Terminator 6: Dark Fate (2019)

[Giftheck 916]

15 minutes ago, Thekthithm said:

 

It built a time machine.

 

Among other things that were wrong with Genisys' portrayal of the T-800. The writers failed to understand the humanization of the T-800 in Cameron's films. A T-800 that has been present since the 70s should have been able to blend in fairly well since it's supposed to have a 'learning computer' CPU that enables it to learn from humans and thus become more human itself - 'Uncle Bob' learned a great deal within the span of a few days and was able to at least give appropriate responses to situations, so why did Pops not have even the basics down after a decade?

 

11 minutes ago, Arpy said:

Did it? Wasn't that just future technology?

 

Nope, it went back to the 70s, and by the time Kyle had arrived in 1984, it had built a fully-functioning time displacement machine that only needed another T-800's CPU to work.

[Arpy 4,145]

I can imagine the T-800 is in the kitchen in his day-to-day life and all he knows how to make are time machines...

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I came here in a time machine that you invented. Now I need your help to get back to the year 1984.

[Arpy 4,145]

Everyone wants to go back to the 80's.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

The 80s were shit, regardless of how good the movies were.

[Giftheck 916]

5 minutes ago, Thekthithm said:

The 80s were shit, regardless of how good the movies were.

 

I wouldn't know, I escaped the 80s by being born in 1990.

[Arpy 4,145]

7 minutes ago, Thekthithm said:

The 80s were shit, regardless of how good the movies were.

3 minutes ago, Gistech said:

 

I wouldn't know, I escaped the 80s by being born in 1990.

That's the thing, people have a nostalgia for a time they weren't around for, and the popularity of media like Stranger Things has promulgated this strange affinity for the time period. I doubt you could achieve the same thing for some decade of the Middle Ages! 1280 is where the magic is at, houses made of sticks and mud and dying young!

 

 

[Quintus 5,399]

Why is it impossible for new special effects heavy movies to not look like sequences of endless video game cut scenes these days? They're ruining blockbuster cinema. Between the abuse of CGI and superhero flicks we're all fucked!

[Giftheck 916]

They should just stick to stop motion!

[Arpy 4,145]

I wonder if they'd be better off as complete CG animated films?

[Giftheck 916]

Just now, Arpy said:

I wonder if they'd be better off as complete CG animated films?

That would actually be an interesting style to see more films in.

[Arpy 4,145]

9 minutes ago, Gistech said:

That would actually be an interesting style to see more films in.

You didn't see The Hobbit trilogy?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

47 minutes ago, Arpy said:

That's the thing, people have a nostalgia for a time they weren't around for, and the popularity of media like Stranger Things has promulgated this strange affinity for the time period. I doubt you could achieve the same thing for some decade of the Middle Ages! 1280 is where the magic is at, houses made of sticks and mud and dying young!

 

 

 

I don't doubt there were probably some advantages and perks to the 1980s; it was a freer time, less PC, virtually no overreaching surveillance, employment was generally easier to come by, housing was more affordable, etc. But conveniences were almost non-existent, school and workplace bullying was rife and willfully overlooked, fashions sucked, interest rates were astronomical for mortgage holders, electronics and appliances were prohibitively expensive and almost unattainable, career options and opportunities in many localities were depressingly narrow, telecommunications were primitive, transport options were limited and public transport was rough and uncomfortable, etc.

[Giftheck 916]

1 minute ago, Arpy said:

You didn't see The Hobbit trilogy?

 

I said I'd like to see more films along those lines, not that they didn't exist or that I hadn't seen them.

 

[Quintus 5,399]

46 minutes ago, Arpy said:

I wonder if they'd be better off as complete CG animated films?

 

It's how I believe they should handle Indiana Jones moving forward. That, or ILM produced deep fakes.

[Arpy 4,145]

It's funny, video games are becoming more cinematic and films are becoming more like video games in terms of visuals.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

They meet in the middle.

[A24 4,323]

1 hour ago, Thekthithm said:

 

I don't doubt there were probably some advantages and perks to the 1980s; it was a freer time, less PC, virtually no overreaching surveillance, employment was generally easier to come by, housing was more affordable, etc. But conveniences were almost non-existent, school and workplace bullying was rife and willfully overlooked, fashions sucked, interest rates were astronomical for mortgage holders, electronics and appliances were prohibitively expensive and almost unattainable, career options and opportunities in many localities were depressingly narrow, telecommunications were primitive, transport options were limited and public transport was rough and uncomfortable, etc.

 

Every kid that lived in the suburbs had a BMX.

