Jump to content
megaguns1982

Terminator - Dark Fate

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, downzy said:

Man your logic makes zero sense. 
So any attempt to replace Arnold is an attempt to inject a SJW agenda, made worse if the lead protagonist is played by a woman?  That makes zero fucking sense. 

Essentially you have spent hours in this thread pissing on a movie you haven’t seen because women took roles that should have gone to a male senior citizen. 

And i assume that since you’re so principled about your allegiance to non-SJWism in movies and to Arnold that you have never seen Terminator Salvation since Arnold isn’t even in it?  Otherwise you’re being hypocritical by not seeing this film. 

any attempt to replace arnold in an arnold movie is always bad, made worse when it's done for SJW reasons.

I don't understand this notion that if I go see the movie, this somehow grants me more rights to piss on this movie.

I can perfectly criticise movies I didn't see, books I didn't read, and bands I didn't listen to. there are litterally hundreds of ways in which you can be informed about the quality of stuff, actually watching the movie being one of them.

In your logic, you must see every movie in cinema yourself, because otherwise you can never know if it's any good. 

Don't you ever inform yourself before buying / hiring stuff? I do. It's running a household 101.

No, I did not see salvation because arnold has even less screen time in it. I would be a hypocrite if I did, that's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, action said:

I can perfectly criticise movies I didn't see, books I didn't read, and bands I didn't listen to. there are litterally hundreds of ways in which you can be informed about the quality of stuff, actually watching the movie being one of them.

Sure, you can do that, but your opinion is pretty worthless.  Why would anyone take you seriously if you're wasting their time with your opinion that's not based on anything.  If you're not willing to see the film, then your opinion is baseless and not really worth considering.  

1 hour ago, action said:

In your logic, you must see every movie in cinema yourself, because otherwise you can never know if it's any good. 

That's not what I said.  If you're going to claim that a movie is pushing an agenda, then you need to see the movie.  Otherwise your opinion is pointless and not deserving anyone's attention or consideration.  It's really that simple.  You don't need to see every movie to know if you enjoy a movie you've seen, but it's asinine to accept or indulge anyone who holds strong views on something who can't be bothered to actually see the damn film.

1 hour ago, action said:

Don't you ever inform yourself before buying / hiring stuff? I do. It's running a household 101

Absolutely.  But I also understand that my opinion isn't as informed as someone who actually owns the product or viewed the movie.  But you're not even doing that.  You're not even renting in this case.  Throughout this entire thread and this discussion you keep reiterating that the movie is pushing agenda and your only proof isn't even the poster, it's a picture distributed for promotional purposes.  Everyone else who has seen the movie doesn't agree.  Wonder who's opinion holds more weight?

Would you go on Amazon and review products you don't own or have never used?

1 hour ago, action said:

I don't understand this notion that if I go see the movie, this somehow grants me more rights to piss on this movie.

Are you listening to yourself?  This is ridiculous.  Of course it gives you more license to shit on something if you've actually seen it, especially since no one in this thread who has seen it agrees with your opinion.  

------------------------------------------------

Anyways, enough with this nonsense.  This insanely stupid conversation (which I'm partly responsible for) has gone on long enough.  Let's open it up to people who have seen the film and actually want to discuss it rather than wasting everyone time discussing utter nonsense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, downzy said:

Sure, you can do that, but your opinion is pretty worthless.  Why would anyone take you seriously if you're wasting their time with your opinion that's not based on anything.  If you're not willing to see the film, then your opinion is baseless and not really worth considering.  

That's not what I said.  If you're going to claim that a movie is pushing an agenda, then you need to see the movie.  Otherwise your opinion is pointless and not deserving anyone's attention or consideration.  It's really that simple.  You don't need to see every movie to know if you enjoy a movie you've seen, but it's asinine to accept or indulge anyone who holds strong views on something who can't be bothered to actually see the damn film.

