Random movie and tv thoughts

[S-T]

I recently started watching Austin Powers 2 again, and they literally looked at the audience and said not to worry about time travel plot holes. Wich brings me to @The Master's tweet about the Terminator franchise.

https://twitter.com/earth_2/status/1258272340909187087

I've always thought that the first Terminator movie represented an infinite loop. T-800 goes back, kills Sarah, and John is never born. So there is no resistance, there is no need to send the T-800 back in time, and history reverts to normal and John becomes a problem again.

Then the T-800 goes back, kills Sarah, and John is never born. So there is no resistance, there is no need to send the T-800 back in time, and history reverts to normal and John becomes a problem again. And it repeats over and over and over again.

And it's a pretty big plot hole that Reese is John's father. Who would John's father have been if not for that?

[Missy]

My head canon is that Kyle is not John's father, rather it's the guy who called off the date with Sarah. That's the only way I can make the first movie work, in terms of John's parentage.

[dc20willsave]

The Terminator franchise is filled with bad time paradoxes and various other quibbles. I'm sure there's a podcast episode just trying to straighten out all the different timelines that someone can do. What we're likely dealing with, rather than a Stable Time Loop with some Predestination Paradox thrown in, is Divergent Timelines. This means, every time Skynet did something, it just led to a new Timeline rather than supplanting the previous Timeline. Off the top of my head:

1. Timeline A: Presumably, John Connor is born (his father is whoever), Judgement Day occurs, and leads The Resistance to defeat Skynet. Skynet sends a bunch of Terminators back, John sends Kyle Reese and a reprogrammed Terminator. Everyone is happy.
2. Timeline B: Sarah Connor is radicalized when she's chased all over LA by a Terminator sent to the past by Skynet. She meets up with and hooks up with Kyle Reese. She becomes pregnant with John and defeat the Terminator. It's parts lead to the creation of what will become Skynet. John goes into foster care, Sarah goes to prison, two more Terminators pop up, what will become Skynet doesn't happen. John might become a Senator. Who knows?
3. Timeline C : Same as Timeline B but Skynet is still developed by the military. Sarah Connor dies of cancer. Skynet achieves sentience after a Terminator pops up and gives it a phone call. The Bad Terminator starts killing future resistance leaders. Judgement Day occurs, John kinda futzes into becoming leader of the Resistance. He presumably becomes Christian Bale and will eventually defeat Skynet, ensuring a whole host of more paradoxes.
4. Timeline D : Sarah doesn't die of Breast Cancer due to future drugs and is, along with John, rescued by a Terminator that looks like River Tam and then taken forward in time. Both Skynet and The Resistance sent a fuckton of Terminators and Agents back in time in a bid to craft an ideal future for themselves. Eventually, John is taken into a future where he doesn't lead the Resistance but it's also a combo of Humans and Robots fighting Skynet and this would presumably have been solved but Fox canceled the show. Also, Sarah is now Lena Headly and a bad ass.
5. Timeline E: Sarah's parents are murdered by a T-1000 when she's a kid and is raised by a T-800. Kyle Reese is still sent back but Sarah, now played by Emilia Clarke, and her Terminator Daddy have already dealt with the problem. John was ganked by Matt Smith who is also Skynet and he is turned into a Terminator who then gets sent to the past to develop an OS that will become Skynet. Kyle, Termidaddy, and Sarah go into the future to 2017, stop a successful product launch, kill John, and then tell young Kyle about Skynet to ensure the timeloop still occurs but Skynet still probably exists but there is no sequel to follow up on the mid credits sequence so meh. No word if Sarah is going to get cancer or not.
6. Timeline F: One of the random Terminators that Skynet sent to the past kills John back in 1998 or so. It's then voop voops out of there to start a family or something. Sarah goes a little mental, killing all the Terminators Skynet sent back after that point. Presumably, these are all from Timeline A's mess because a different AI sent a Not-Terminator to the past to kill a woman in Mexico City. Things explode, Timeline F might or might not still end up getting blown up by an AI.

[S-T]

10 hours ago, The Master said:

My head canon is that Kyle is not John's father, rather it's the guy who called off the date with Sarah. That's the only way I can make the first movie work, in terms of John's parentage.

