That's a photo? It looks like a screenshot from a game. Shit.
The Ultimate Movie Thread of Ultimate Destiny
- Thread starter Serge 13
- Start date
That's a photo? It looks like a screenshot from a game. Shit.
We have the Mother of Dragons, the Khaleesi of the Dothraki and all that other stuff as Sarah Connor. Cant get more badass than that I guess ...as much as I like her in Game of Thrones, I just cant see her as Sarah Connor. I also get the idea that they use to many actors from TV shows in movies, I mean not every actor who is well suited for a TV show has to be great in a movie ... just take a look at Star Trek Next Generation ...
About that picture, heh, I never liked this over-saturated-high-polished-magazine effect that you see so often with images in extreme sport which clearly screems "LOOK AT ME! I WAS MOVED TROUGH PHOTOSHOP FIRST!".
I am not sure, butI think Arnold will play some Terminator that was send back in time when Sarah was 9 or something, and the story seems to be that he raised her, which explains why he is so "old" in the movie. No clue if that is true of course. But looking at the pictures ... I would not be surprised ...
true enough, but you can always criticise the movie based on its own logic. For example that Kyle explains in T1 that only living tissue can be send back trough the timeportal - well lets ignore here why Skynet never got the idea to send some weapons covered in flesh with the Terminator. Yet, in Terminator 2 the T1000 was some kind of liquid metal aloy, and yet moved trough time. Another example would be if Terminator 5 would have rainbow dash, stars and cartoon characters jumping out of the time portal because, who knows why? I mean it really isnt about physics, in physics time travel is impossible anyway.
About that picture, heh, I never liked this over-saturated-high-polished-magazine effect that you see so often with images in extreme sport which clearly screems "LOOK AT ME! I WAS MOVED TROUGH PHOTOSHOP FIRST!".
I am not sure, butI think Arnold will play some Terminator that was send back in time when Sarah was 9 or something, and the story seems to be that he raised her, which explains why he is so "old" in the movie. No clue if that is true of course. But looking at the pictures ... I would not be surprised ...
true enough, but you can always criticise the movie based on its own logic. For example that Kyle explains in T1 that only living tissue can be send back trough the timeportal - well lets ignore here why Skynet never got the idea to send some weapons covered in flesh with the Terminator. Yet, in Terminator 2 the T1000 was some kind of liquid metal aloy, and yet moved trough time. Another example would be if Terminator 5 would have rainbow dash, stars and cartoon characters jumping out of the time portal because, who knows why? I mean it really isnt about physics, in physics time travel is impossible anyway.
Last edited:
Oh, yeah, no, the logic of the time machine's operational parameters itself is pretty faulty. Either that, or Skynet is a few logic cores short of a full processor matrix. I was speaking strictly in terms of temporal shenanigans. There's always a way to justify time paradoxes.
At the very bottom, there's the thought that every time jump creates a branch universe, leaving us with the cheerful implication that everyone who's ever gone back through time has only changed things from their own perspective and the people in the timeline they originated from are still completely screwed.
At the very bottom, there's the thought that every time jump creates a branch universe, leaving us with the cheerful implication that everyone who's ever gone back through time has only changed things from their own perspective and the people in the timeline they originated from are still completely screwed.
yeah, but that would kinda make time travel useless in the first place ... I mean why changing history when it doesnt effect you, the "you" of the future I mean. I could totally see someone using time travel to escape his reality or future. Like that episode in Sliders, when a whole planet used the portal to get to a new earth because their earth was doomed. Hmm, I kinda miss the show.
UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
I think it's got exceptionally good action. It's probably got the best action sequences of any James Cameron movie, IMO. I also like the Robert Patrick liquid metal terminator, and crazy-eyed, muscular Linda Hamilton. Unfortunately the Arnold-develops-emotion problem is big. Between T1 and T2 he had become such a huge star in Hollywood I think they had to write that into the script to give him more stuff to say and some more one-liners. Anthropomorphizing murderous robots by giving them feelings undermines the very core of what makes muderous killer robots good villains.
Good for box office revenue; bad for science fiction story integrity.