Absolutely.  But I also understand that my opinion isn't as informed as someone who actually owns the product or viewed the movie.  But you're not even doing that.  You're not even renting in this case.  Throughout this entire thread and this discussion you keep reiterating that the movie is pushing agenda and your only proof isn't even the poster, it's a picture distributed for promotional purposes.  Everyone else who has seen the movie doesn't agree.  Wonder who's opinion holds more weight?

Would you go on Amazon and review products you don't own or have never used?

Are you listening to yourself?  This is ridiculous.  Of course it gives you more license to shit on something if you've actually seen it, especially since no one in this thread who has seen it agrees with your opinion.  

------------------------------------------------

Anyways, enough with this nonsense.  This insanely stupid conversation (which I'm partly responsible for) has gone on long enough.  Let's open it up to people who have seen the film and actually want to discuss it rather than wasting everyone time discussing utter nonsense.  

by now, people on here know I didn't see the movie. I think, they can judge for themselves how much value they give to my opinion from here on out.

What are you saying, Downzy? I'm formally disallowed to further engage in the discussion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, action said:

the movie pushes SJW politics, precisely because they replaced the lead role with three females

But it really doesn't! Sarah Connor is a pretty big part of the Terminator mythology so it's not really a stretch to include her in this. Another of the women is the target of the Terminator kinda like in, errrrrrrr The Terminator. Basically the only real male to female change of role is in the protector role but her gender isn't referred to even once throughout the whole movie. :shrugs: 

As for the hero part of it it's *spoiler alert* actually Arnie that kills the bad terminator and saves the girl in the end so again no SJW propaganda there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dazey said:

But it really doesn't! Sarah Connor is a pretty big part of the Terminator mythology so it's not really a stretch to include her in this. Another of the women is the target of the Terminator kinda like in, errrrrrrr The Terminator. Basically the only real male to female change of role is in the protector role but her gender isn't referred to even once throughout the whole movie. :shrugs: 

As for the hero part of it it's *spoiler alert* actually Arnie that kills the bad terminator and saves the girl in the end so again no SJW propaganda there.

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to further engage in the discussion considering downzy's half-warning, but I feel confident to reply anyway.

I appreciate what you say, and I can totally see where you're coming from.

But to me, arnie is the terminator, and the terminator is arnold. It's like stallone's rambo character.

If you're going to call your movie "the terminator" in the title, then by nature, arnie should have the absolute lead role. In terminis, it doesn't even make sense to have arnold sidetracked, when you're calling your movie "the terminator".

Bare in mind though, I can totally understand the people who do NOT see this series centered around arnold, and that's fine. But from where I'm coming from, it is a big part of the series. The only part, if I'm honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Movie sucks because its another boring chase movie not because it has a few more female leads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, action said:

What are you saying, Downzy? I'm formally disallowed to further engage in the discussion?

No, you're allowed, but I think it's time both you and I set aside the argument of whether the film pushes a SJW agenda since you haven't seen it and have no context to comment on that fact.

For comparisons sake, if someone came into a discussion saying that Chinese Democracy sucked but also admitted they hadn't heard it, the mod team would likely shut down that poster since it doesn't serve the discussion and the poster's intention violated the rules of openly trolling.  Not saying that's exactly what you're doing here, but it's not far off.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, downzy said:

No, you're allowed, but I think it's time both you and I set aside the argument of whether the film pushes a SJW agenda since you haven't seen it and have no context to comment on that fact.

For comparisons sake, if someone came into a discussion saying that Chinese Democracy sucked but also admitted they hadn't heard it, the mod team would like shut down that poster since it doesn't serve the discussion and the poster's intention violated the rules of openly trolling.  Not saying that's exactly what you're doing here, but it's not far off.  

the analogy with chinese democracy is an interesting one.

on that album, slash does not play while many see him as an essential part of guns n roses.

the fact that he does not play, can be known even without listening to the album.

with dark fate, the fact that arnold has a small role can also be known without watching the movie.

