Submitted by Screenwriter6788 t3_zyr4h9 in movies
SoFool t1_j28ve6h wrote
At first, I quite like the film and technically speaking, it was done quite well. However, looking back I just dislike how it made Terminator 2 unimportant and redundant. Trying to keep John alive then kill him right at the start is like an FU.
dittybopper_05H t1_j29ol6c wrote
Doesn't really matter. The Terminator films are all about time travel, they don't have to be consistent. There are in essence an infinite number of time-lines to explore.
Apparently, we were given one where ladies in their 60's can be tossed around like ragdolls and not break a hip or anything.
unicornlocostacos t1_j2av7kv wrote
The “being thrown around and not getting hurt” trope is so awful. I even hate it in super hero movies when one of the heroes gets fucking slammed into the ground from space, gets up, and is fine.
But wait…your power is just invisibility. How the fuck you survive that?
SweetCosmicPope t1_j2a3t4x wrote
Basically anything that came after 2 pretty much spits in the face what came before.
The whole thing at the end of 2 was that they closed the loop and tied up loose ends and that "there is no fate except that which you make for yourself."
Once 3 came along and set the expectation that the rise of skynet was inevitable, the rest of the sequels have just run with that. Dark Fate took it even further by killing off John in the beginning of the movie.
I'll watch the movies for some good action. But as far as I'm concerned, nothing after T2 is canon.
S3anyboy t1_j2cdc2d wrote
The whole point of T2 was that the future was not set, so John being the savior doesn't actually matter, indeed Sarah spends a large portion of T2 trying to make sure he doesn't become the savior by preemptively destroying Skynet. Dark Fate reinforced the core message of Cameron's Terminator films (1+2) which is the "no fate" line (which was originally intended to appear in the first film as well).
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments