Terminator - Dark Fate

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

8 minutes ago, soon said:

Im reading your post as suggesting that motherhood and feminism are mutually exclusive? I dont think that that they are.

Joan of Arch is a figure in feminist thought. The idea of a women being a leader in militarism remains an issue in feminist discourse today. In a world where men get their panties in a bunch over women in an action movie, "strong female lead" isnt only a feminist issue, evidently its revolutionary!

And certainly the post I was responding to was suggesting that feminism played a role in there being strong female leads in T6, so within that context T1 and T2 were also feminist in that posters own logic.

The feminism of the first two Terminator's is almost quaint compared to 3rd and 4th wave feminism. 3rd and 4th wave aren't focused on motherhood as much as they are intersectionality and equalizing outcomes. Motherhood in itself would be considered Trans exclusionary. But to bring it back to the actual movies, Sarah never does anything that is unrealistic. It's not like she takes out that SWAT team in hand to hand combat or anything. She's shown to be brave but has to be bailed out by an Austrian accented tank and later repays the favor. All in all, I think Sarah was a powerful female character that was done right and not in a cheese-dick way. I will watch the new one with an open mind.

12 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Who cares about the politics? It’s a kick ass movie that happens to have a female star. Why do so many people make a problem where there isn’t one?

Because some of us like discussing these movies on a deeper level than that!

[DieselDaisy]

14 minutes ago, Dazey said:

It’s a kick ass movie

Really? Looks like a cgi sack of shit to me. 

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Really? Looks like a cgi sack of shit to me. 

I assumed he was talking about one of the first two movies!

[Dazey]

4 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

I assumed he was talking about one of the first two movies!

I was. 👍

[appetite4illusions]

58 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

As I stated before, I don't think Terminator was ever all that feminist (at least by 2nd or 3rd wave standards, you could argue Sarah would be a 1st wave feminist). Sarah is a strong female lead, but her strength comes from her mother instinct and willingness to sacrifice for her son. By the 2nd movie it's all about John. 

Terminator, if in concept only, was always about John Connor.

Not John Connor the character - but John Connor the legend. He was the most important thing about the first two movies, for sure. He was the ultimate result of all the conflict.

Here’s the real interesting thing - John Connor is also the most boring thing about Terminator. The character of the “savior” never translated. The best it did was work when Cameron showed us this wise-ass kid who would grow up to be that person.

But really, look at all the sequels: they failed for lots of reasons but one primary reason was John Connor as a character failed. Nobody knew how to present him. Is he whiny and weak willed like Nick Stahl? Is he intense and humorless like academy award winner Christian Bale? Is he cocky? What makes him an interesting character if he’s the guy who’s just “supppsed to win?”

I think if you look at the failure of Terminator as also the continued failure of the John Connor character to translate, a lot makes sense about the route the filmmakers have taken. They’ve seemingly removed John and instead have focused on the more dynamic mother Mary character: Sarah.

So has Terminator become a feminist vessel? It seems like by virtue of the fact that John Connor doesn’t work, it has become about Linda Hamilton, who always grabbed audiences. 

[Edward Nygma]

I hope its a great movie but my whole thing is how do you better T2 as a sequel? Its right up there with Aliens as one of the great sequels. 

[soon]

15 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Sarah never does anything that is unrealistic. It's not like she takes out that SWAT team in hand to hand combat or anything. She's shown to be brave but has to be bailed out by an Austrian accented tank and later repays the favor.

I dont follow how this plot point relates to feminism or not-feminism?

19 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

3rd and 4th wave aren't focused on motherhood as much as they are intersectionality and equalizing outcomes. Motherhood in itself would be considered Trans exclusionary

Bit of a caricature. And you're describing a minority theory as a majority praxis. Maybe some people who tweet photos of "man spreading" give a fuck about that analysis... no one else though. Not everyone has caved to identity politics - which is a great thing!!!

A number of the feminist academics in my life study motherhood. And not only in academia, our feminist informed city hall is doing an entire revamp on sidewalk snow removal under the intersectional analysis that disabled people, elderly people and mothers with strollers are disproportionally impacted by slow snow removal.

Incarcerated motherhood is a huge agenda item in todays feminism here. Issues of access to children and handcuffed birthing are hot button issues. Or how the lack of birthing centres in the north disproportionally impacts First Nations and Inuit women who are taken from there communities and desired birthing partners to give birth alone in the south. Child care, I mean I could go on and on. Motherhood is a core issue - its an indivisible aspect of any discussion of reproductive rights. 

We're getting a bit off topic though, arent we? 

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

4 minutes ago, soon said:

I dont follow how this plot point relates to feminism or not-feminism?

 

That she's a strong character, but not in an over the top and cringe way, that's why it worked. 

[killuridols]

3 hours ago, action said:

well...

to start, the terminator franchise didn't really need a sequel after the second movie. It was a perfect ending to the series. Subsequent movies have all failed for various reasons. So for yet another sequel to do better, it better be something really awesome.

what was awesome about the first two movies? Arnold and his iconic character first and foremost. Then you have strong support characters like kyle reese, sarah connor and the kid who played john connor. All of which have become iconic characters in their own right.

the new movie had some things going for it. The return of linda hamilton is certainly a good thing. But it quickly went downhill from there. The promotion team thought it fitting to show three females in the first promotional poster, put linda hamilton to the side and making some justin bieber lookalike the central character, with arnold nowhere to be seen. Somehow, they claim that the series has "refound" its heart not to focus on men this time around, while the focus of the first movies has pretty much being... here comes the shocker: the terminator. So it seems to me, there are certain people out there who made some crucial decisions about this film, that dont seem to have a clue what the classic terminator movies were all about.

the first movie had sarah connor and kyle reese supporting each other, making each other stronger in their fight against the terminator. The second one had arnie and sarah connor teaming up against the T1000. Both movies featured the strong character of sarah connor, yes, but she was always supported by men, and she offered support to men herself. It was all pretty harmonic and anti-sexist.

But this new movie sees an all - female gang teaming up against the terminator, and there is not much room for nuance this time around. In this regard, the new terminator paints a warped view on sexism, helped with the inclusion of a woman who looks like a man. This hits all sorts of sexist boxes. I don't really see the merits of going this route for the story, and to me it's really nothing more than what is quite obvious forced feminist politics.

Wow, looks like you're the priviledged one in the forum who's already watched the whole movie and know all about it!

I am female, CIS if you want , zero fucks given about stereotypes and other bollocks... I have always LOVED the Terminator I & II movies, I have watched them hundreds of times and never got tired of them. I was actually a kid when I saw them, so that's probably why they caused such an impact on me..... and I have never analyzed them in those terms of feminism, sexism, etc.... To me, the most important thing about Terminator is the deep meaning of its message, more exactly what Sarah says with her calming voice by the end of T2.

Blows my mind how can anyone overlook the deep message and only be worried if the movie suits more to a female or male audience.....

Probably because of stupid stereotypes, most men think it is an action movie aimed to males and because of that many women have not watched it, thinking it is a boring story of trucks and robots crashing against each other. Anyone who has such prejudice about these movies are just simpletons in my book.

Terminator (at least the first two movies) is about the FUTURE OF HUMAN RACE and as far as I know, the human race includes both male and females. Watching the movies and being annoyed by the presence of women talks more about the sexism inside ourselves, not the movies. Even in the cruelest current wars (yeah, not movies) there are female soldiers and military females, so... how could they not be included in a movie?
Stupid reasoning.

Now if all you want to watch is the stereotype of women that media feeds you, then Terminator is not your movie, or you must hate Sarah Connor.

 

[ZoSoRose]

Can everyone just shut the fuck up so we can trash the franchise in a normal way.

The Genisys thread was fun

[action]

5 hours ago, ZoSoRose said:

Can everyone just shut the fuck up so we can trash the franchise in a normal way.