My biggest gripe with the movie is, that arnold has a small role. My accusations of SJW politics are only part of the problem. I see it as the "reason" why he has a small role, but that he has a small role can not be disputed and is basically what my argument is built around

Edited by action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, action said:

If you're going to call your movie "the terminator" in the title, then by nature, arnie should have the absolute lead role

So by that logic they should have stopped making James Bond films after Sean Connery stopped playing the title role (or maybe we should go back to James Lazerby on that one)

Mad Max Fury Road was a mistake in your eyes because Mel Gibson wasn't playing Max.

No more Star Trek films because we can't have other actors playing Captain Kirk or Spock.

People should not watch Season 3 of the Crown because they have a different actress playing the Queen

They shouldn't have made the Hunt for Red October because Jack Ryan wasn't played by Harrison Ford

Silence of the Lambs should not have been made because Hannible Lector was originally played by Brian Cox, not Anthony Hopkins

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, action said:

My biggest gripe with the movie is, that arnold has a small role. My accusations of SJW politics are only part of the problem.

The first part is fine.  I think most people understand that having a 72 year old Schwarzenegger carry an entire Terminator film at this point is pretty ludicrous.  It's also limiting somewhat since this new film explores new concepts of enhanced humans and the messy bridge between man and machine.  Some people have complained that it's too much like Terminator 2, but I think there's enough new elements to make it as fresh as this franchise is going to get at this point.  

Your accusations of SJW politics is nonsense since you haven't seen the film and hence don't know what you're talking about.  

23 minutes ago, action said:

the analogy with chinese democracy is an interesting one.

on that album, slash does not play while many see him as an essential part of guns n roses.

the fact that he does not play, can be known even without listening to the album.

with dark fate, the fact that arnold has a small role can also be known without watching the movie.

If someone wanted to say that the album wasn't a Guns N' Roses album because it lacked Slash, then that's a valid point.  But it's still not a comment on the art itself.  It's a worthless opinion since they haven't listened to the album and shouldn't pollute the discussion amongst people looking to have a genuine and informed conversation on the songs themselves.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, downzy said:

So by that logic they should have stopped making James Bond films after Sean Connery stopped playing the title role (or maybe we should go back to James Lazerby on that one)

Mad Max Fury Road was a mistake in your eyes because Mel Gibson wasn't playing Max.

No more Star Trek films because we can't have other actors playing Captain Kirk or Spock.

People should not watch Season 3 of the Crown because they have a different actress playing the Queen

They shouldn't have made the Hunt for Red October because Jack Ryan wasn't played by Harrison Ford

Silence of the Lambs should not have been made because Hannible Lector was originally played by Brian Cox, not Anthony Hopkins

 

 

it's different with the terminator.

arnold is so associated with that role, when he run for governor of california they even called him "governator".

when people refer to "the terminator", they usually refer to arnold. "that guy looks like the terminator" they say, when they point to someone looking like schwarzenegger.

the terminator/ schwarzenegger image has become part of pop culture, to such extreme levels that you can't afford making a terminator movie without granting arnold the lead role.

I don't intend to troll here, it's just how I view arnold's career as a fan or himself first and foremost.

if Axl changed to being a backup singer for guns n roses, imagine the outrage that would ensue

20 minutes ago, downzy said:

The first part is fine.  I think most people understand that having a 72 year old Schwarzenegger carry an entire Terminator film at this point is pretty ludicrous.  It's also limiting somewhat since this new film explores new concepts of enhanced humans and the messy bridge between man and machine.  Some people have complained that it's too much like Terminator 2, but I think there's enough new elements to make it as fresh as this franchise is going to get at this point.  

Your accusations of SJW politics is nonsense since you haven't seen the film and hence don't know what you're talking about.  

If someone wanted to say that the album wasn't a Guns N' Roses album because it lacked Slash, then that's a valid point.  But it's still not a comment on the art itself.  It's a worthless opinion since they haven't listened to the album and shouldn't pollute the discussion amongst people looking to have a genuine and informed conversation on the songs themselves.  

true true. but when watching a terminator movie I'm only in for arnold, not for other artistic reasons like story or deeper message.

I have a very basic interest when it comes to movies. I admit, I'm a bit of an extremist here, but I'm just a fan of arnold. It just disapoints me when he's put to the side of the stage. That don't feel right to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, action said:

it's different with the terminator.

