Terminator: Salvation

[DraconianOne]

I'm old fashioned :  I find a discussion on why a blockbuster movie would cast a Tits and Ass Terminator retarded.

Sorry.

Fair enough.

I'm interested in Unsub's thinking because it's pertinent to questions relating to something I'm working on at the moment. Until the rules for this subforum evolve to let us discuss stuff about movies that's not related to specific films, it's the only place to discuss it.

I apologize for fagging up your Terminator thread. 

[stray]

I dare you guys to listen to the audio commentary of Total Recall (verhoven and arnold). That's probably his most intellectual movie, but even that isn't taken seriously. Really, listen to it. It's funny shit. The movie begins with the Tristar horse logo, and Arnold's going "So heah I ahm wit ze hose heah..." and it just gets better from there.

Point being.. yeah, it's a tits and ass terminator. Nothing more. Even more dumbed down than some of Arnold's better movies, which he and no one else in hollywood are deliberately trying to give a fuck about other than to have some explosions and shit. Stop over-intellectualizing it.

[Riggswolfe]

I've never seen the T3 DVD extras.. What was it that they said about Arnold's appearance?

Well, in the T3 extras it was Cyberdine that designed the first Terminators. The chose Arnold because he was big enough they could put the Endoskeleton under him. What makes it funny, and not really fitting to the movie's tone, is that Arnold has a corny midwest all American accent. So you get the following exchange.

Exec 1: I like him for the model. But the voice has to go. It's not intimidating enough.
Weasely looking exec 2, speaking in Arnold's voice: We'll think of something.

[Arthur_Parker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7BYFtWGURI

[DraconianOne]

Stop over-intellectualizing it.

It's a discussion about someone's perception of a film. I would be (and have) asked exactly the same question of people who feel that "300" is racist and homophobic (something that was nearly touched on in the Prince of Persia thread). Change the film if you like - pick something like "Blade Runner" (two female antagonists, one a "pleasure model", the other an assassin-turned-stripper) or "Misery".  What about that? A film where a man is looked after by a, let's say, over-protective woman is called "Misery". An allegory of marriage perhaps? A man's fear of a relationship with a woman? A misogynstic statement? Or just an entertaining thriller.

I asked a script-reader friend of mine this question earlier and her response was that most hollywood films - including Alien, Aliens, T3, T2 and to a certain extent T1 - are misogynist because the female characters in them are more often than not men in a woman's body. They tend to act and think like males rather than females. (As it happens, she's writing an article for an online magazine on this very topic. Curious timing.)

[stray]

or "Misery".  What about that? A film where a man is looked after by a, let's say, over-protective woman is called "Misery". An allegory of marriage perhaps? A man's fear of a relationship with a woman? A misogynstic statement? Or just an entertaining thriller.

You forgot the most obvious one: A story about a crazy fan. It's called Misery because she won't let him leave the house and shatters his ankles with a sledgehammer. Not sure what movie you saw.

She's only a woman because Stephen King probably based her on some weird Betty Crocker supermarket type that came to one his signings, and held up the line with obsessive behavior. The image of that kind of wholesome innocence and the sick idea for a story in his head became amusing to him. So he wrote it. End of story.

[edit] Gender is totally secondary. It could very well be a story about HRose and Mark Jacobs. 

[Samwise]

I asked a script-reader friend of mine this question earlier and her response was that most hollywood films - including Alien, Aliens, T3, T2 and to a certain extent T1 - are misogynist because the female characters in them are more often than not men in a woman's body. They tend to act and think like males rather than females. (As it happens, she's writing an article for an online magazine on this very topic. Curious timing.)

What does that make chick flicks where all the male characters are women in men's bodies?

[ahoythematey]

That makes them the same thing they have always been: disingenuous bullshit.

[Ironwood]

It's getting worse.  My eyes are itching.

[stray]

Too much distinction between genders makes my eyes itch, truth to be told. I don't like that shit. Movies or otherwise.

[MrHat]

( . Y . )

[HaemishM]

Awesome thread turns retarded.  News at 11.

Yep. Thread fagged up horribly now. Cockgobblers.

[lamaros]

Too much distinction between genders makes my eyes itch, truth to be told. I don't like that shit. Movies or otherwise.

I find it interesting how you can be somewhat aware of such things when it comes to issues of race (see Prince of Persia Thread) yet completely oblivious and Triforcer-ish when it comes to others.

As far as ruining the thread... it's DraconianOne's thread! 

[stray]

I'm not sure what the comparison is to race, and I'm not sure what being "Triforcer-ish" is. I just think it's amusing that Gyllenhaal is playing an Iranian, and I think T3 is nothing more than a couple of terminators fighting each other. And stuff like Misery doesn't have some "mommy-hated-me" subtext either. It's all right there for you to see why the author in that story is miserable.

[UnSub]

Awesome thread turns retarded.  News at 11.

Yep. Thread fagged up horribly now. Cockgobblers.

Fortunately this comment is completely clear of misogyny, so I don't need to take issue with it. 

[Triforcer]

But, since it is being used as an adjective in a negative manner, it is homophobic.  The correct phrase would be "this thread is fagged/heterosexed up horribly," which implies both methods of intercourse are equally objectionable. 

[WindupAtheist]

Bad stuff can happen to women (or homosexuals, or minorities, or whatever). That's fine and perhaps it might be dramatic. However, when the film appears to be cheering on the bad stuff that is happening to those people then it really isn't acceptable.

God, fuck you.

