Spoilers Terminator: Dark Fate Review and Discussion

[Tosk]

Of course, the whole franchise begs the question, why target Sarah and not another relative?

That is answered in the first film. Most records were lost in the war. Skynet only knew the name of John's mother, and the city she lived in.

 

[Galileo7]

Once again, the only Terminator movies that I care about are still Terminator(1984) and T2(1991). I really wanted this one to be great.

 

[Spot261]

Maybe not a British colony, but there's no way to speculate where it would be if you erased all the Founding Fathers from existence. Maybe a pure monarchy would still exist. America was a great experiment that worked.

Experiment in what?

I would think it would still be an independent nation, but the freedoms that the Constitution brought to the world cannot be denied.

Such as?

Democracy?
Truth?
Justice?

These things had been around for a very long time indeed, long before Jefferson or Lincoln were born, so yes, I'm denying here.

Prove me wrong.

The concept of the government getting its power from the people rather than the reverse was very untested and it took that revolution to work it out. Even the early stages of the US were ironing things out, like the discussion of President for life with Washington.

Nope, not a new idea in the slightest, in fact it's been around for millennia. The US system is entirely based on aspects of previous democratic systems, including the British Parliament which oversaw the colonies (note - NOT the monarchy as a system or George in particular, his involvement once hostilities became likely was another matter), not to mention much of her European peers and the Romans. Hell, there's clear Viking influence in all of our legal and political systems, not to mention the Greeks, the Phoenicians, the Celts/Gauls and thousands of other cultures and people.

The Founding Fathers did not invent modern society, not by a long shot.

If the Founding Fathers never existed, I think much of the revolutionary concepts they brought to the world would never have happened. Human culture existed in a certain way for thousands of years. America changed all of that. Maybe things change anyway, but no, without those specific men, the world would be MUCH different today.

Which revolutionary concepts?

How did "human culture" exist in monolithic form for "thousands of years"? How did America change it?

I'm suspecting you haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about here to be perfectly honest.

There's nothing ignorant about it. I watched the first two films and they were awesome. This movie just basically takes the message of those films and turns it upside down. The entire plots are irrelevant and John, who was so important in the first two films, is marginalized. The first two movies delivered a very clear message that is not debatable. This movie does the opposite. As a sequel in this franchise, it absolutely is inferior.

It does the opposite....glad you noticed

It takes what you expected and turned it on its' head, forcing you out of your comfort zone. It's all well and good when you can identify a message in a film, entirely another when it requires you to step back and rethink it in the sequel.

But again, we wouldn't get there at that point. For all we know, if not for Hitler, we would have warp drive as the now unborn grandson of a Jewish person that Hitler killed is never born. Or perhaps the same for the cure for cancer. Now maybe years from now we get both those things, but all the lives changed because cancer still exists are still lost.

Exactly, we don't know, so your claim that certain people shaped or were the catalyst for historical change is every bit as unsupported as the alternative.

You believe it to be the case, but you can't prove it. Nor can I.

We can only speculate.

Let's go back to this franchise. Reese said all was lost until John showed them how to turn the tide. Because of John, humanity won. So take that away, there shouldn't be time to have another human rise up. They should be dead. This movie makes both Skynet and John irrelevant. It's all about how you can't change a thing.

That's the exact opposite of the No Fate mantra of the second movie.

And that is bad because? Do new and different ideas upset you for some reason?

There is no new ground being broken. This is the exact same story as before. The only difference is that they decided John was not relevant--someone else was. That's not new ground. It's just telling the same story but explaining why they are doing it with different people.

You've just ranted for several paragraphs about the new conceptual underpinnings. That's new ground, it's exploring questions from a new angle. You just don't like that angle.

 

[Spot261]

This is confusing. Is it the exact opposite or nothing new?

Thank you.

 

[BillJ]

D.

Just plain dull from beginning to end. Expected better from Tim Miller.

 

[Danja]

Why Terminator: Dark Fate Delivered That John Connor Twist, According To Tim Miller

http://www.cinemablend.com/news/248...hat-john-connor-twist-according-to-tim-miller

 

[BillJ]

Why Terminator: Dark Fate Delivered That John Connor Twist, According To Tim Miller

http://www.cinemablend.com/news/248...hat-john-connor-twist-according-to-tim-miller

The movie was dead, Conner's death was the defibrillator to try to shock the audience into being interested. Didn't work for me. T-800 shot him and I shrugged.

