What Movies Have You Seen Lately?

Quote: Nareed

Only if you think you can get empathy from the emotionally challenged, who worship someone for their ability to cause offense.

I was pretty taken aback by EB's insult
It wasn't like you 2 were going back and forth on some heated thread
It just kind of came out of nowhere
Its like EB really gets angry when he really likes something and somebody else is dismissive of that entertainment
I guess EB really has a problem with people not liking stuff he does and so he attacks and insults
Really sad

Some films really require a suspension of belief. Example: who framed roger rabbit. That actors could do their roles to a non existent cartoon character is strange.

Suspension of normal action while an actor suddenly sings or dances can seem strange but recall perhaps the high hopes the producers had for that show Laughlin. Each episode suddenly devolved into singing and dancing. It was a "hook" the producers thought highly of, the audience disappointed them.

Quote: terapined

I was pretty taken aback by EB's insult

I'd like it better if users one blocks can't see what one posts either.

Quote: Nareed

I'd like it better if users one blocks can't see what one posts either.

I feel the same. I have people here
blocked too, you aren't the only one.
(I'm not singing this so you'll be sure
and get what I'm saying)

Just watched Lost city of Z
It was real interesting
I was not aware of the explorer Percy Fawcett. Have now read quite a lot about him
Very interesting story
So weird how some people completely disappear never to be seen again

I caught most of Terminator Genisys yesterday on TV. I didn't see it when it was in theaters, if it ever even got to theaters here (I've no clue). I know it's been panned as a stillborn turkey, more or less.

I found the plot plausibly interesting, until the hybrid John Connor/Skynet doesn't just kill his parents. alas, I just couldn't stay awake past about 15 minutes prior to the ending. So i ahve to ask:

1) Do we find out why Connor/Skynet just wouldn't kill Sarah and Kyle?

2) Do we find out who sent old Arnold to protect Sarah long, long, long before 1984?



That aside, I found the actress playing Sarah Connor to be rather good, but also, paradoxically, not convincing. That is to say, she didn't convince me she was Sarah Connor. Now, before anyone tells me I'm stuck with a mental model of Linda Hamilton as Sarah, I was rather well convinced by Lena Headey as Sarah in the TV series "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles."

Quote: Nareed

I caught most of Terminator Genisys yesterday on TV. I didn't see it when it was in theaters, if it ever even got to theaters here (I've no clue). I know it's been panned as a stillborn turkey, more or less.

I found the plot plausibly interesting, until the hybrid John Connor/Skynet doesn't just kill his parents. alas, I just couldn't stay awake past about 15 minutes prior to the ending. So i ahve to ask:

1) Do we find out why Connor/Skynet just wouldn't kill Sarah and Kyle?

2) Do we find out who sent old Arnold to protect Sarah long, long, long before 1984?



That aside, I found the actress playing Sarah Connor to be rather good, but also, paradoxically, not convincing. That is to say, she didn't convince me she was Sarah Connor. Now, before anyone tells me I'm stuck with a mental model of Linda Hamilton as Sarah, I was rather well convinced by Lena Headey as Sarah in the TV series "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles."

Is this a different 'terminator' than the one mentioned here? http://nordic.businessinsider.com/linda-hamiltons-sarah-connor-to-return-to-the-terminator-2017-9

In Alaska you can take your kids into many bars with you, so we would take our kids with us, usually to listen to the Alaskan balladeer, Hobo Jim. Once while sitting in an Ak "honky tonk", Linda Hamilton came in, I believe with a bit of a buzz, my son went over and talked with her for a little bit. She was pleasant.

Quote: Nareed

I caught most of Terminator Genisys yesterday on TV. I didn't see it when it was in theaters, if it ever even got to theaters here (I've no clue). I know it's been panned as a stillborn turkey, more or less.

I found the plot plausibly interesting, until the hybrid John Connor/Skynet doesn't just kill his parents. alas, I just couldn't stay awake past about 15 minutes prior to the ending. So i ahve to ask:

1) Do we find out why Connor/Skynet just wouldn't kill Sarah and Kyle?

2) Do we find out who sent old Arnold to protect Sarah long, long, long before 1984?



That aside, I found the actress playing Sarah Connor to be rather good, but also, paradoxically, not convincing. That is to say, she didn't convince me she was Sarah Connor. Now, before anyone tells me I'm stuck with a mental model of Linda Hamilton as Sarah, I was rather well convinced by Lena Headey as Sarah in the TV series "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles."

I thought the movie sucked big time. I literally fell asleep in the theater, and I NEVER do that.

Emilia Clarke played Sarah Connor.

Both her and Lena Headey are on Game of Thrones.

Quote: petroglyph

Is this a different 'terminator' than the one mentioned here? http://nordic.businessinsider.com/linda-hamiltons-sarah-connor-to-return-to-the-terminator-2017-9

Yes - different one.

Terminator Genisys was intended to jump start the lagging franchise. It sucked and all plans for sequels to Genisys were scrapped.

Now they're doing a re-re-reboot with Linda Hamilton and Arnold returning. The guy who directed Deadpool will direct while James Cameron will produce (he hasn't had any involvement since T2).

Quote: ams288

I thought the movie sucked big time. I literally fell asleep in the theater, and I NEVER do that.

Well, stillborn turkey and all that :)


I thought the idea was interesting, but it was not carried out well.

But then the franchise suffers form a terminal plot hole. Skynet was killed before it could be conceived, when Dyson blew up the Cyberdine lab, and himself, near the end of T2; and when Arnold ][ destroyed himself in the pool of molten steel.

As a two-part movie, it's perfect. But it's also at a definite end. The third movie and TV show should never have taken place, ditto the movie set in the future.

Not just that, but the first two movies were so good, they didn't even require handwavium to cover up two massive instances of "You're too stupid to live" actions on the part of the good guys:

1) Send Kyle Reese not to the precise time when Terminator 1 shows up, but years before. That way he can locate Sarah, keep an eye on her, develop better weapons for when the Terminator shows up, etc. He can even conceive their son.

2) If the Terminator can carry a metal skeleton in the time machine that can transport only organic matter, then the good guys can carry weapons as well. I don't suggest putting a gun inside Kyle, but why not take a couple of corpses along, stuffed with ray guns or whatever they use in the futre? It's not just war, it's WAR!! The existence of humanity is at stake, after all.


But look past the action sequences, the shooting, the stunts, and there are interesting character dynamics.. In the first movie, in particular, the contrast between Kyle and the Terminator is stark, from the moment each emerges from their time travel bubble. On the one hand the Terminator won't give up because it can't. On the other, Kyle won't give up because humanity will end if he does. The former is strong and imperturbable. Kyle can't match it in strength or endurance, plus he has to deal with a reluctant protectee and a hostile police, but he manages to hold on just long enough for the one chance to do real damage to the enemy.

The second movie advocates for the primacy of choice and free will over predestination. And the seed of that gets planted in the first movie.

they really should have stopped with T2.