• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

The "I am SO SICK of all this talk about recasts/reboots/revamps/re-whatever!" thread

the first two movies preached "there is no fate but what you make". Nothing is written in stone and you can change the future.
T3 came along and said that no matter what John did Judgement day was going to happen
 
That argument is...tragically valid. It nullifies everything done in 2.
 
they had a free showing on base for the Navy before the movie came out so me and my guys watched the first two and timed it so we'd go see the 3rd one after and it didnt match up to the other two and the point I brought up
 
not only did it not live up to the first two but there were several things that seemed to be lifted from the first two...the female terminator seemed to be a take off on the superior T-1000, another scene where John is on a bike being chased by a terminator in a truck while the good terminator follows....this movie should have been rewritten to coincide with the first two. Instead of retreading they should have started with Judgement day and show how John gather humanity together to fight Skynet. I would have ended it with the humans about to deliver the final blow and the Terminator being sent back in time followed by Kyle. Instead we get a bunch of wannabe movies.
 
As far as your take on recasts, there's also the matter of the actor in question not wanting to come back or not getting along with the director. Sometimes they simply can't be avoided. Even if it's not for the better. And as long as they're not constantly rotating a la Batman or Kitty Pryde, I can deal with it. My problem is fanboys screaming constantly that this character should be recast because it wasn't the person who they had in mind, when there's no guarantee that the person they wanted A-was even considered for the role, B-was even interested in the role, or C-would have done any better than the person actually cast.


That's a very good point.
 
That argument is...tragically valid. It nullifies everything done in 2.


That's how I feel too. One thing I didn't like about T2, the T1000 never should have been able to travel back in time. In part 1, Kyle tells the police that non-living matter cannot go through the time machine. The T800 model could only go through because, while a machine, he is surrounded by living flesh & blood and can thus fool the computer's sensors. The T1000 had no flesh and blood. He was made entirely out of liquid metal. Therefore there was no way the T1000 should have been able to go back through time. At the very least they should have come up with some sort of narrative for it, like his illusion technology that made him appear human allowed him to fool the sensors. Or maybe he used a newer, more advanced time travel device, while the resistance fighters had to send Arnold back using the older model. But then if that were the case, why did the T1000 show up naked?

Anyway, despite the flaws with the writing I still love the VFX.
 
The whole Terminator premise is a paradox, so that I didn't really care about.
 
And come to think of it, the previous movies always told us that Connor LED the revolution. WHat was he doing taking orders?
 
That's how I feel too. One thing I didn't like about T2, the T1000 never should have been able to travel back in time. In part 1, Kyle tells the police that non-living matter cannot go through the time machine. The T800 model could only go through because, while a machine, he is surrounded by living flesh & blood and can thus fool the computer's sensors. The T1000 had no flesh and blood. He was made entirely out of liquid metal. Therefore there was no way the T1000 should have been able to go back through time. At the very least they should have come up with some sort of narrative for it, like his illusion technology that made him appear human allowed him to fool the sensors. Or maybe he used a newer, more advanced time travel device, while the resistance fighters had to send Arnold back using the older model. But then if that were the case, why did the T1000 show up naked?

Anyway, despite the flaws with the writing I still love the VFX.

i think liquid can travel...we are like 80-90% water
 
the first two movies preached "there is no fate but what you make". Nothing is written in stone and you can change the future.
T3 came along and said that no matter what John did Judgement day was going to happen
So true. And another reason to hate T3, which honestly felt like a poor man's rehash of T2.
 
Although there are good reboots/remakes out there. I do hate the very idea of them. Re-anything is pure evil to me. Although I love Trek 2009 more than just about anything in Star Trek, that may be the only thing I really enjoy....
 
I also feel it's a trade-off. Nolan's Batfilms may have a lot going for them, but they're weak on action and the stories gravitate even further away from the comics than the Burton/Schumacher movies did.
 
I think it all comes down to how the film makers view the original. In JJ Abrams Star Trek you can tell that he loves the original series....and I love that they used the time paradox as an excuse for the changes.
However when a film maker thinks they are better than the source material and they make changes because they dont understand the property...I have an issue with that.

I loved the Burton films because they presented Batman's world...nothing was off limits because of reality. This was a world where a guy could fall into a vat of chemicals and come out the Joker, or a freak freezing accident could produce a Mr Freeze. That is truely the difference in the movies. Burton showed us his gothic take on Batman's world...Nolan showed us his take on Batman in our world
 
Very good points. But I think to an extent all filmmakers think they know best. The question sometimes is do they respect the source material? That's the only way they can even have a hope of understanding it.
 
well I think its a fine line between bringing your vision to the screen and thinking you know whats best. Lets say someone does a remake of Star Wars(god forbid no). It would be the difference in bringing their ideas or look or style rather than changing the way R2 D2 looks because the new director thinks he looks stupid
 
It's a fine line and many people in charge of a project stand on it.
 
Not only does the recasts/reboots or reimagined movies get old so does every movie having to be in 3D nowadays..
 
I dont mind the 3D thing as long as the movie is planned as a 3D movie. Movies like Tron or Green Lantern make sense to be in 3D. Clash of the Titans, Thor, Captain America...why??
 
exactly studios figured that they can get an extra couple of dollars from people who are mesmerized by 3D.
 
sometimes I like to check to see if I am awake without doing a "kick"
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,263
Messages
22,074,598
Members
45,875
Latest member
kedenlewis
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"