 

[fireproof78]

They are saying that John Connor is meaningless. That's not ground breaking. That's simply trivializing the first two movies and rendering them pointless.

I don't think that's exactly the point. From the original Terminator it seemed that Skynet had limited information to try to defeat humanity. If Connor is removed, then another leader has the potential to step up in to his place. Which, I personally find more interesting to see how people rise up when it is demanded of them. In that way they become meaningful.

 

[BillJ]

I don't think that's exactly the point. From the original Terminator it seemed that Skynet had limited information to try to defeat humanity. If Connor is removed, then another leader has the potential to step up in to his place. Which, I personally find more interesting to see how people rise up when it is demanded of them. In that way they become meaningful.

What they were going for and whether or not they succeeded are two distinct questions. I knew watching what they were trying to achieve, they just did an incredibly poor job of it. The death of John Conner was essentially a twist that didn't mean a thing.

If they were going to go through the effort of bringing back Arnie and Linda Hamilton, John Conner should've been the "bad guy" of the whole thing. Trying to use his knowledge to stop the future and maybe creating something a lot worse. This time the machines send back a Terminator to work with the good guys to stop what is coming. And Sarah Conner is the one that has to pull the trigger.

 

[fireproof78]

What they were going for and whether or not they succeeded are two distinct questions. I knew watching what they were trying to achieve, they just did an incredibly poor job of it.

Of course. I didn't argue it was done well. Only my engagement with the idea.

 

[TRON JA307020]

They didn’t change anything. A robot from the future is sent back to stop the human resistance from organizing targeting a woman. A protector with some connection to her that she doesn’t know yet is sent to protect her. They go on the run, there are action scenes and they finally stop it after a tragic loss. It just continued Sarah’s story since she’s the main character.

Did you watch the first two films or just the later ones? It’s easy to be mistaken if you ignore the good movies.

They changed it. John Connor is no longer the savior because he got his head blown off from a terminator as a kid after the timeline was changed.

 

[TRON JA307020]

Saw the movie over the weekend. The franchise needs to stop. I understand what they did, but all the ideas were bad. Cameron himself came up with the John Connor twist, and it was about the same as George Lucas coming up with Jar Jar.

SPOILER:





By killing John Connor, they basically took the first two movies and rendered them meaningless. Where the first two movies were about John Connor being the man to save humanity, this one basically said that he never mattered, and if he never mattered, then why did it matter who Dani was?

What did Dani even do? She gave a speech to a couple of jerks?

Putting the politics aside, what did this movie bring to the table? What was in this movie that wasn't in any of the others? What did it add to the story?

If T2 established the "no fate" concept, then what was the benefit of stopping judgement day?

Seems like no matter what, machines launch a war and create terminators to kill humans in the past.

Why wouldn't Kyle Reese be in this movie?

Arnold brought a little zest when he was on screen, but do we really need to see Carl, the Terminator dad? That's like a bad SNL sketch.

I will accept that memories of the original timeline and the existence of T-800s didn't go away, and I will accept that there was another T800 that eventually killed John despite the timeline being wiped out, because if those are their time travel rules, fine. It's not BTTF or Star Trek before Abrams screwed up time travel.

But this movie basically was a retelling of the same story from past movies with nothing new added.

In some ways, it's like The Last Jedi. It wasn't just a bad movie, it took a dump on the good ones.

About the only thing about this movie that I liked as Grace. Of course, she's also not that original. She's Reese on steroids. A tougher terminator requires a tougher human to fight it. But it's the same idea. Grace thought of Dani as a mother figure. Reese was in love with Sarah in a world where the picture was all he had. Not identical, but close enough to not be original. But I did like Grace's action scenes in the first part of the movie.

It looks like this movie is bombing at the box office, and I can see why. As far as I'm concerned, this movie should be terminated and only the first 2 movies should count.

It's a shame.

Well said my friend.

 

[StarMan]

Just got back from seeing it.

Well, having gone in spoiler free, I was genuinely shocked at the beginning!

