Terminator Genisys (July 1st, 2015)

[Wor-Gar]

It worked so well in T1/T2 because it had a fulfilling resolution.

It works within a single timeline. Not when you start jumping to alternate times. What the hell is 'alternate' anyway? How different does it have to be to be 'alternate'? At least Fringe's alternate universe was truly alternate. But then that was weird and no fun. So you lose again.

 

[jye4ever]

Riddick after he saw the good news

The whole time thing is a ridiculous conceit if you really think about it. An alternate timeline for any and all options. Meaning there's a timeline for my life with my hair parted to the right and one for my hair parted to the left. And for the tree outside to have one leaf facing north, then another timeline for two leaves facing north and so on, and so on, with every atom in existence just slightly off.

That's a man-made brain-****, nothing more.

And IF it did exist, you could never cross into another line. The genius of Ghostbusters is that they understood that you "can't cross the streams". If you did, and you jumped into an alternate timeline -- just that action would destroy your current timeline and the new one... by definition.

This

It works within a single timeline. Not when you start jumping to alternate times. What the hell is 'alternate' anyway? How different does it have to be to be 'alternate'? At least Fringe's alternate universe was truly alternate. But then that was weird and no fun. So you lose again.

This

 

[Khev]

I think lack-of-interest is killing this movie, not bad word-of-mouth.

Definitely. I think people watched the trailers and saw Arnold as an aging Terminator and a lot of scenes that look pretty familiar (cars crashing, robots "morphing") and just said, "eh, that stuff used to be cool." Or that it's their dad's action series. "Live Free or Get Terminated" or whatever.

Not sure why critics have ganged up on this one though. It still scored higher than Jupiter Ascending.

With regard to "alternate" timelines, there should only be a number of different "universes" equal to trips through time. The act of time-traveling literally creates them. Then the differences are just whatever the people change when they go back into the past. So Matt Smith sitting back and surveying a billion different universes and then just picking one to invade is stupid. But him finding a way to look back at all the "changes" made at some high level with regard to various trips that Skynet and the Resistance has already taken? Not so bad.

 

[nexus]

Y

Definitely. I think people watched the trailers and saw Arnold as an aging Terminator and a lot of scenes that look pretty familiar (cars crashing, robots "morphing") and just said, "eh, that stuff used to be cool." Or that it's their dad's action series. "Live Free or Get Terminated" or whatever.

Not sure why critics have ganged up on this one though. It still scored higher than Jupiter Ascending.

Have you seen Jupiter Ascending? I couldn't believe a major motion picture could be so bad. I thin it has like a 4 on RT. it cost a bazillion dollars as well, that was the type of movie that would bankrupt studios back in the 90s.

 

[Wor-Gar]

It still scored higher than Jupiter Ascending.

And likely TG WILL do better than Jupiter As.

With regard to "alternate" timelines, there should only be a number of different "universes" equal to trips through time. The act of time-traveling literally creates them. Then the differences are just whatever the people change when they go back into the past. So Matt Smith sitting back and surveying a billion different universes is stupid. But him finding away to look back at all the "changes" made at some high level with regard to various trips that Skynet and the Resistance has already taken? Not so bad.

That's even more confusing. If you change the timeline then there's a new timeline that spins off and now there's two of me in the universe? What?

No, no timelines. If you change time -- THE single timeline -- then nothing else exists but the change; therefore, there was no other outcome BUT your "change". Thus your change is part of the timeline.

So that's destiny. Destiny IS the timeline.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

The whole time thing is a ridiculous conceit if you really think about it. An alternate timeline for any and all options. Meaning there's a timeline for my life with my hair parted to the right and one for my hair parted to the left. And for the tree outside to have one leaf facing north, then another timeline for two leaves facing north and so on, and so on, with every atom in existence just slightly off.

That's a man-made brain-****, nothing more.

And IF it did exist, you could never cross into another line. The genius of Ghostbusters is that they understood that you "can't cross the streams". If you did, and you jumped into an alternate timeline -- just that action would destroy your current timeline and the new one... by definition.

