The problem with Salvation as a story is they pinched some ideas and characters from the Dark Horse comics, but bodged everything else up. They should have just bought some of the Dark Horse Comics stories and used those. It's the usual problem of thinking that explosions and special effects are more important than stories and characters.
Terminator: Dark Fate
- Thread starter Gerard
- Start date
The problem with Salvation as a story is they pinched some ideas and characters from the Dark Horse comics, but bodged everything else up. They should have just bought some of the Dark Horse Comics stories and used those. It's the usual problem of thinking that explosions and special effects are more important than stories and characters.
It was also very T2 like, T2 was a race to destroy Cyberdyne with the guardian being an obsolete model and the enemy Terminator being an advanced model, this was another race to destroy Cyberdyne with the guardian again being an obsolete model with the enemy being another advanced Terminator.
The only real spin they had on this was more than 1 instance of time travel and John Connor being the enemy this time around along with a virtual cameo by a T1000.
There just has to be more to these movies than the "good guys" constantly being in a race to get somewhere whilst dodging the enemy Terminator, that's really all they boil down to. It worked for T1 and T2, but for T3 and Genisys it just got old. An entire movie dedicated to the future war that was seen in the flashbacks would be far more interesting, but they just seem to try and recreate T2 time and again and wonder why the box office is tanking.
the whole problem w/ that is that the more Terminators you introduce into the mix, the stupider and more implausible the whole thing becomes. The initial plot was perfect and should have been left well alone: the resistance had turned the tide and Skynet made one last desperate attempt to send one machine back, the resistance sent one protector and - this is the critical point - blew the facility to prevent any further time travel. the only sequel that should have been made is the story of that come-back and the battle to get Kyle into the past.
Associate
Completely agree.
T1 should have been it, and to me how the film was made, was just perfect, but we all wanted to see more and I just love T2.
TBH, I don't really mind their attempts with the other 3 films, even though most parts were terrible lol there were a few great bits, like the ending of T3.
Oh and just to add more confusion to Genisys, the writers have said that the Skynet (Matt Smith) that takes over Connor at the start of the movie is from an alternate timeline, hence the "i've come a long way to stop you" line.
They really went hell for leather for OTT time travel and timelines in that movie, even more so than i thought.
They really went hell for leather for OTT time travel and timelines in that movie, even more so than i thought.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 29,961
I'm also a T2 lover and must admit, leaving it at T1 would've been ballsy and pretty awesome. Same with 'The Matrix' and lots of other high-concept movies, but as always $$ talks and bull**** walks....
There's plenty of worse films than Avatar (which I quite liked, btw). Terminator: Genisys being one of them, for sure
The trouble is with time travel is that a) it's pure fiction b) regardless of how you spin it it can never make any sense.
Fundamentally, this is the problem...
If you send someone back in time and his decisions affect your (future/present) reality, then your own reality is now in an indeterminate state (the writer now has to decide what happens to the future/present by making up his own rules, which he'll probably break anyhow). If you send someone back in time and it simply causes a so-called "branch" in reality, then there's no point doing it in the first place.
All in all, stories that rely on time travel as a central plot device never stand up to any kind of scrutiny. Because time travel cannot be possible without creating so many paradoxes that it would fundamentally undo the universe.
That's assuming what scientists THINK happens with time travel is correct, they're a long way off proving anything. In all likelihood it'll always be theoretical, at least in our lifetimes.
Funnily enough there was no science in my post at all
Time travel is fiction and I'm as sure as I can be that it just isn't possible, now or ever.
It's fun to think about occasionally, tho. Take one of the most basic paradoxes... you go back in time and kill your younger self/parents. What happens? What happens in the future you left, and what happens in the past you now occupy? Frankly the whole thing is just completely absurd.