It was a damn sight better than Genesys. That’s not exactly a lofty achievement, though. I thought the first 3rd of the movie was encouraging, but as the film took a dip in the middle and we careened towards the end from one explosive set piece to another, my interest started to wane. Skynet rebranded Legion. John swapped out for Dani. Another couple of terminators on the scrap heap. Judgement Day still inevitable. Not exactly breaking any new ground...

The third best Terminator film – but it doesn’t come close to the first two. It’s a shame with Hamilton and Schwarzenegger back they didn’t have the courage to wrap the story up once and for all. Might have made for a better movie. I won’t lose any sleep if this is the final nail in the coffin of the Terminator franchise.

 

[Tosk]

John Connor is no longer the savior because he got his head blown off from a terminator as a kid

That never happened.

He was shot in the chest.

 

[Kirk Prime]

That is answered in the first film. Most records were lost in the war. Skynet only knew the name of John's mother, and the city she lived in.

Fair point, but they have time travel. Terminators are also smart and methodical. And as we see, there are many of them. In Genisys, a terminator found Sarah as a child. How? Sent back by humans, but he still found her. If a terminator is in an era where those records still exist, no matter what decade, they can't store the data, go somewhere that is safe from the upcoming war, and upload it?

Experiment in what?

A representative republic--there was nothing like our Constitution before it was made.

How did "human culture" exist in monolithic form for "thousands of years"? How did America change it?

I'm suspecting you haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about here to be perfectly honest.

Sounds like you never took an American history or philosophy course.

And that is bad because? Do new and different ideas upset you for some reason?

New and different does not mean good. If you have something that was successful and worked, doing the exact opposite is not a good idea, even if it's new and different. The real Terminator movies sent a message of hope where this one basically said nothing and no one actually matters.

And then they made the exact same movie.

You've just ranted for several paragraphs about the new conceptual underpinnings. That's new ground, it's exploring questions from a new angle. You just don't like that angle.

No. That is not new ground. That's the exact same movie, just with changing the human that needed to be protected.

 

[Spot261]

A representative republic--there was nothing like our Constitution before it was made.

Representative Republic, Representative Democracy or the Constitution, which is it? They aren't one and the same and none of them broke new ground. All of them have abounded throughout history long before Uncle Sam jumped on the bandwagon.

Try checking out the Magna Carta, that was our Constitution so long ago that it's been pretty much entirely superseded in the intervening 800 years. Yup, that's half a millenium prior to the Founding Fathers and no one was pretending the idea was new then.

Sounds like you never took an American history or philosophy course.

Sounds like you never took one about anywhere else.

New and different does not mean good. If you have something that was successful and worked, doing the exact opposite is not a good idea, even if it's new and different. The real Terminator movies sent a message of hope where this one basically said nothing and no one actually matters.

And then they made the exact same movie.

So again, which is it?

New and different or the the exact same?

Why should a message of hope be the only worthy sentiment in a film? Bladerunner has spent decades being considered from different angles because of the implications of a few scene changes. Terminator has presented us with entire films which represent a spectrum of possible interpretations.

You just don't like this one, that's it.

No. That is not new ground. That's the exact same movie, just with changing the human that needed to be protected.

Except a completely different underlying message. If all you want to look at in a film is the plot sure, it's nothing new.

If you want to look deeper and consider it from a remotely cerebral perspective it turned the existing message on its' head. Any reason you believe a pessimistic viewpoint is any less valid or worthwhile than an optimistic one?

 

[Kirk Prime]

Representative Republic, Representative Democracy or the Constitution, which is it? They aren't one and the same and none of them broke new ground. All of them have abounded throughout history long before Uncle Sam jumped on the bandwagon.

Try checking out the Magna Carta, that was our Constitution so long ago that it's been pretty much entirely superseded in the intervening 800 years. Yup, that's half a millenium prior to the Founding Fathers and no one was pretending the idea was new then.

Guess you didn't realize that Britain was a monarchy in the 18th century. Maybe this can help you understand a little.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution_and_worldwide_influence

Separation of powers was not part of the magna carta. While the Magna Carta influenced the American way of government, it was not a carbon copy by any stretch.

It was the 18th century philosophers that proposed many of the ideals that influenced our Founding Fathers, and these were not concepts that had been tried in practice until America. It was a resistance to a monarchy that led to all the freedoms we have today. I'm sorry if you don't understand, but that is still historically significant, as is the absolute fact that the United States Constitution influenced governments around the world. It wasn't the Magna Carta that did that. It was our Founding Fathers, whether you accept it or not.

