Things you're tired of seeing in movies

[Riceball]

Here's a few more that have always annoyed me.

The classic slashing somebody across the belly with a sword when they're wearing mail and killing them like they weren't wearing any armor at all. I always laugh at that one since slashing attacks like that are what mail works ideally against and there's no way that simply slashing one's sword across an armored opponents belly like they do in the movies is going to do anything unless they're wearing some seriously cheap armor.

Then there's every warriors from every ancient culture from the renaissance on back being expert swordsmen who run around fighting everybody with swords as their primary or sole weapon when in most cases swords were secondary with most cultures arming their warriors with spears. Take Roman legionaries, they were spear chuckers first with legionary carrying two pilums (javelins) and using those fist before closing with swords yet pretty much every movie dealing with Ancient Rome and her legions show them charging into battle waving their swords. Even Japanese cinema tends to get this wrong as samurai, while commonly associated with the sword, were just as inclined to use a bow or some sort of pole-arm like a naginata as they were their swords.

 

[The Dark One]

Happy endings and the goodguys always winning. It was the one thing about Terminator 3 i liked was the ending. Or if he good guys do win it's taken a massive toll on them. Seems like hollywood loves clean happy endings.

Actually, this is why I didnt like T3. It ended the entire point of the series; stopping Skynet from taking over in the future during the past/present and keeping the Connors alive. It's like the people behind it never bothered to pick up anything pertaining to the Terminator story. Even cleaning up Skynet's mess in the present, there was never a complete happy end because the threat still existed due to the future artifacts left behind that weren't destroyed.

With that in mind T:S was a decent follow up to a movie that shouldn't have happened the way it did. Might as well start showing the futurewar some time.

 

[Laspector]

The future war is all that is left of this franchise worth even thinking about. Sending anymore terminators back in time is pointless--I've already seen that over and over and over and over!! I don't want it anymore, it's like putting a Death Star in every Star Wars movie (twice was enough). Personally I think the only way to save this franchise is to get rid of time travel, get rid of the Conners, and absolutely get rid of Arnold.

 

[Wes R]

I'd like to see other terminator models, there's enough of them in the various Terminator things that they could be brought into canon from the darkhorse comics or various videogames. Hell the darkhorse comics wouldn't be that bad. Get peter weller back and do robocop vs terminator. I'm tired of talking vehicles, talking babies, and talking animal movies.

 

[joshvanrad]

The fact that every bounty hunter helmet since the OT associated with Star Wars looks quite similar to Boba Fett's.

 

[Jon Kelley]

Happy endings and the goodguys always winning. It was the one thing about Terminator 3 i liked was the ending. Or if he good guys do win it's taken a massive toll on them. Seems like hollywood loves clean happy endings.

Event Horizon. Sometimes, the hero does die. Part of the job.

 

[Probe Droid]

This might have been mentioned previously (the thread has gotten quite long), but another peeve is that police/fire dept. never come after shootings, explosions, etc. Watched a film last night where a person explodes 3 grenades in a crowded city followed by lots of gunfire and no one seems to notice. Crazy.

 

[p51]

What burns me more than ANYTHING is that you can never slap a 'The end' onto any movie.
-So, the Terminator destroyed at the end of the first movie? Reese mentioned the time machine was destroyed after he went through and that it was just them and nobody else follows? Who cares, make a sequel anyway!
-Smashed all the stuff at the end of T2 and ended the whole thing? Who cares, make a sequel anyway!
-Change the whole concept of John Conner, so he's nothing like the original movie discussed?
Who cares, just start over!

Event Horizon. Sometimes, the hero does die. Part of the job.

Good point. Not exactly a happy ending (just watched that on Netflix last week for the first time since it came out).

 

[Solo4114]

What burns me more than ANYTHING is that you can never slap a 'The end' onto any movie.
-So, the Terminator destroyed at the end of the first movie? Reese mentioned the time machine was destroyed after he went through and that it was just them and nobody else follows? Who cares, make a sequel anyway!
-Smashed all the stuff at the end of T2 and ended the whole thing? Who cares, make a sequel anyway!
-Change the whole concept of John Conner, so he's nothing like the original movie discussed?
Who cares, just start over!
Good point. Not exactly a happy ending (just watched that on Netflix last week for the first time since it came out).

That's not limited to movies. The "And then what happened?" phenomenon is all over. You see it in prequels and endless sequels. You see it in TV shows and book series that run on way too long. At a certain point THE STORY ENDS. The answer to "And then what happened?" is "They died." There. Happy?

 

[The Dark One]

-So, the Terminator destroyed at the end of the first movie? Reese mentioned the time machine was destroyed after he went through and that it was just them and nobody else follows? Who cares, make a sequel anyway!

One T-800 (model 101?) series was destroyed at the end; but not pulverized to the point of not being able to reverse engineer. It was smashed at Cyberdyne systems; which is shown at the end of Terminator. In T2; they show Cyberdyne kept parts of it locked up and were reverse engineering them using present day technologies. Trash dumped in the present from a future that was not prevented can still exist in the present. Bury anything in your back yard; it will still be there in 20 years if you dont dig it back up and it's not biodegradable.

-Smashed all the stuff at the end of T2 and ended the whole thing? Who cares, make a sequel anyway!

As evidenced by T1 and T2 the T800 model still existed; but now there were OTHER models of Terminators.

-Change the whole concept of John Conner, so he's nothing like the original movie discussed?

Explain.

What burns me more than ANYTHING is that you can never slap a 'The end' onto any movie.

The first clue to this entire series having sequels:

"The future is not set."

Then different variations of that in the sequels.

 

[MFP 2020]

T3 was on cable the other day. Good gravy, I'd forgotten how abominable that movie is. :sick

 

[p51]

The first clue to this entire series having sequels:

"The future is not set."

