say it's not terrible. The first half is better than the second. It's better than T3, but that doesn't mean the merits outweigh the flaws. Some of you might want to wait for the DVD. But it's a notable curiosity at least. While not entirely successful, it's not the same kind of trainwreck the other film was.
-TK