New and different or the the exact same?

Why should a message of hope be the only worthy sentiment in a film? Bladerunner has spent decades being considered from different angles because of the implications of a few scene changes. Terminator has presented us with entire films which represent a spectrum of possible interpretations.

You just don't like this one, that's it.

This is a very simple concept. I must be saying it wrong if you don't understand it. They made the exact same movie, but changed the name and gender of the person being protected. It's putting lipstick on a pig, if you have ever heard that analogy.

Yes, they changed the name of the person being saved. If that's groundbreaking to you, well, that's you. But it's still the exact same movie.

If you want to look deeper and consider it from a remotely cerebral perspective it turned the existing message on its' head. Any reason you believe a pessimistic viewpoint is any less valid or worthwhile than an optimistic one?

There is absolutely nothing cerebral about this movie. They just trivialized the first two, and made the same movie. But the story itself is quite mindless and unoriginal.

 

[Spot261]

Guess you didn't realize that Britain was a monarchy in the 18th century. Maybe this can help you understand a little.

It was and still is a Monarchy, it also had and still has a Parliament, which is a representative democracy. Fun fact, the Monarchy didn't oversee the colonies, Parliament did. Yup, it was a Representative Democracy you revolted against, it was King George who prosecuted the war largely out of Royal funds given that Parliament restricted his funding.

You see, an executive and a legislature with the purse strings. Sounds a little like....

Separation of powers was not part of the magna carta. While the Magna Carta influenced the American way of government, it was not a carbon copy by any stretch.

Ta da!

Now, we weren't talking about separation of powers, nor did anyone claim the MC formed the basis of the Constitution. However the Magna Carta was indeed both a constitution and a bill of rights, the very existence of which you claimed marked the Founding Fathers out as world changers.

Like most national constitutions (and there have indeed been a great many) it gradually became an historical artefact as it was overwritten and amended, yours just isn't old enough to have got to that stage yet.

That, of course, was after you tried claiming Representative Democracy was the FFs' preserve despite the fact that the Senate is names literally after the Roman Senate which was.....a Representative Democracy (and one which acted as a legislature to the Emperors' executive to boot) and Congress was named after a political alliance intended to oppose a Representative Democracy.

Look it up. Another new idea which wasn't new at all.

It was the 18th century philosophers that proposed many of the ideals that influenced our Founding Fathers, and these were not concepts that had been tried in practice until America.

Such as?

What have we in our political system which originated in the US?

I'm waiting for libertarianism to pop up, it commonly does around this point. (Clue, that was around before the US too)

It was a resistance to a monarchy that led to all the freedoms we have today. I'm sorry if you don't understand, but that is still historically significant, as is the absolute fact that the United States Constitution influenced governments around the world. It wasn't the Magna Carta that did that. It was our Founding Fathers, whether you accept it or not.

No, it was a resistance to Parliament. The Monarchy didn't really involve itself in the daily affairs of Empire until hostilities became a realistic proposition.

No one has claimed the US isn't an influential nation. It is currently the dominant superpower, the current Pax nation.

That in no way has any bearing on your claim that the Founding Fathers "changed the world". They may have done, the jury is out, but as with any "great figure" we have no way of knowing short of developing a time machine and altering history to test the hypothesis.

Countries influence each other all the time, but we really don't go around modelling our nations on you, sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

This is a very simple concept. I must be saying it wrong if you don't understand it. They made the exact same movie, but changed the name and gender of the person being protected. It's putting lipstick on a pig, if you have ever heard that analogy.

Yes, they changed the name of the person being saved. If that's groundbreaking to you, well, that's you. But it's still the exact same movie.

So it's the being the same you have a problem with, not the being different?

There is absolutely nothing cerebral about this movie. They just trivialized the first two, and made the same movie. But the story itself is quite mindless and unoriginal.

Or maybe there is and you missed it?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Really enjoyed this one. A shocking opening sequence and a really enjoyable movie afterwards. Shame the franchise is dead, but since they've never been able to continue any of the trilogies (or series) they start maybe it's for the best. This one is as good an endpoint as you could have with no major dangling threads or questions like Genesys had.

Linda Hamilton was 100% badass.

 

[Timby]

Linda Carter

Uh...