The same could have been said about Jack Ryan, James Bond, James T. Kirk, Spock, Spiderman, Mad Max at one point in time.  Things change.  You're potentially missing some great films or cinematic moments if you're not open to the possibility of another actor playing that role.

The same was also said about the Joker many times.  Few thought anyone should have played the character after Jack Nicholson in the '89 film.  Then Heath Ledger won an Oscar for his take on the role.  Now there's talk of Joaquin Pheonix winning an Oscar for the same role with a completely different take.  

It's a shame you can't expand your horizons as to what a Terminator film can be.  Save for the first film, I've seen every Terminator film in theatres.  That should give you an indication of how old I am and how the Terminator franchise was significant in my memories of going to the theatres in my formative years.  Hell, I think I bought Terminator 2 on DVD three times because of different packaging and bonus features.  

At the end of the day it's nothing more than a film.  They shouldn't be that important to anyone other than those who had a hand in making them.  For me, my life isn't significant because of the movies I watch or the music I listen to.  But maybe that's just me.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the stuff that has come out of the discussion of this film has been far more interesting than the actual movie of Dark Fate.

I've been kind of obsessed with charting where and how this film went so terribly wrong - it's quite a public embarrassment for a number of people.

 

One of the things that's been so fascinating to me is to hear what James Cameron fought for and wanted - because he is the crucial ingredient in all this. I watched this video this morning and I'm pretty stunned: The director talks about how Cameron was so into Arnold's character that he began writing things that were beyond absurd

- Exhibit number one: James Cameron was adamant that the audience understand that Arnold's character - as a perfect cyborg - has working DNA and can impregnate a woman. Thus, producing a son, which the character of the T-800 has. 

Watch

 

 

Can. you. imagine....

Cameron went crazy on this film. He got so wrapped up in "new" concepts that he totally dropped the ball on telling a worthwhile Terminator film. The little anecdote about having to fight over whether Arnold's robot cock can fire live ammunition...my goodness. It's too good not to meme

3fvrbt.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think it was a SJW flick, except for them killing THAT character just to put  a latina girl, that was forced and I am latino and why it is always mexicans? Just because they live closer to the US? Do Hollywood know there's way more to Latin America than Mexico?

The movie is bad because it is a retcon. Retcons suck: spider man being a clone, guy gardner being an alien, the new 52 (some of it was good tho), Terminator Genisys, Gwen stacy cheating on Peter  with Norman, Halloween H20, Palpatine being alive, Midichlorians, Alien 3, Wolverine is not a mutant, he's a Lupine and the worst of all, Spider man selling his marriage to the devil, which gave us glorious story arcs like having Harry Osbourne's Girl cheat him with Norman (he again, the rascal).

Also, what's up with the actors? Why are they so ugly? Linda and Arnie are old, ok, but Davies is ugly and that bowl cut made her even uglier, Natalia is also ugly and looks like a child, maybe it was some hollywood pedo's idea? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Just because they live closer to the US? Do Hollywood know there's way more to Latin America than Mexico

I think proximity to the US was likely one factor.  Another issue brought up by having the movie begin in Mexico is automation, and how many of the workers in Mexico are likely to be replaced by machines in the coming years.  I thought it was an interesting attempt to connect a contemporary issue that relates to the overall theme of robots replacing machines.  

 

40 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

The movie is bad because it is a retcon

I don't agree.  I think had this movie came out before T3 and the other two movies it would have felt more seamless and logical.  

 

It made complete sense that the robots would send back more than one terminator to kill John Connor.  Why not when they make a thousand of those things in the future.  It was something myself and likely many others never really considered.

37 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Also, what's up with the actors? Why are they so ugly? Linda and Arnie are old, ok, but Davies is ugly and that bowl cut made her even uglier, Natalia is also ugly and looks like a child, maybe it was some hollywood pedo's idea?

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you there.  If you're distracted by the actors looks then I'm not sure what to tell you.  It doesn't really bother me that all actors in a movie aren't strikingly good looking.  Personally, I didn't find Grace nor Dani ugly one bit.  I guess different standards there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2019 at 3:03 PM, action said:

it's different with the terminator.