[Wasted]

[Ironwood]

Back on track ; Big fucking robots killing humans.

Check the size of that weapon.

[Nevermore]

It's not the size of the weapon, it's how well you aim the fucking thing.

[HaemishM]

But, since it is being used as an adjective in a negative manner, it is homophobic.  The correct phrase would be "this thread is fagged/heterosexed up horribly," which implies both methods of intercourse are equally objectionable. 

Cockfag. 

[apocrypha]

It's not the size of the weapon, it's how well you aim the fucking thing.

If the weapon's big enough aiming is irrelevant.

In other news I thought Terminator 3 was 'okay' for one reason only - the ending. They didn't wimp out and Hollywood-happy it up. Other than that it was a mediocre action film really. I don't feel it was especially misogynistic, but the contrast between it and T2 - which had an excellent, strong, lead female role (and was also a far better film) - is noticeable.

[Venkman]

Doin' my part to rerail.

The whole of the Terminator series is predicated on the the fact that it's all paradoxical. Skynet was developed using technology recovered from the Terminator that got sent back in time. If the Terminator hadn't come back then there would have been no Skynet, no Judgement Day, no time displacement machine and no Terminator to send back in time. Similarly, Kyle Reese was sent back in time by John Connor to nominally to protect his mother from the Terminator but also to become his father.

Actually, it's more than that even. I haven't watched the TV show, so this only goes by the movies:

T1: Kyle sires John Connor. Terminator comes back to try and kill John Connor. But I could easily go down a really geeky path here and wonder if that wasn't really the goal at all. What if Skynet simply wanted to ensure the mother was scared enough to train up a future military leader? So far we've never seen a world after Skynet was defeated, so I could argue that it wanted the battle it was fighting rather than an unknown timeline. I am almost certain they didn't intend this in the movie of course, but they could easily retcon the IP to tell that story.

T2: Killing Dyson didn't stop Skynet because Cyberdine didn't create it. They created robots.

T3: Bad-robot comes back not to kill John Connor nor to kill his (retconned) wife. She came back to ensure Skynet happened. She was the one to release the virus that forced the military to switch on Skynet as the only thing that could stop it.

So really, the whole show is about the future coming back in time to ensure that exact future happens.

[Merusk]

So really, the whole show is about the future coming back in time to ensure that exact future happens.

That's the paradox. There can be no future BUT that one, because time travel can't change shit. 

[NowhereMan]

Heh, I was actually doing tutorials on Time Travel paradoxes last week. What T2 has is a nice causal loop where the future events cause the past events that lead to the future events, etc., etc. You'll all be relieved to know David Lewis' (pretty famous metaphysician) official position is that they're really weird and inexplicable but there's other stuff that's inexplicable so just chill. (awesome phrasing is mine, I break these guys positions down for the kids yo).

[Venkman]

Ironically, I have an easier time understanding time loops than I do some of the financial market craziness (speaking of which, off to ask that question now).

[Simond]

TV spots + full trailer (again): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe2C80_mepk

[Arthur_Parker]

4 minute clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcYdjHpJUV8

[K9]

I have a good feeling about this.

[gryeyes]

That was a mighty fine 4 minute clip. I hope that is not the condensed cool of the entire movie.

[Ratman_tf]

I asked a script-reader friend of mine this question earlier and her response was that most hollywood films - including Alien, Aliens, T3, T2 and to a certain extent T1 - are misogynist because the female characters in them are more often than not men in a woman's body. They tend to act and think like males rather than females. (As it happens, she's writing an article for an online magazine on this very topic. Curious timing.)

I call it the "Guys with tits" syndrome, but it hasn't caught on yet. 

[UnSub]

I asked a script-reader friend of mine this question earlier and her response was that most hollywood films - including Alien, Aliens, T3, T2 and to a certain extent T1 - are misogynist because the female characters in them are more often than not men in a woman's body. They tend to act and think like males rather than females. (As it happens, she's writing an article for an online magazine on this very topic. Curious timing.)

Please link the article when its up.

[Triforcer]

I asked a script-reader friend of mine this question earlier and her response was that most hollywood films - including Alien, Aliens, T3, T2 and to a certain extent T1 - are misogynist because the female characters in them are more often than not men in a woman's body. They tend to act and think like males rather than females. (As it happens, she's writing an article for an online magazine on this very topic. Curious timing.)

Please link the article when its up.

But wouldn't it also be misogynist to have women act like women, because then they show only stereotypes of how women should act like women are expected to act?

This is why its easier for Hollywood to just not have female lead characters or for Disney to have black princesses or whatever.  If you omit, there is slight grumbling.  If you dare to add, then you are automatically racist/misogynistic/crypto-fascistic immino-patriarchalist/whatever to whatever broken mirror shard faction of crazy decides whatever you did isn't PC.   

[Velorath]

I asked a script-reader friend of mine this question earlier and her response was that most hollywood films - including Alien, Aliens, T3, T2 and to a certain extent T1 - are misogynist because the female characters in them are more often than not men in a woman's body. They tend to act and think like males rather than females. (As it happens, she's writing an article for an online magazine on this very topic. Curious timing.)

I call it the "Guys with tits" syndrome, but it hasn't caught on yet. 

Could we please not try to bring back the misogyny discussion?  At least not until the majority of the people who throw the word around actually learn what it means first.

[Xerapis]

Misogyny is when a Mommy and a Daddy and a Daddy and a Daddy and a Daddy and a Daddy and a Daddy all decide that Mommy needs special facial moisturizer.

Right?