[Edmilson 7,367]

Sometimes, I wonder if movies like Dark Fate are the price we have to pay for three more John Williams Star Wars scores.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

This is the movie you single out as representing some kind of pop cultural nadir?  Doesn't look so bad to me.

[Sweeping Strings 2,342]

Count me amongst the cautiously optimistic ... the ignoring of the past 3 movies, the return of Hamilton and the move back to content and tone that necessitates a 15/'R' rating all sounds good to me.    

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Yeah, I'm not expecting it to be as good as a Cameron film.  But it could be passable.

[Quintus 5,399]

Kermode:

 

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,488]

Yes, I saw this, last night. Hmm...

I'll still watch it, though. The TU is something I like to revisit, every now and then.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I agree with that review without even having to see the movie.

[Quintus 5,399]

I certainly agree with the Aliens part. Although not completely with his T2 comments, since I've always had a fondness for the lo-fi original over the big spectacular sequel.

[Thor 7,451]

Saw the film in IMAX today (fortunately without 3D glasses). It’s a decent film, but has some major issues. I find it inferior to the first three films, and on par with the last two. The ‘magic’ promised by the return of Hamilton and Schwarzenegger together, did not quite deliver. There’s an action sequence that seems to be a clear ode to Mostow’s brilliant “mechanical” mayhem in 3. It also has a ‘feminist’ twist, like most big blockbusters these days; not sure what I feel about that, feels a bit forced. But I’m curious to hear what you all think once you’ve seen it.

 

One of the major issues have to do with a non-sensical plot element (always tricky in time travel movies, but I found this particularly perplexing) – do not click if you haven’t seen the film:

 

Spoiler

Schwarzenegger’s Terminator kills John Connor in 1998 in the beginning of the film, but there’s really no reason for this. He comes from an alternate future where Connor isn’t a rebel leader. He says to Sarah at some point that it was to “motivate her” to kill future Terminators landing from his future, but surely there are other ways to motivate her than to kill her son? Didn’t make sense at all.

 

As for Holkenborg’s score….well, I’m a big fan of his. Have been for 15 years. I prefer him when he’s NOT in the big, ostinato-driven action style (like BRIMSTONE or DISTANCE BETWEEN DREAMS), but there’s no doubt this particular style was suited for the film. Alas, it feels far more generic than Fiedel’s similar approach to the first two, and is often swallowed by sound effects. It also doesn’t have the ingenious  percussive profile of something like the brilliant FURY ROAD. So all in all, quite disappointing. There are some Mexican elements here; with the main theme sometimes being arranged with hispanic guitars. Take it or leave it.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

feminithm

[Giftheck 916]

1 hour ago, Thor said:

Saw the film in IMAX today (fortunately without 3D glasses). It’s a decent film, but has some major issues. I find it inferior to the first three films, and on par with the last two. The ‘magic’ promised by the return of Hamilton and Schwarzenegger together, did not quite deliver. There’s an action sequence that seems to be a clear ode to Mostow’s brilliant “mechanical” mayhem in 3. It also has a ‘feminist’ twist, like most big blockbusters these days; not sure what I feel about that, feels a bit forced. But I’m curious to hear what you all think once you’ve seen it.

 

One of the major issues have to do with a non-sensical plot element (always tricky in time travel movies, but I found this particularly perplexing) – do not click if you haven’t seen the film:

 

  Hide contents

Schwarzenegger’s Terminator kills John Connor in 1998 in the beginning of the film, but there’s really no reason for this. He comes from an alternate future where Connor isn’t a rebel leader. He says to Sarah at some point that it was to “motivate her” to kill future Terminators landing from his future, but surely there are other ways to motivate her than to kill her son? Didn’t make sense at all.

 

As for Holkenborg’s score….well, I’m a big fan of his. Have been for 15 years. I prefer him when he’s NOT in the big, ostinato-driven action style (like BRIMSTONE or DISTANCE BETWEEN DREAMS), but there’s no doubt this particular style was suited for the film. Alas, it feels far more generic than Fiedel’s similar approach to the first two, and is often swallowed by sound effects. It also doesn’t have the ingenious  percussive profile of something like the brilliant FURY ROAD. So all in all, quite disappointing. There are some Mexican elements here; with the main theme sometimes being arranged with hispanic guitars. Take it or leave it.

 

Spoiler

You're misunderstanding the film. Carl was sent back by Skynet from the same point it sent the first T-800 and T-1000 from, though it's not made clear when Carl arrived. My guess is Carl was sent alongside the T-1000. It definitely did not kill John based on wanting to make Sarah 'have purpose' - its mission was to kill John for the same reason the others were: to reverse Skynet's loss in the future. It was not to know, nor to care, that the future those orders came from no longer existed (a fact both Sarah and Carl touch on in the film) - as explained in T2, Terminators stay focused on their mission parameters until the mission is completed. If they didn't, the T-1000 would have stood down after Cyberdyne was destroyed rather than carrying on with its mission to kill John.