Last edited:
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
For starters...
But anywho, I'm in the camp where that wasn't "develops emotions" at all. It was just the AI of the Terminator coming to a conclusion about emotions it could understand. That's why it wasn't *sad* to have to "die", but it recognized why John Connor was sad that his father figure was going away. It listened to John throughout the film, taking orders from him, even when they clashed with his rigidly pragmatic directives, but he never understood John's reasoning while he was doing it. he couldn't conceive of John's "morality" for why he must avoid killing anyone, just as much as he couldn't understand why humans cried. Shortly before it went into the melting pot, the Terminator simply voiced that it came to understand why humans cried. That doesn't mean it developed feelings. It still emotionlessly went to its own oblivion without hesitation.
of all the depictions of time travel, the top 2, as far as I'm concerned, are T1 and Steins;Gate. One depicted self-consistent time travel without multiverses, and the other depicted multifaceted time travel, including both self-consistent AND paradoxical, as well as multiverses, yet present it in such a way that it still seemed feasible. The characters sending messages back in time would alter the course of history, but they could undo those messages, one by one, and in doing so the main character (his consciousness, specifically) could cross over to his original timeline. Meanwhile, other methods of time travel, developed well into the future and used to travel to his time, could send an entire person back in time to attempt to change events, when in reality they were simply fulfilling what had happened... the self-consistent side of the equation. Every other fictional depiction of time travel has bothered me because of how up-its-own-ass it gets with multiverses, simply using them as a crutch to excuse poor writing. Bioshock Infinite suffered from this in spades, despite being an otherwise great game with a delightful narrative. It was its own downfall by resorting too much to multiverse theory and undoing its own narrative successes.
You really gotta work on your use of the quote tags, cause you made it look like you were responding to yourself, and criticizing that you were mistaken about something. Missed a [/ quote] most likely.
But anywho, I'm in the camp where that wasn't "develops emotions" at all. It was just the AI of the Terminator coming to a conclusion about emotions it could understand. That's why it wasn't *sad* to have to "die", but it recognized why John Connor was sad that his father figure was going away. It listened to John throughout the film, taking orders from him, even when they clashed with his rigidly pragmatic directives, but he never understood John's reasoning while he was doing it. he couldn't conceive of John's "morality" for why he must avoid killing anyone, just as much as he couldn't understand why humans cried. Shortly before it went into the melting pot, the Terminator simply voiced that it came to understand why humans cried. That doesn't mean it developed feelings. It still emotionlessly went to its own oblivion without hesitation.
But roundabout considerations like that simply introduce more contradictions. The entire notion of multiverses is just a cop-out for paradoxical impossibility to explain away impossible hypotheses. At least with the "self consistency" theory, time travel presents no paradoxes. It's basically a modern re-imagining of the Classical Greek mythology of inescapable fate, which is commonly confused for preaching that there is no self-determined choice, but rather the opposite, and weaves a very complex narrative where self-determination begets a self-fulfilling prophecy out of arrogance. Like the joke ending on Tekken 5 where Ling Xiaoyu travels back in time to prevent Heihachi from throwing his son over a cliff that would begin a generational strong of hatred and start wars killing millions, only to unintentionally send the time machine (instead of herself) back and knock Heihachi over FORCING him to throw his son off the cliff, self-consistent time travel theory makes sense, because it posits that what has happened has happened and will always be what has happened, and that any attempts to change it would simply have facilitated what happened. Not that the fate was inescapable, or that any attempts to change it would fail, but that unbeknownst to the time traveler (like Oedipus's father casting out his son to avoid prophecy) their actions in an attempt to undo the past in fact results in the events which transpired. Not that it's inherently unavoidable, but that's simply what choice begets out of consequence of one's actions. Oedipus wasn't compelled to fulfill the prophecy of slaying his own father, he simply chose to fulfill it, unbeknownst to him. It's consistent, and it doesn't trivialize choice.
