It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
James Cameron is a genius who has made some iconic films.
With that said, this looks awful...
Feels like we've seen it ALL before. And I hate the lazy re-working of "I'll be back."
Looks friggin awesome. Way better than the first trailer. Can't wait.
You don´t think Cameron would make a better film these days, do you ;-)?
That and he's full of himself.
I hope all the Avatar sequels flop. And hard.
+1
I also want the new Terminator movie to flop because of Miller and Cameron blatantly lying and insulting the fans
Women, specifically strong women are not the problem.
The John Connor thread is a massive misjudgment on their part, I feel.
If they want a new saviour then that's fine, because I buy the idea that the actions of T2 created a splintered timeline - whereby an alternate version of Skynet was created by different means - and that means a new set of previously uninvolved people must now be involved. Cool. I don't see much point in repeatedly attempting to continue the series, but if they insist on doing so that is at least a novel way of doing it.
But, instead of simply removing a previous pivotal character that everyone loves, why not use him? An adult John (forget Furlong, he just wouldn't cut it now) who grew up thinking he was mankind's White Knight - but then didn't need to become that figure - must now become a soldier like his mother to protect another young person who was a lot like him.
They could have used this an opportunity to both develop old human characters and introduce new ones, keeping it consistent and giving themselves some space to explore new stuff.
But instead, Connor will barely be in it seemingly.
Time travel films are a pain in the hoop to write, I'm sure, but that's why the first two films were so good; the time travel wasn't the focus. The people were.
+ 1 (again)
Exactly, thank you!
Contractual obligation.
Perhaps the biggest problem with the franchise is it's very restrictive. It's basically Terminator chases humans. It's a cool concept but there's only so many times you can redo that before it gets a bit repetitive. James Bond is basically Bond saving the world 24 times but there's so many ways to tell the same sort of story but, I dunno, Terminator feels limited in how you tell the same story. Dark Fate is meant to be part one of a new trilogy so the writers/producers feel confident there is enough new/different material for three films. I wouldn't mind a massive plot twist in part 2 to really play with people's expectations rather than another truck chase through LA or New Mexico!
Interesting idea. I like it.
Removing John Connor from a Terminator film seems like merely changing his face, name and gender, but that´s it.
Personally, I think killing John Connor is a bad idea. Perhaps it's an interesting "ah, see you never expected that!" moment, fair enough, but if it undermines the plot of T2 it's not such a cool idea. But let's see how Dark Fate pans out. It's possible Connor's death creates an alternative future timeline. In one timeline John Connor did lead the resistance hence the events of 1995 T2 time period, but in another timeline John Connor died before he could lead the resistance hence the events of Dark Fate's 2019 time period.
But yeah, it's a bit confusing!
This isn't entirely true. The ending of T2 is a paradox in itself. If the war is prevented, then nobody ever goes back in time in the T2 timeline. So, whether Dark Fate is good or bad is one thing, but it doesn't cancel out anything that the ending of T2 hadn't already. If anything, it just shows that time travel as a concept is inevitable in these films even if the war isn't.
One theory of time travel is when you change the past it splits off into a new timeline. The original timeline still exists 'unchanged' whereas the other timeline takes a new course.
Another thing to ponder or get confused about it:
If John Connor dies in Dark Fate that contradicts the above! According to that video, the alternative ending was Cameron's preferred way to close the film suggesting there wasn't meant to be a third film? Perhaps. James Cameron didn't seem sure. He lost the rights to Terminator and other people made the sequels.
The above is not canon. Cameron said he didn't want to tie it up in a bow - not for sequels, just thematically - because the idea of "there is no fate but what we make for ourselves" doesn't just apply to any one individual. The battle for the future is being fought all the time on many different fronts and there will always be good vs. evil. It's thematic.
Everything to do with the future war has fate as a less malleable concept. The first Terminator film revolves around this bootstrap paradox of Kyle being John's father and his younger and closest advisor in the future. Essentially, it was his destiny to go back in time and become John's father, which he unwittingly fulfilled. Same goes for the T-800 which Skynet is built from.
T2 embraces the idea that you can change things (but, importantly, you're not the only one that can change things!) and they succeed in that, too. However, you can't change everything ("it is in your nature to destroy yourselves") and it means John Connor is an anomaly in time, physically fatherless but still present. Kind of like a few other saviours we know.
It is complicated but it only serves to bolster the view I presented above; the time travel was not the focus of the first two films. The characters were. The time travel was just a backdrop. And that's why they worked so much better than anything since, and why GENISYS was such a massive creative failure to me. It focused on all the wrong things and ultimately tripped over itself at nearly every turn.
Whatever way they treat John Connor as a character (it likely won't be good), DARK FATE at least seems to be attempting to be consistent with the ideas in the first two films. Hopefully they do enough to warrant extending the ideological loop that Cameron has effectively closed and that the sequels mostly failed to enhance.
It's not necessarily supposed to make 100% sense, it's just supposed to make you think.