The Genisys thread was fun

what happened to tolerating other people's opinions?

[Drexl]

On 24.05.2019 at 9:00 PM, killuridols said:

Wow, looks like you're the priviledged one in the forum who's already watched the whole movie and know all about it!

I am female, CIS if you want , zero fucks given about stereotypes and other bollocks... I have always LOVED the Terminator I & II movies, I have watched them hundreds of times and never got tired of them. I was actually a kid when I saw them, so that's probably why they caused such an impact on me..... and I have never analyzed them in those terms of feminism, sexism, etc.... To me, the most important thing about Terminator is the deep meaning of its message, more exactly what Sarah says with her calming voice by the end of T2.

Blows my mind how can anyone overlook the deep message and only be worried if the movie suits more to a female or male audience.....

Probably because of stupid stereotypes, most men think it is an action movie aimed to males and because of that many women have not watched it, thinking it is a boring story of trucks and robots crashing against each other. Anyone who has such prejudice about these movies are just simpletons in my book.

Terminator (at least the first two movies) is about the FUTURE OF HUMAN RACE and as far as I know, the human race includes both male and females. Watching the movies and being annoyed by the presence of women talks more about the sexism inside ourselves, not the movies. Even in the cruelest current wars (yeah, not movies) there are female soldiers and military females, so... how could they not be included in a movie?
Stupid reasoning.

Now if all you want to watch is the stereotype of women that media feeds you, then Terminator is not your movie, or you must hate Sarah Connor.

 

Well, we live in times, when male pussies are afraid of almost everything. They are afraid they can't say racist and sexist bullshit without condemnation (that's why they are so brave only in the net), they are afraid women don't need them that much anymore (they probably think their dicks are too small and cry in the corner), they are afraid of looking dumb in front of people (yet they don't deign to educate themselves). God, those tools are chickenshit cowards.

[action]

20 hours ago, Drexl said:

Well, we live in times, when male pussies are afraid of almost everything. They are afraid they can't say racist and sexist bullshit without condemnation (that's why they are so brave only in the net), they are afraid women don't need them that much anymore (they probably think their dicks are too small and cry in the corner), they are afraid of looking dumb in front of people (yet they don't deign to educate themselves). God, those tools are chickenshit cowards.

we also live in times, where when keyboard warriors run out of arguments, they start using the insults and power terms (brave only in the net, you know)

 

[F*ck Fear]

After seeing the trailer, I am not excited for this film. Looks the same as every sequel since 3.

[Drexl]

8 hours ago, action said:

we also live in times, where when keyboard warriors run out of arguments, they start using the insults and power terms (brave only in the net, you know)

 

I appreciate your self-criticism. There's hope for you.

[action]

1 hour ago, Drexl said:

I appreciate your self-criticism. There's hope for you.

and i appreciate you having your own opinion. i havent seen it though, which i think is a missed opportunity. i only saw salt and insult within your post.

[downzy]

6 hours ago, F*ck Fear said:

After seeing the trailer, I am not excited for this film. Looks the same as every sequel since 3.

Much like the issue with Aliens and probably the next Ghostbusters.  

People like the concepts for Terminators, Aliens, and Ghostbusters, but any future film is going to compete with the nostalgia effect.

I'm not sure there's much more meat on the bone for these old franchises. Fans will remain interested, but I think most will leave disappointed.  

[Drexl]

On 27.05.2019 at 5:40 PM, action said:

and i appreciate you having your own opinion. i havent seen it though, which i think is a missed opportunity. i only saw salt and insult within your post.

Your tears... so sweet.

[ZoSoRose]

On 5/27/2019 at 12:15 PM, downzy said:

Much like the issue with Aliens and probably the next Ghostbusters.  

People like the concepts for Terminators, Aliens, and Ghostbusters, but any future film is going to compete with the nostalgia effect.

I'm not sure there's much more meat on the bone for these old franchises. Fans will remain interested, but I think most will leave disappointed.  

Certain franchises are okay to leave alone, at least for a long time. 

[DieselDaisy]

The problem is these ''franchises'' were never meant to have a sequel to begin with. Terminator 2 ended Terminator's franchise perfectly with the changing of history. Aliens ended perfectally with the death of queen. Star Wars ended with the death of the emperor and the redemption of Vader. Alien, Aliens, Terminator, Terminator 2, the original Star Wars trilogy all were far superior films which ended their franchise's stories perfectly. They ended them so perfectly that it is rather difficult to construct a method of continuing them. Terminator Genishit got into a messy pickle over time travel. Aliens went all odd with Ripley as some mutant Alien hybrid.

And then you have to explain away why certain actors aren't present, or have aged! So Newt is bumped off for Alien 3. All that hard work surviving in Aliens: undone. 

[ZoSoRose]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

The problem is these ''franchises'' were never meant to have a sequel to begin with. Terminator 2 ended Terminator's franchise perfectly with the changing of history. Aliens ended perfectally with the death of queen. Star Wars ended with the death of the emperor and the redemption of Vader. Alien, Aliens, Terminator, Terminator 2, the original Star Wars trilogy all were far superior films which ended their franchise's stories perfectly. They ended them so perfectly that it is rather difficult to construct a method of continuing them. Terminator Genishit got into a messy pickle over time travel. Aliens went all odd with Ripley as some mutant Alien hybrid.

And then you have to explain away why certain actors aren't present, or have aged! So Newt is bumped off for Alien 3. All that hard work surviving in Aliens: undone. 

A franchise like Star Wars at least can be a continuing saga that relies on the world as well as characters (although you aren't wrong). A series like Terminator and Alien rely on a gimmick (the Terminator and Xenomorph) so you cant do much with that. Especially not 5+ movies worth. A 20+ year hibernation and then a creative reimigining or reboot could have been ok for them

[action]

16 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The problem is these ''franchises'' were never meant to have a sequel to begin with. Terminator 2 ended Terminator's franchise perfectly with the changing of history. Aliens ended perfectally with the death of queen. Star Wars ended with the death of the emperor and the redemption of Vader. Alien, Aliens, Terminator, Terminator 2, the original Star Wars trilogy all were far superior films which ended their franchise's stories perfectly. They ended them so perfectly that it is rather difficult to construct a method of continuing them. Terminator Genishit got into a messy pickle over time travel. Aliens went all odd with Ripley as some mutant Alien hybrid.

And then you have to explain away why certain actors aren't present, or have aged! So Newt is bumped off for Alien 3. All that hard work surviving in Aliens: undone. 

there's always the opportunity to force some woke politics upon the public

[Drexl]

Still don't get the hatred towards Alien 3. Anyway, let's wait and see how the new Terminator will look like.

[rocknroll41]

2 hours ago, Drexl said:

Still don't get the hatred towards Alien 3. Anyway, let's wait and see how the new Terminator will look like.

Killing Newt and Hicks in the beginning makes it feel like the second film was basically pointless.

with that being said, I can understand why the filmmakers felt the need to kill them both, as it helped to refocus the story strictly on ripely and really bring the franchise back to its roots for (at least at the time) the big “full circle” finally. I just wish the idea of that itself was handled more tastefully in the execution, is all.

Edited May 28, 2019 by rocknroll41

[Drexl]

17 hours ago, rocknroll41 said:

Killing Newt and Hicks in the beginning makes it feel like the second film was basically pointless.

with that being said, I can understand why the filmmakers felt the need to kill them both, as it helped to refocus the story strictly on ripely and really bring the franchise back to its roots for (at least at the time) the big “full circle” finally. I just wish the idea of that itself was handled more tastefully in the execution, is all.

I know, but that's what those movies were about. Ripley has lost everything and everyone because of xenomorph. Alien 3 is really depressing, it had to be, and the ending is one of the best ever.