That is a good point and something I never thought of. She got pregnant just before the events of the first movie and her boyfriend was being a (expletive) and blew her off after getting what he wanted. She latches onto Reese being the father because her ex is an (expletive).

But the movie is pretty explicit that Reese is the father... which is poetic but makes NO sense.

[Professor]

 

[Missy]

They dropped the trailer on June 9. Or, 6/9.

"69, dudes!"

That is next-level marketing.

[Missy]

So. As @Dread pointed out on Twitter, B&T3 will be released on August 21, 2020.

Which:

August = 8

+21
+20
+20

=69, Dudes!

[S-T]

Hilarious as that is, will we have movie theaters back in business yet?

Maybe better to hold off until 8/20/2021.

I'm an eternal optimist.

[dc20willsave]

The trailer went up at 9 Eastern Time so 6 Pacific.

[Missy]

This team is nuts.

[slothian]

Damn!

Also, Tenet:

 

[Professor]

Mulan will be released on Disney+ on Sept 4th. For $29.99.

I understand putting the movie out on streaming, as I can't see theaters being open/packed (well, I can't see them open at any rate) en masse for a normal release.  And I even understand charging something extra, rather than just the normal monthly subscription rate.  But $30 seems a bit much.  My local theater is pretty much $5 all day, everyday.  I'm not paying $30 to watch it (or anything really) in my living room.

[Pan-dub]

21 hours ago, Professor said:

Mulan will be released on Disney+ on Sept 4th. For $29.99.

I understand putting the movie out on streaming, as I can't see theaters being open/packed (well, I can't see them open at any rate) en masse for a normal release.  And I even understand charging something extra, rather than just the normal monthly subscription rate.  But $30 seems a bit much.  My local theater is pretty much $5 all day, everyday.  I'm not paying $30 to watch it (or anything really) in my living room.

Hard pass. I'll watch Hamilton again.

[dc20willsave]

It's Disney trying to test to see if this model will work. If it does, expect Black Widow to go the same way but it's like 10 bucks more than the other studios have been doing on top of a subscription service. I doubt it.

[Missy]

Still slowly making my through The Adventures of Superman. In "The Secret of Superman," why did they have to fake Clark's termination from the paper? The thugs had already gone after Jimmy and Perry, and the police knew Lois and Clark were next on the list. So why the deception?

[Professor]

Had a random thought about the Disney/Mulan release.   The focus has been on theatrical vs. streaming release,  as well as 'the future of theaters'.  But could this also be a turning point in streaming services as we know them?  It was not conveyed clearly in the initial announcement was that the $30 is not just a 'digital rental', Mulan will be available as long as you have your Disney+ account.  That lessens the shock of the $30 (not by much).  However, Mulan normally would make its way to standard Disney+ at some point.  Will that still be the case?  I'd assume so, but would it take longer to be added?  That I can see.   And I can see a scenario in which Disney+ moves to a model in which theatrical releases would be double paywalled (or, all new releases would be a charge on top of the monthly service).  Much in the same way you need ESPN+ to have the privilege of buying the UFC PPVs.  (Not 100% apples to apples, but close enough).

Or am I overthinking things?

[Missy]

I hear ya. What I would like to see is twofold:

1. People already with Disney+ accounts are credited back a one-month fee for renting theatrical movies. (One time per month.)
2. People can rent the movies without being Disney+ subscribers. But that's all they can see.

[Missy]

At what point does the original A Nightmare on Elm Street become a dream? I'm thinking it's at one of two points:

• When Nancy falls asleep at Tina's house, specifically the moment when the cross falls off the wall and Nancy sets it aside
• When Nancy gets the sleep study

I'm prone to go with the former for a multitude of reasons, but here are a few from early in the movie.