I don't know man, it worked for the Mega Powers! I think Hogan discovered the multiverse theory back in the 80's

 

[Wor-Gar]

The only way to have fun with multiverses is if T-Arnold ended up on Fury Road without a shotgun.

 

[Khev]

That's even more confusing. If you change the timeline then there's a new timeline that spins off and now there's two of me in the universe?

Correct. So how is that confusing?

No, no timelines. If you change time -- THE single timeline -- then nothing else exists but the change; therefore, there was no other outcome BUT your "change". Thus your change is part of the timeline.

Nah, that doesn't really work. You get paradoxes that way. The whole "travel back in time, kill yourself, now you never can live to travel through time, which means you never actually killed yourself, which means you DO travel through time," etc. Unless you travel back in time and literally do nothing but observe and don't manipulate anything a single timeline always either remains unchanged or makes a neverending circle.

T1 had the neverending circle which made it the most elegant and never in need of a sequel--ever. But now that we have both sides trying to manipulate the past every new damn movie you either have a series of five hamster wheels or you need a non-endless loop way of them resolving things, which is where the alternate universes come in. If you think those concepts are too "stupid" then you really should just not watch time travel movies or stick to ones like Back to the Future that don't even try to be remotely logical.

 

[jye4ever]

Judgement Day Zzzzzz

 

[Khev]

Judgment Day is like a Duke Nukem game. When it isn't postponed for the 50th time and actually happens no one even cares.

 

[jye4ever]

Correct. So how is that confusing?



Nah, that doesn't really work. You get paradoxes that way. The whole "travel back in time, kill yourself, now you never can live to travel through time, which means you never actually killed yourself, which means you DO travel through time," etc. Unless you travel back in time and literally do nothing but observe and don't manipulate anything a single timeline always either remains unchanged or makes a neverending circle.

T1 had the neverending circle which made it the most elegant and never in need of a sequel--ever. But now that we have both sides trying to manipulate the past every new damn movie you either have a series of five hamster wheels or you need a non-endless loop way of them resolving things, which is where the alternate universes come in. If you think those concepts are too "stupid" then you really should just not watch time travel movies or stick to ones like Back to the Future that don't even try to be remotely logical.

But how its being used defuses any tension that Judgement Day had for us the viewers.

 

[Khev]

But how its being used defuses any tension that Judgement Day had for us the viewers.

I agree that they spend too much time on trying to prevent it. This is the movies. Winning a war is always a hundred times cooler than avoiding one. They need to find a way to wrap this up that doesn't leave it open to either side just getting "extra lives" by sending another damn person through time again.

They should probably do something cool like the end of DOFP where there's are "simultaneous" battles occurring on multiple years that somehow affect one another. So that at the end of this giant singular multi-year showdown they literally show us all the different timelines intersecting and being resolved at once. No easy feat but they need to make us "feel" like it truly is over where someone isn't just heading down a highway wondering how things will play out. We need to see the conflict resolved at the furthest point in the future timeline.

Cameron could have ended all of this before it started if he had T2 really end with old Sarah watching John and his family play at the park.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Correct. So how is that confusing?



Nah, that doesn't really work. You get paradoxes that way. The whole "travel back in time, kill yourself, now you never can live to travel through time, which means you never actually killed yourself, which means you DO travel through time," etc. Unless you travel back in time and literally do nothing but observe and don't manipulate anything a single timeline always either remains unchanged or makes a neverending circle.

T1 had the neverending circle which made it the most elegant and never in need of a sequel--ever. But now that we have both sides trying to manipulate the past every new damn movie you either have a series of five hamster wheels or you need a non-endless loop way of them resolving things, which is where the alternate universes come in. If you think those concepts are too "stupid" then you really should just not watch time travel movies or stick to ones like Back to the Future that don't even try to be remotely logical.

Too complicated....brain hurts. This makes sense.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Nah, that doesn't really work. You get paradoxes that way. The whole "travel back in time, kill yourself, now you never can live to travel through time

Wait -- why is that a paradox? Somewhere you are being born in the timeline. It's not a paradox at all. You are just wrong.