of all the depictions of time travel, the top 2, as far as I'm concerned, are T1 and Steins;Gate. One depicted self-consistent time travel without multiverses, and the other depicted multifaceted time travel, including both self-consistent AND paradoxical, as well as multiverses, yet present it in such a way that it still seemed feasible. The characters sending messages back in time would alter the course of history, but they could undo those messages, one by one, and in doing so the main character (his consciousness, specifically) could cross over to his original timeline. Meanwhile, other methods of time travel, developed well into the future and used to travel to his time, could send an entire person back in time to attempt to change events, when in reality they were simply fulfilling what had happened... the self-consistent side of the equation. Every other fictional depiction of time travel has bothered me because of how up-its-own-ass it gets with multiverses, simply using them as a crutch to excuse poor writing. Bioshock Infinite suffered from this in spades, despite being an otherwise great game with a delightful narrative. It was its own downfall by resorting too much to multiverse theory and undoing its own narrative successes.
UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
The keyboard on my laptop is junk. It sometimes does things without my approval.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Delightful narrative shouldn't be in the same sentence as Bioshock Infinite. Opinions! Also, Snap what is it with you and referring to Tekken recently in analogies that don't work very well? Playing a lot of Tekken or what? 
As for the new Terminator, I'm at the wait and see stage. This movie can't hurt the series anymore than T3 or T4. Can it? They already fucked up the war in the future. You know the one that was building up throughout all of the movies? Yeah, they tossed that shit aside. The closest we got was "flashbacks", brief scenes, and Salvation. What a load of shit. I understand what they are doing with Sarah Connor being raised by Arnold. It allows us to get rid of that annoying John Connor image in some ways. I never bought that kid as the future of mankind in T2 or T3. Sure it was classic at the time, but T3 really hamfisted that shit in. The fucking Sarah Connor Chronicles was better than T3 or T4.
Arnold does not make the Terminator movies. The over reliance on his image feels like it is holding the series back in some ways. Terminator: Genisys or Genesis or however the fuck you want to spell it, really needs to impress me for faith to be restored in the series. The war in the future is what I always wanted, but now we get a partial reboot all the way back to the beginning? Skynet really needs to work on their time travel. Go back to the old west and kill her fucking ancestors for crying out loud! Lets see them try and kill a Terminator with Repeaters and Dynamite.
As for the new Terminator, I'm at the wait and see stage. This movie can't hurt the series anymore than T3 or T4. Can it? They already fucked up the war in the future. You know the one that was building up throughout all of the movies? Yeah, they tossed that shit aside. The closest we got was "flashbacks", brief scenes, and Salvation. What a load of shit. I understand what they are doing with Sarah Connor being raised by Arnold. It allows us to get rid of that annoying John Connor image in some ways. I never bought that kid as the future of mankind in T2 or T3. Sure it was classic at the time, but T3 really hamfisted that shit in. The fucking Sarah Connor Chronicles was better than T3 or T4.
Arnold does not make the Terminator movies. The over reliance on his image feels like it is holding the series back in some ways. Terminator: Genisys or Genesis or however the fuck you want to spell it, really needs to impress me for faith to be restored in the series. The war in the future is what I always wanted, but now we get a partial reboot all the way back to the beginning? Skynet really needs to work on their time travel. Go back to the old west and kill her fucking ancestors for crying out loud! Lets see them try and kill a Terminator with Repeaters and Dynamite.
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
You get rads even just for that.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Hey, hey I am supposed to be the guy that badmouths Bioshlock Infinite. 
One does not talk bad about Infinite, or else it gets the Tagaziel again.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
I'm convinced the people that praise Infinite come from an alternate universe where pretentious schlock is high art. 
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
Actually, no. I haven't touched Tekken in many years. I just voice what comes to mind, and my analogies have been spot on. Just cause you don't like em doesn't mean they don't work. =P WHY Tekken came to mind first for an appropriate analogy, I dunno. Maybe it's just so scattered that it offers tons of analogous anecdotal reference because it's touched on just about anything at one time or another? XDAlso, Snap what is it with you and referring to Tekken recently in analogies that don't work very well? Playing a lot of Tekken or what?