 In Salvation Arnie just made a cameo. Be happy that this time around he got a small role :lol:

I won't comment on Genisys because I didn't understand a thing about what went on there :wacko:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a fun little promo interview with Hamilton and Arnie. On Jollys Korean channel. I guess ever since Arnie gave Greta an electric car he too can go give the 'woke, millennial, beta-male' interviews. He does roast them a bit though :lol:

(interviews in english and starts at 0:30)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, downzy said:

I think proximity to the US was likely one factor.  Another issue brought up by having the movie begin in Mexico is automation, and how many of the workers in Mexico are likely to be replaced by machines in the coming years.  I thought it was an interesting attempt to connect a contemporary issue that relates to the overall theme of robots replacing machines.  

 

I don't agree.  I think had this movie came out before T3 and the other two movies it would have felt more seamless and logical.  

  Reveal hidden contents

It made complete sense that the robots would send back more than one terminator to kill John Connor.  Why not when they make a thousand of those things in the future.  It was something myself and likely many others never really considered.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you there.  If you're distracted by the actors looks then I'm not sure what to tell you.  It doesn't really bother me that all actors in a movie aren't strikingly good looking.  Personally, I didn't find Grace nor Dani ugly one bit.  I guess different standards there.  

Yeah, mexico and a lot of other countries included. Machines taking our place is happening all over the world. I'm dealing with automated cashiers rather than real humans for some years now, even in brazilian small towns so not a good point really.

The whole skynet sending terminators don't make sense after T2 and why only Arnie turned out good? What were the other terminators gonna do once they discovered their objective was already completed? That was the biggest plot hole overall. Arnie's character should not even exist.

Having beautiful people to advertise a product has been proven to be a very effective startegy. Of course, you can be ugly if you have talent, like Joaquin in Joker, that movie made like a billion while Dark fate failed bad.

Edited by Chewbacca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chewbacca said:

The whole skynet sending terminators don't make sense after T2 and why only Arnie turned out good? What were the other terminators gonna do once they discovered their objective was already completed?

I suppose at this point we don't need to use spoiler tags since the film has been out for over a week or two (depending where you live).

SPOILER ALERT FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM

I believe Skynet sent back several Terminators before Sarah, John, and the good Terminator changed the course of events in Terminator 2.  It wasn't just the T-1000, they seemed to have sent several evil T-800s back as well I suppose as a back up plan. 

The Terminators sent back after the events of T2 were from what we can only assume was something else, perhaps Legion.  The whole argument of the storyline is that the rise of AI and Terminators are inevitable.  Shut down Skynet and humans will find another way to fuck things up.  

I think the Arnold terminator that killed John turned out as he did because his mission was completed.  Other Terminators were either killed by Sarah or had different missions because they weren't sent back by Skynet.  

1 hour ago, Chewbacca said:

Having beautiful people to advertise a product has been proven to be a very effective startegy. Of course, you can be ugly if you have talent, like Joaquin in Joker, that movie made like a billion while Dark fate failed bad.

If I had to list the top 50 reasons why this movie didn't do well commercially, the attractiveness of the actors would be number 50.  Avatar is one of the highest grossing films of all time.  Did you find the blue people attractive?  I wouldn't say the kids in the Harry Potter films (hell, any of the actors really) score well in the looks department yet they are some of the highest grossing films of all time.  

Franchise fatigue after being dragged through the mud that last three films and television show, plus a really old Arnold, likely played a bigger role in why the movie didn't do well.  No one really needs to see this film in the same way that T2 was an event.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the one positive point in this movie is arnold. He may be old, but he looked pretty badass nonetheless.

In fact, the (small) role of arnold is the only thing in this movie that makes me care, at all. I just fucking love arnold, and so do many other people. He's a fucking inspiration, an icon, a legend. He's the embodiment of determination and talent. remove arnold, and you've got just an empty shell left as far as I'm concerned.

part of me wants to view the movie, out of curiosity in arnold's role in this, but a huge part of me doesn't want to be disapointed by his lack of screentime.

you know what's worse than no more terminator movies? terminator movies that give arnold limited screentime.