If you think those concepts are too "stupid" then you really should just not watch time travel movies or stick to ones like Back to the Future that don't even try to be remotely logical.

I think they are "stupid" -- to use your word -- because they are used as an excuse as opposed to being actually thought out. Changing anything would techically change everything -- one new footprint alters the atomic make-up of the alternate timeline; just walking thru the air is drastcally changing things -- so you could never just go back in time and change one historical event and have only that alter the line. It's a child's premise for child thinking. On that level, it works fine, but Terminator has gotten too childish in its science... wheras, like you said, the simplicity of its original take in T1 was about as perfect a timetravel tale as one could conceive.

 

[Khev]

Wait -- why is that a paradox? Somewhere you are being born in the timeline. It's not a paradox at all. You are just wrong.

Uh, it's pretty much THE most common example used when discussing time-travel paradoxes dude. EDIT: Okay maybe I should have said "kill your grandfather" instead of "kill yourself" but it's the same principle.

But at least we agree that it worked in T1.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Uh, it's pretty much THE most common example used when discussing time-travel paradoxes dude.

I know, but does that mean its true?

If you went back in time, and killed your younger self, how does that change anything? Because you now think to yourself: hey if I can't grown up to go back in time and kill myself, then how am I going to die? So the paradox is that you can't kill yourself? But if I then went back in time, depending on what time, I would find you at various stages of your life. You would not erase yourself from time. Because time is happening all at once.

It gets very muddled but I guess it all depends on whther you see time as 'linear' or not. In a linear timeline, then yes, the paradox presents problems in conventional thinking. But then again, if the goal was to remove you from the timeline, then whether you die at 16 or you live long enough to go back in time and kill yourself at 16, it results in the same timeline: Khev dead at 16.

 

[Magpie 7]

It still don't answer the important question, who the ****** sent Pops back to 1973 in the first place?

 

[Wor-Gar]

It still don't answer the important question, who the ****** sent Pops back to 1973 in the first place?

Likely that hole was: in a smart universe: done to open it up for a sequel, OR -- in a dumb universe: a stupid plot hole that the writer's couldn't fix because of "linear thinking" of the Khev Paradox.

I still love you, Khev.

 

[a-dev]

Not much I can say. I mean he's wrong obviously, is that all you needed to hear from me?

The scene where Sarah can't tell if she's looking at Kyle or the T 1000, so she shoots one of them, was probably one of the most obvious scenes where you can tell these people didn't get who Kyle Reese was. His reaction to almost getting shot was so out of character, "You could've have shot me!" The original Reese would have thought she did the right thing in that situation. Courtney didn't even feel like he was a soldier with the weight of the "world" on his shoulders like Michael Biehn.

Yeah that's absolutely right. I think not only does it shortchange us on emotional impact the film might otherwise have had by having the Reese character be so unlike the original, I also think it's a disservice to the character and Biehn's performance of that role - that it wasn't deemed important enough to get someone who could keep it consistent to Biehn. Heck even Jason Clarke said he looked at Edward Furlong's John Connor to guide his own performance FFS. But with Kyle Reese it apparently didn't matter at all?

And if Arnie thinks Courtney was perfect for the role (as per one of those promotional interviews) I wonder how much value he places on the Reese character. I don't think I've ever heard Arnie talk about Michael Biehn in T1.

 

[cmiller99]

Yeah that's absolutely right. I think not only does it shortchange us on emotional impact the film might otherwise have had by having the Reese character be so unlike the original, I also think it's a disservice to the character and Biehn's performance of that role - that it wasn't deemed important enough to get someone who could keep it consistent to Biehn. Heck even Jason Clarke said he looked at Edward Furlong's John Connor to guide his own performance FFS. But with Kyle Reese it apparently didn't matter at all?

And if Arnie thinks Courtney was perfect for the role (as per one of those promotional interviews) I wonder how much value he places on the Reese character. I don't think I've ever heard Arnie talk about Michael Biehn in T1.

For me Courtney was definitely the weakest link. Looked, sounded, acted nothing like Biehn, but in a way that didn't really lead to anything new or fresh. He was just 'man'.

Thanks for the rep BTW.