I really don't see it. Mind you, I'm not in the group that considers BSI brilliant and the pinnacle of artistic representation. Far from it. I just recognize that it IS good. If BSI were all by itself, without the DLC to fuck up everything it had carefully (not flawlessly, but well enough) woven, it would be a really good narrative. Crossing dimensions and getting your memories jumbled as a result, thus forgetting that you ever crossed dimensions, then presenting voluntarily crossing dimensions as a gameplay mechanic so it's not really a startling twist when the former is revealed but is still surprising is well designed as far as story designing is concerned. It focuses on the player's (Booker's) relationship with Elizabeth, and by the end of the game you realize it's no coincidence that you met up with her, and the revelation is potent. Not ground-breaking, like the Andrew Ryan Office scene. Not mind-breaking like the Ratman scribbles on the wall. Not droll and tired like much of what Blizzard has churned out over the years. Just done well. All this is in addition to a delightful character that the player never resents for having to escort (cause she can handle herself) and pretty successfully endears to players by the end of the game when it matters to most, makes for a solid story in totality by the conclusion of the game.I'm convinced the people that praise Infinite come from an alternate universe where pretentious schlock is high art.
At the end of BSI, I was left satisfied. A little saddened, because the ending was tragic. But it didn't leave me with any sense of, "This was a complete waste of my time. FUCK this game!" either. I could speak volumes about how shit terrible and disappointing either Mercenaries 2 or Battlefield: Bad Company left me disappointed and disgusted at myself for buying them at full opening day price, however while I didn't buy BSI, I can say with confidence that I would've come away feeling satisfied with purchasing it, because I do want to own it. Not blown away. Not marveled to such an extent that I MUST call it GOTY 2013. But satisfied.
But lambasting it as the butt of many jokes? Sorry, I just don't see it. The only pretension I'm noticing is all the circle-jerking about BSI hatred...
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
I really, really, REALLY don't have the energy to disseminate a so convoluted game I played so long ago, but with the help of a great youtuber, I won't have to!
Last edited by a moderator:
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
You don't get it Akratus, the game was character driven and stuff. That completely makes any and all flaws in the story and gameplay non existent.
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
You mean you wouldn't have to, if youtube would let you? XD
Last edited by a moderator:
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
Sorry, somehow got an extra character in the link there. It works now.
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
Quick work on the fix! I didn't even notice you fixed the error within minutes because I found a way to follow the correct link and started watching the video despite the error hiccup.
Pretty decent video, though I've seen others that covered many of the same complaints, arguably far better. Chiefly the misappropriated labeling of ludonarrative dissonance on BSI where the argument doesn't apply, and juxtaposing that point with a clear example of where ludonarrative dissonance DOES apply to the game (the compulsory looting and scarfing down potato chips from trash bins game mechanic not fitting a game that, unlike it's predecessor, isn't a survival horror shooter), provided by the usually excellent Jim Sterling. This one's got some errors, and checking the date on it, I can see why, because it was posted very shortly after BSI's release, so it must've been slightly hasty. But he still got the right message: it's not a bad game, but it doesn't deserve the hype and glorification it received, and I couldn't agree more! I just don't see why NOT saying "It is the bane of all that is good, now lavish me with rads for saying that!" like a massively conceited douchebag is somehow a bad thing.
Pretty decent video, though I've seen others that covered many of the same complaints, arguably far better. Chiefly the misappropriated labeling of ludonarrative dissonance on BSI where the argument doesn't apply, and juxtaposing that point with a clear example of where ludonarrative dissonance DOES apply to the game (the compulsory looting and scarfing down potato chips from trash bins game mechanic not fitting a game that, unlike it's predecessor, isn't a survival horror shooter), provided by the usually excellent Jim Sterling. This one's got some errors, and checking the date on it, I can see why, because it was posted very shortly after BSI's release, so it must've been slightly hasty. But he still got the right message: it's not a bad game, but it doesn't deserve the hype and glorification it received, and I couldn't agree more! I just don't see why NOT saying "It is the bane of all that is good, now lavish me with rads for saying that!" like a massively conceited douchebag is somehow a bad thing.
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
That's kind of a dickish thing to say considering nobody here did that.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Bioshock Infinite is the bane of all that is good.