You chose to totally ignore my reference to the first movie, where Reese tells the cops that the time machine was destroyed after he went through, so nobody else would follow, and that they'd already won the war. The original concept of the movie was close-ended as far as anyone coming back from the future afterward, at least after Reese went. If T2 had been a T800 going through before the humans won and Reese showed up for the final jump back in time, then that was the only logical way that would have happened.

 

[Riceball]

You chose to totally ignore my reference to the first movie, where Reese tells the cops that the time machine was destroyed after he went through, so nobody else would follow, and that they'd already won the war. The original concept of the movie was close-ended as far as anyone coming back from the future afterward, at least after Reese went. If T2 had been a T800 going through before the humans won and Reese showed up for the final jump back in time, then that was the only logical way that would have happened.

Or so he thought, there's no way that he could know for certain because it would have to happen after he went through and anything could have happened after he went through including Skynet sending some terminators in after the humans and preventing them from destroying the time machine. Hell, it's entirely possible that Skynet rebuilt the time machine or had another one somewhere.

 

[p51]

Hell, it's entirely possible that Skynet rebuilt the time machine or had another one somewhere.

How? THEY'D ALREADY LOST THE WAR. That was the entire premise of the movie. Sending the T800 was the last act of Skynet. But ignoring this completely was the only way you could make a sequel.
That was my entire point to start with on how I hate close-ended films being made into sequels anyway.

 

[The Dark One]

You chose to totally ignore my reference to the first movie, where Reese tells the cops that the time machine was destroyed after he went through, so nobody else would follow, and that they'd already won the war. The original concept of the movie was close-ended as far as anyone coming back from the future afterward, at least after Reese went. If T2 had been a T800 going through before the humans won and Reese showed up for the final jump back in time, then that was the only logical way that would have happened.

No I didnt. If you paid any attention at all to the series, you'd have known he was wrong because there were 2 more sequels involving...TIME TRAVEL. It's really great to read how little you understand about time travel, our present is not the same as a future that's not set in stone to which a T800 can travel to any point in the past from the future. Any point. From before the human victory over the machines to after, to any in between.

To say there's no possibility of self aware robot factories in the future that scour the entire world rebuilding their own machinery there or a new location after it was destroyed is absurd.

I'm sorry; but you're just wrong.

 

[Jeyl]

No I didnt. If you paid any attention at all to the series, you'd have known he was wrong because there were 2 more sequels involving...TIME TRAVEL. It's really great to read how little you understand about time travel, our present is not the same as a future that's not set in stone to which a T800 can travel to any point in the past from the future. Any point. From before the human victory over the machines to after, to any in between.

To be fair, time travel is less of an understood phenomenon and more of a tool to just tell a story. There really isn't any concrete evidence to suggest that one story's use of time travel is more correct than the other. Heck, one of my favorite films of all time, Back To The Future, has what I consider to be the most inconsistent and in my mind the most unrealistic use of time travel, but that's ok because the way time travel works in the film helps to tell it's story. Even the Terminator films aren't consistent with it's time travel. So this really should be looked at from a story telling point of view and not a discussion of what real time travel actually does.

 

[The Dark One]

As far as a future that's not set; there's endless possibility with a story that uses time travel as a tool to tell it.

 

[Probe Droid]

If you paid any attention at all to the series, you'd have known he was wrong because there were 2 more sequels involving...TIME TRAVEL.

I believe the man's point is that there should not be a "series" because it's clearly established that the machines had lost and nothing else could return to Sarah's time. That's fact--not speculation--as far as the audience knows. There's no reason given to doubt what Reese says. p51's peeve is that Hollywood chose to ignore what was established in film 1. He's right, the 1st story is close-ended: the hero kills the villain, saves the damsel in distress, and it's done. He's not debating what's possible in time travel, it's about establishing a fact in a story and then blatantly ignoring it to make a buck.

That's how I'm reading it.

 

[Riceball]

How? THEY'D ALREADY LOST THE WAR. That was the entire premise of the movie. Sending the T800 was the last act of Skynet. But ignoring this completely was the only way you could make a sequel.
That was my entire point to start with on how I hate close-ended films being made into sequels anyway.

They may have lost the war but it doesn't mean that it's over yet, after all, during WW II Germany kept on fighting long after they effectively lost the war and before they officially surrendered, same goes for Japan. We only have Resse's word on what was happening in his timeline and we never saw much of what was going and we certainly never saw Reese actually go in to the time machine much less what happened afterwards and that was obviously enough for Cameron to go on to decide that a sequel would work. Now after T2 you have a point because T2 wraps things up pretty neatly with a bow on top.

As far as your general point goes, the T2 is hardly the worst example of a sequel that shouldn't have been, there are far worse offenders than that, Jaws, for instance, is a good one, the Karate Kid movies, and Die Hard also come to mind.

 

[The Dark One]

I believe the man's point is that there should not be a "series" because it's clearly established that the machines had lost and nothing else could return to Sarah's time. That's fact--not speculation--as far as the audience knows. There's no reason given to doubt what Reese says. p51's peeve is that Hollywood chose to ignore what was established in film 1. He's right, the 1st story is close-ended: the hero kills the villain, saves the damsel in distress, and it's done. He's not debating what's possible in time travel, it's about establishing a fact in a story and then blatantly ignoring it to make a buck.

That's how I'm reading it.

She's pregnant with the baby that was meant to not exist due to her death at the end. Thanks to the hero/father being sent back in time to protect her so he would be born.
The minute Reese stepped foot in 1984, what he knew of the future was only of what he knew of 1984, not the future's present time he was sent from.

It was not closed ended. The birth of John Connor is proof of that.