Arnold is getting old, but so are we. So what? So is guns n roses, the stones, black sabbath.... People still pay good money to view these old people, in fact in many cases they sell bigger tours than ever.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, downzy said:

I suppose at this point we don't need to use spoiler tags since the film has been out for over a week or two (depending where you live).

SPOILER ALERT FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM

I believe Skynet sent back several Terminators before Sarah, John, and the good Terminator changed the course of events in Terminator 2.  It wasn't just the T-1000, they seemed to have sent several evil T-800s back as well I suppose as a back up plan. 

The Terminators sent back after the events of T2 were from what we can only assume was something else, perhaps Legion.  The whole argument of the storyline is that the rise of AI and Terminators are inevitable.  Shut down Skynet and humans will find another way to fuck things up.  

I think the Arnold terminator that killed John turned out as he did because his mission was completed.  Other Terminators were either killed by Sarah or had different missions because they weren't sent back by Skynet.  

If I had to list the top 50 reasons why this movie didn't do well commercially, the attractiveness of the actors would be number 50.  Avatar is one of the highest grossing films of all time.  Did you find the blue people attractive?  I wouldn't say the kids in the Harry Potter films (hell, any of the actors really) score well in the looks department yet they are some of the highest grossing films of all time.  

Franchise fatigue after being dragged through the mud that last three films and television show, plus a really old Arnold, likely played a bigger role in why the movie didn't do well.  No one really needs to see this film in the same way that T2 was an event.  

From what I get it was skynet that sent those 6 terminators to the past, to an age where John and Sarah would be, in principle, vulnerable. This happened because Skynet didn't have exact data about them, since most was lost during the bombing. It was never stated that legion sent them, but Carl, a Skynet T800 sent Sarah messages with the coordinates for the other terminators, which, I suppose means they were all part of a cadre sent to kill JC for Skynet. Which makes no sense since:

A) Skynet is no more how the hell are its creations still roaming?

B) Why would Skynet send terminators to a period where the bombing already ocurred? He wouldn't be able to do this correction because he was already wiped out by T2's events.

C) If it was legion, why would he build T800's? Why target John? He's not even the messiah anymore. Should've sent them after Dani instead.

 

They were blue but their facial features were mostly intact and they were all attractive people Zoe and Sam are very good looking. Even the evil sarge guy was good looking.

Harry Potter was a kid's movie, they had to get child actors for the kids to indentify themselves with. As the series went on and their public grew older, they also introduced manu attractive actors such as Gary Oldman, Robert Patinson, the girl who played Cho, The girl who played Fleur, the guy who played Krum, the guy who played the elder weasley that married Krum and they could not just ditch the trio that played the leading characters. Same goes for the fantastic animals trilogy, all good looking people, even if the movies were mostly crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CKhWH7Dh.jpg

8pAL9puh.jpg

xJKuddmh.jpg

2K1mm1ih.jpg

Correction: These ladies are sexy af. 

But like this talking point even - WTF on so many levels :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, soon said:

 

Correction: These ladies are sexy af. 

But like this talking point even - WTF on so many levels :lol:

is there a reason they look like.... (insert sexist white male conservative derogatory term here) in the movie then?

 

Edited by action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, action said:

is there a reason they look like.... (insert sexist white male conservative derogatory term here) in the movie then?

 

I cannot account for your tastes. But if you mean 'why do the characters they portray in the movie look different then these photos of the real life actresses?' then its because thats what movies are - they are thespians.

But who knows what you might think if you saw the movie? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, soon said:

I cannot account for your tastes. But if you mean 'why do the characters they portray in the movie look different then these photos of the real life actresses?' then its because thats what movies are - they are thespians.

But who knows what you might think if you saw the movie? :P

If that's confusing him then he's going to get one hell of a shock when he realises that Arnold isn't really a super ninja death robot from the future. :lol: 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×