Random movie and tv thoughts


Recommended Posts

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.