MovieChat Forums > 10200 > Replies
10200's Replies
Do you really think John would have be prepared to become what he did if Sarah's character hadn't become what she did in T2?
All she really cared about was John's survival and to make sure he fulfilled his destiny. She really didn't have a moral compass where that was concerned, so I think she had to be cold and detached. I liked Sarah in T2 and thought her character development went down the only logical path for the story.
Oh, that's the only reason I would watch it.
Yep - hands down, DF, not because John was killed, (which was just plain stupid but I knew that going in); however, I still went because Linda was back as Sarah and unfortunately the writers screwed her character up. Perhaps it was an unrealistic expectation to see her as the total bad ass she was in 1991, but emotionally she just didn't live up to what I thought her character should be. Not Linda's fault - it was all in the writing.
I'll have to check that out because as I was watching this I couldn't help but laugh and think even if he had been in the position to be in another movie as an adult John - does his voice really sound like a hardened future leader?
"Often times, though, moviegoers just don't get out and support original stories. If it's not based on some kind of existing IP, it's a real crapshoot as to whether people will pay to see it, and I think that makes studios really reluctant to spend much money on producing films that don't already have a built-in fanbase."
Agree, but then they should realize not to alienate that fanbase the way they did in DF. Offhand I don't recall any sequel that has pissed off fans as much as DF and they had to know going in that killing John would cause a backlash.
Not even close - Terminator - (primarily TGen and DF), has been the most disappointing to me. As cool as the Matrix was I was never emotionally invested in the characters the same way I was with Sarah, Kyle, and John.
Who wants a dozen Terminator movies???? Even most of us who would loved to have seen a really good future war story would probably agree that could only go so far before it too became old. IMO, it's a story with limited options and when it starts down a different path it stops becoming a Terminator movie.
Well it's the far right and the far left who of course are the most intolerant and cause 90% of the problems, but I think the majority of America is either center right or center left and probably have more common ground than not - at least I hope so or the crazies on the far left will win and then it's all over for most of us.
Not going to happen because he would then have to admit he was soooo wrong about killing John and most of DF.
Let it go.
It's not just Hollywood that lives in a bubble - it unfortunately happens in everyday life. I'm a conservative, but I have several liberal friends and I try to at least listen to what they say. I think it's healthy to be around people who have different points of view, but I have family members who are much more conservative than I am and have a very narrow point of view. My guess is they don't even know anyone who is slightly liberal. It happens on both sides of the fence.
Just addressing the comment about remaking Bonnie and Clyde to be more historically accurate. IMO, it simply wouldn't be as good. B&C was a crazy and fun movie about people who did bad things. If it was historically correct, then the fun factor would be missing. If they tried to remake it keeping the storyline intact I don't think it would be possible to duplicate the cast of the original or come even close.
I actually enjoyed parts of Salvation. I thought Yelchin did a very good job as young Kyle, but they screwed it up the Marcus character. I really didn't have a problem with Bayle as John either - her certainly looked more the part than Stahl. Salvation is the direction it should have gone but with a better story. Regardless, they should have stopped the time travel with terminators sent to the past to kill John theme.
Are you suggesting a remake of T1? Why should they remake something that can not and should not ever be duplicated again? Just my opinion, but a remake would be a travesty.
I thought Eddie was really a cute kid when he was 13 and even as he got a little older he was still nice looking, but he didn't age well - drugs may have played a large part but sometimes cute kids don't grow up to be particularly good looking adults. Look at Macaulay Calkin as another example.
John's death is what is wrong with this movie but I'm OK with the story starting in Mexico and have no problem with diversity as long as it makes sense. But I do have a problem with Dani's character in general - never in a million years would she stand out above everyone else to be the future leader. Why???? Hell, if they had reversed the rolls and made Grace the leader and Dani her protector, I could have bought into that better than what was thrown at us.
And her name has always bothered me - coming so soon after GOT, did they really have to name her Dani?
IMO, it's not always just because of Hollywood injecting politics into a movie - it's remakes in general. Leave the classics alone and come up with something original.
I've always believed that each time something is changed from the original story, a new timeline develops but I've always considered T1 to be one timeline because nothing ever changes.
It wouldn't be anywhere near as good. If you want accuracy, then look for a documentary.
But I don't think Sarah was over the top in DF at all - the biggest disappointment of the movie to me. I was expecting Sarah from T2++++. Crazy and nuts - too bad all we got was Sarah on Prozac.
I talk to Canadians all of the time and most of them have major problems with the system. Many of them come to the US for timely treatment - the average wait in Canada to see a specialist is about 10 weeks.
Humm - I think people can choose work right now. I really believe the majority of those who can't and work low paying jobs would not succeed regardless of what opportunities were presented.