 

It wasn't until after killing John that Carl began to integrate. T2 shows us that even within a matter of days a Terminator can learn to be more human. Saving what would become his family, and living with them, had the effect of causing Carl to gain the equivalent of a conscience, and it is AFTER this that he starts sending Sarah the locations of other Terminators. He thought that in so doing he could give some meaning to John's death (since he recognises that as the Skynet future didn't happen, John's death was meaningless).

 

Also if you think the writing in T3 was good, set aside the fact Ferris and Brancato disliked the previous film. Set aside they deliberately tried to make John the bad guy in their version. Consider this story point, the one that actually made it into the film, instead: Skynet needn't have bothered sending the T-X back since every single target was at ground zero with no reason to suspect an imminent nuclear strike. T3 is far more pointless. It was meant to be a ripoff of T2 with little sense applied to it. It's a film where you're not meant think beyond 'ooh, ahh, Arnie's back and T-X is some figure for those adolescents who have yet to find out how to get porn'.

 

I fail to see where the so-called 'feminist twist' is either. Is it the whole idea that Dani is the new leader in the future?

 

Spoiler

Let me guess: it's 'feminist' because Grace says "you're the future, not some man you give birth to" - a line directly referencing Sarah's story and the fact that Grace had never heard of John Connor. John Connor is nobody to Grace because he doesn't exist in her future. But John Connor is not a nobody in the context of the film because John's fate ultimately drives both Sarah and Carl.

 

Then the first two films were 'feminist' also for having them be Sarah's story.

[Edmilson 7,367]

Good to know is not as bad as the trailers make it seem... But I guess I will save a few bucks and watch it at home.

[Thor 7,451]

It will be tricky to have a full conversation in spoiler mode here, Gistech; perhaps we'll wait untill the movie has premiered. Your explanations don't fully account for the issues the film presents.

[Jay 37,249]

I would just have a full conversation.  Is there anybody on JWfan who is dying to see this movie but hasn't yet?  I doubt it

[Thor 7,451]

Wel, if you say so. BIG SPOILERS WARNING THEN!

.

.

.

1 hour ago, Gistech said:

You're misunderstanding the film. Carl was sent back by Skynet from the same point it sent the first T-800 and T-1000 from, though it's not made clear when Carl arrived. My guess is Carl was sent alongside the T-1000. It definitely did not kill John based on wanting to make Sarah 'have purpose' - its mission was to kill John for the same reason the others were: to reverse Skynet's loss in the future. It was not to know, nor to care, that the future those orders came from no longer existed (a fact both Sarah and Carl touch on in the film) - as explained in T2, Terminators stay focused on their mission parameters until the mission is completed. If they didn't, the T-1000 would have stood down after Cyberdyne was destroyed rather than carrying on with its mission to kill John.

 

It wasn't until after killing John that Carl began to integrate. T2 shows us that even within a matter of days a Terminator can learn to be more human. Saving what would become his family, and living with them, had the effect of causing Carl to gain the equivalent of a conscience, and it is AFTER this that he starts sending Sarah the locations of other Terminators. He thought that in so doing he could give some meaning to John's death (since he recognises that as the Skynet future didn't happen, John's death was meaningless).

 

I get the last part. No problem there, I "bought" Carl's integration (albeit quite hokey comedic stuff, what with the whole draperies thing).

 

But the first part isn't properly accounted for. Where does the film insinuate that Carl was sent back from the "Connor future"? And if so, was he just hiding in the shadows since the events of 1992, as a back-up to T-1000? And how would that happen, anyway, after the events of T2?

 

Another issue I had in relation to this, btw, was how easy Sarah took her encounter with her son's robot killer. I know she says that "after Dani is safe, I'll kill you" somewhat casually, but I didn't feel the necessary tension here.

 

Quote

 

Also if you think the writing in T3 was good, set aside the fact Ferris and Brancato disliked the previous film. Set aside they deliberately tried to make John the bad guy in their version. Consider this story point, the one that actually made it into the film, instead: Skynet needn't have bothered sending the T-X back since every single target was at ground zero with no reason to suspect an imminent nuclear strike. T3 is far more pointless. It was meant to be a ripoff of T2 with little sense applied to it. It's a film where you're not meant think beyond 'ooh, ahh, Arnie's back and T-X is some figure for those adolescents who have yet to find out how to get porn'.

 

I thought T3 was written just fine. But my main love of that film is its tangible, mechanical feel. It has a forward momentum while being lean annd mean, unlike DARK FATE which often felt completely overblown in its action sequences.

 

 

Quote

 

ILet me guess: it's 'feminist' because Grace says "you're the future, not some man you give birth to" - a line directly referencing Sarah's story and the fact that Grace had never heard of John Connor. John Connor is nobody to Grace because he doesn't exist in her future. But John Connor is not a nobody in the context of the film because John's fate ultimately drives both Sarah and Carl.

 

Yeah, there's that, but also the fact the film is driven by three female 'action heroes', with Carl having a minor role. There's the kick-ass feminism of films like the first two TERMINATORs or the ALIENs, and then the PC feminism of this, which just didn't sit right with me. Felt overly self-conscious.

[Giftheck 916]

8 hours ago, Thor said:

But the first part isn't properly accounted for. Where does the film insinuate that Carl was sent back from the "Connor future"? And if so, was he just hiding in the shadows since the events of 1992, as a back-up to T-1000? And how would that happen, anyway, after the events of T2?

 

Carl was sent back by Skynet, as stated quite a few times in the film (Sarah herself states 'Skynet had sent several Terminators back to hunt him'), and Skynet only existed in the Connor Future. T-800s also don't appear to exist in the Legion Future. As for what Carl was doing ever since 1995 - provided he was sent back alongside the T-1000 (which the leaks I have read imply this to be the case though I admit it's never stated in the movie), my guess is that he did try to carry out his mission and was only eventually successful in tracking Sarah and John down. If anything, I'd imagine Sarah not going into hiding with John like Kyle Reese told her she would do - since she destroyed Skynet, she thought she had no reason to assume that anything would happen that would take its place - made her much more easily trackable. I'm assuming the only reason that it took Carl 3 years to find them was likely because Sarah kept moving so as to avoid the authorities. Just a guess based on how Sarah being on the run has been handled in the past.

 

I can't answer your perception of this being 'too PC' since it's just that: your perception I don't see it. I've steered clear of movies like Captain Marvel which do suffer somewhat from it. I also can't answer your attachment to T3, since again I don't see it that way. I think on those particular points we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

[Thor 7,451]

OK, I guess I can see your point about the Carl-killing-John situation, but I felt it was haphazardously or casually treated in the movie -- certainly demanded the audience to guess or fill in missing story elements on their own. Most of my colleagues experienced the same puzzlement after the screening, so clearly it wasn't communicated well enough.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Wait, who's Carl?

[Trent B 337]

I plan on waiting for this film to hit home movies before seeing it.  While I like the Terminator films I have never had the desire to see them in theaters.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I'm waiting for it to come to Blockbuster Video. At least then I can pair it with an established good movie in case it sucks.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I prefer Video Ezy.

[A24 4,323]

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Since this isn't set in the same universe as the three previous Terminator movies, is it accurate to call it "Terminator 6"?

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

There's already a Terminator 3, so if this is a sequel to T2...

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I've always felt that numbered sequels (Terminator 3) take canonical importance over non-numbered, retconning sequels (Halloween '18, Terminator: Dark Fate, etc).

[Arpy 4,145]

 

[Edmilson 7,367]

As predicted, the movie is a huge box office bomb, on the US, foreign and even China.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2019/11/03/terminator-dark-fate-produced-by-james-cameron-directed-by-tim-miller-and-starring-arnold-schwarzenegger-linda-hamilton-natalia-reyes-mackenzie-davis-and-gabriel-luna-flops-with-disasterous-29-million-weekend/#59aeb00247f6

 

As Mendelson said on Twitter:

 

Cameron is probably pissed by now, it's the second movie he produces this year that flops (the first one was Alita).

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I guess people just don't like going to the picture show anymore.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I guess it had a dark fate at the box office.

[crumbs 14,287]

It didn't take a rocket scientist to know this had huge flop written all over it. Lo and behold, it's a massive bomb.

 

Cameron might think everything his name touches will turn to gold but people are smart enough to know when he's not actually behind the camera. BAA underperformed badly too, despite his presence in the marketing.

 

I think any goodwill Cameron had with the Terminator franchise evaporated when he endorsed the abomination that was Genisys, quite clearly for a fat paycheck. This series needs to be terminated and stay dead.

[Arpy 4,145]

10 minutes ago, crumbs said:

BAA underperformed badly too, despite his presence in the marketing.

 

 

Are you referring to Alita: Battle Angel?

 

 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

That looked like a movie for the video game/anime neckbeard crowd. Not interested. Dark Fate looked like a crappy sequel to crappy sequels that brought back people from the good ones but still didn't look like anything worth seeing.