• Just before the cross drops, Tina and Rod are talking in bed. When he rolls over, the blanket he covers himself with is red and green -- like a certain sweater. (Admittedly, it could possibly be red and blue. I'm deutan color-blind, so green is a hard one for me.)
• After Nancy sets the cross down, we cut to an unsettling shot of the house. Before now the house looked nice.
• Tina is "awoken" by some noises, including rocks hitting the window and someone (Freddy) whispering her name.
• Then we have the amazing shot of Freddy pushing through the wall, hovering over the sleeping Nancy like a ghoul. Though Nancy stirs and places the cross back on the wall, I believe we're still in her dream because Freddy is slowly demonstrating that he can make them believe he can enter reality.
• Next, Tina's murder. There's a difference between Tina's nightgown being ripped (which can be explained by her clawing at it during her initial nightmare) and Freddy flinging her body all over the room as he murders her.

Wes Craven has stated that the original idea for the ending of the movie was for Nancy to defeat Freddy, then awaken to realize the whole movie was a dream. (I'm guessing she would have woken up in Tina's room with the cross still set on the end table.) But a producer forced Craven to go with the nightmarish ending we got. So it isn't so much so "was the movie a dream" but rather when it entered the dream realm.

What say you?

[S-T]

Spiral (Saw 9) just came out, and I am now seeing these ads on Facebook.

Um, no thanks.

[Missy]

It's taken 28 years, but I think I've finally reconciled why Sam never made it home in Quantum Leap. He broke time. Better, he fixed time and created an alternate reality.

In the final leap, Sam visited Beth, Al's first wife. He told her Al was still alive, and it was worth waiting for him. He then leaped away, and we're informed Beth and Al are still married and have four daughters.

And this is why Sam never made it home.

By saving Al's first marriage, Al never became the man we knew in the show and possibly never joined Project Quantum Leap. Both or either of these would mean Sam's timeline was altered so much, he created an alternate reality. He can't leap home because he isn't in his prime timeline anymore. Sam forever doomed himself to save the soul of Al, the man who saved his life dozens upon dozens of times. And now, for me, it's a bittersweet ending I can finally accept.

[Missy]

Quantum Leap very often wears its liberal ideals on its sleeve, but can also be rather conservative in the very same episode.

For example, in "Good Night, Dear Heart" Sam leaps into a mortician in 1957, and quickly discovers the woman on the slab was murdered. (It was assumed she committed suicide.) Throughout the episode he attempts to uncover her killer, and begins to suspect it was the young man who had gotten her pregnant. Sam then learns the victim sought an abortion, but backed out at the last second. One thing leads to another, and the big reveal is that the killer was the victim's best friend -- who was also her female lover.

So this episode which aired in 1990 and was set in 1957 makes no judgments when it comes to the victim being bisexual, the killer being lesbian, a woman having two lovers at the same time, or even her being pregnant and unwed. But it does take major issue with abortion, to the point where Sam nearly publicly shames the abortion doctor if she doesn't help him in his investigation. When she asks if he's going to hold it against her, Sam glares at her for a long, hard moment then angrily walks away.

It should be noted Sam is the only character who's pissed about the potential abortion. Every other character is treated very evenhandedly on the issue, and portrayed as trying to have helped a young woman with a tough decision. But with Sam being the lead character, his reaction is the one we're supposed to give the most weight. So when he plays bad cop with the abortion doctor, it very much sends the signal that we should side with him on the issue.

It makes one wonder if this was a network decree, or something the director or writer added in.

[S-T]

It looks like the original screenwriter for Friday the 13th will take back rights to the franchise - but possibly not the monstrous adult Jason character.

It amazes me, after the mountain of cash that the Friday the 13th remake made, that the feuding parties have not been able to come to an agreement about sharing revenue. It seems like profit motive alone would be enough to get them out of court and to the bargaining table.

I would be more than willing to take fewer millions, than no millions at all.

[Missy]

It boggles the mind that a franchise that produced nine movies in 13 years has not made a single one in the last 12. The remake is easily the best movie in the entire franchise, and should have spawned another line of sequels.

[S-T]

On 10/3/2021 at 5:05 PM, The Master said:

It boggles the mind that a franchise that produced nine movies in 13 years has not made a single one in the last 12. The remake is easily the best movie in the entire franchise, and should have spawned another line of sequels.

Yeah. The ongoing legal squabbles over who owns the rights is the real-world equivalent of the Joker setting that mountain of cash on fire in The Dark Knight. There must be a lot of personal animosity going on behind the scenes for people to give up that much money.

[S-T]

@dc20willsave is going to be very happy.