Here's another question. You go back in time but the rest of the world doesn't. Why does your position/perspective (ie in the past) take primacy over those who remained in the future? Why would your actions affect their reality in any way? If you can go back at all then you prove that time isn't linear, so why would the little bubble of time you inhabit take precedence over the future time inhabited by everyone else? Why should your actions affect them? And surely you can't make reality cease to exist for billions of others by jumping into the past yourself.
Then if time isn't linear you need there to be enough energy to store the positions of every atom in the entire universe at every state they ever occupied for all time, such that somebody can jump back in time to any past they desire.
Literally nothing about time travel makes any sense in the slightest. It's pure fiction.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 9,162
Funnily enough there was no science in my post at all
Time travel is fiction and I'm as sure as I can be that it just isn't possible, now or ever.
It's fun to think about occasionally, tho. Take one of the most basic paradoxes... you go back in time and kill your younger self/parents. What happens? What happens in the future you left, and what happens in the past you now occupy? Frankly the whole thing is just completely absurd.
Here's another question. You go back in time but the rest of the world doesn't. Why does your position/perspective (ie in the past) take primacy over those who remained in the future? Why would your actions affect their reality in any way? If you can go back at all then you prove that time isn't linear, so why would the little bubble of time you inhabit take precedence over the future time inhabited by everyone else? Why should your actions affect them? And surely you can't make reality cease to exist for billions of others by jumping into the past yourself.
Then if time isn't linear you need there to be enough energy to store the positions of every atom in the entire universe at every state they ever occupied for all time, such that somebody can jump back in time to any past they desire.
Literally nothing about time travel makes any sense in the slightest. It's pure fiction.
I guess thats what makes it so good. It wasn't to bad for back to the future as an example but you're right, i've seen plenty of films do time travel and make no sense (terranova, continum just to name a couple).
Soldato
A fairly simple (but boring) cure for the Paradox problem would be this - When you go "back in time" you can only be an observer with no physical presence on the past, a bit like a ghost, which means no Paradoxes are possible. The reason you'd have no physical presence is that time travel forces you to phase-shift slightly out of your current dimension.
This would explain ghosts and the often quoted perception that, if time travel into the past is possible, we'd already know about it because time travellers would be around us.
I mean all this just depends on your own take of how time passes, i.e. "Time is linear so the past has happened and is set, the future hasn't happened so can't be altered and only the present can be changed" or "Time isn't linear so everything past/present/future has already happened meaning we can move around time without issue".
This would explain ghosts and the often quoted perception that, if time travel into the past is possible, we'd already know about it because time travellers would be around us.
I mean all this just depends on your own take of how time passes, i.e. "Time is linear so the past has happened and is set, the future hasn't happened so can't be altered and only the present can be changed" or "Time isn't linear so everything past/present/future has already happened meaning we can move around time without issue".
Man of Honour
Permabanned
You mean Pocahontas, right?
Dances With Smurfs?
Funnily enough there was no science in my post at all
Time travel is fiction and I'm as sure as I can be that it just isn't possible, now or ever.
It's fun to think about occasionally, tho. Take one of the most basic paradoxes... you go back in time and kill your younger self/parents. What happens? What happens in the future you left, and what happens in the past you now occupy? Frankly the whole thing is just completely absurd.
Here's another question. You go back in time but the rest of the world doesn't. Why does your position/perspective (ie in the past) take primacy over those who remained in the future? Why would your actions affect their reality in any way? If you can go back at all then you prove that time isn't linear, so why would the little bubble of time you inhabit take precedence over the future time inhabited by everyone else? Why should your actions affect them? And surely you can't make reality cease to exist for billions of others by jumping into the past yourself.
Then if time isn't linear you need there to be enough energy to store the positions of every atom in the entire universe at every state they ever occupied for all time, such that somebody can jump back in time to any past they desire.
Literally nothing about time travel makes any sense in the slightest. It's pure fiction.
If its ever proven or disproven or demonstrated it'll be long after our lifetimes. Hundreds if not thousands of years away.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 9,162
But once it is they can come back to our time and tell us right
With a bit of luck