What Movie Did You Just Watch

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I watched it. It's about what I expected. A dumb dinosaur movie. It's better than the other sequels, but that's not saying much. Really, Jurassic Park is a great movie, but honestly it was never well-suited to a sequel. There really isn't anything else that you can do with the plot to make it anything more than people running away from Dinosaurs. And I didn't even like The Lost World as a novel, for the record. Michael Chrichton was clearly forced into writing that one against his will just because the first book and movie were so popular.

It's not godawful, but that doesn't make it good, either. It's just there to make money, and while it succeeded at that, I can't say that I'll bother to see another one of these if they make it. If you're really that curious to see it, I'd recommend just waiting for it to come out on Netflix or rent it from Red Box or something. It's not worth a $7+ movie ticket.

Now, if you want to see a dumb giant monster movie that's actually fun, I still say that Pacific Rim fits the bill (Avaitor's opinion not withstanding), or if you want to watch one that's more low-budget but crazy over the top, then watch Godzilla: Final Wars. And if you want to see an actual good giant monster movie, then watch The original King Kong, Jaws, Godzilla (1954), or Jurassic Park, or watch The Host (2006).

[talonmalon333]

It's not godawful, but that doesn't make it good, either.

That's similar to what I think of the other sequels. They aren't harmful enough to be downright terrible, but they are dumb and just aren't good.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Well, I think that you could say that about The Lost World, but III was just awful, IMO, and Joe Johnston is a director that I actually kind of like, especially since he did The Rocketeer and Captain America: The First Avenger. But that movie just felt so cheap, not just in terms of its effects, but also in terms of its writing, acting, and any actual sense of effort in general.

[talonmalon333]

Since we're on the topic of questionable sequels, what's up with the new Terminator movie? Is it basically a reboot of the first two movies?

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Nobody even knows. It's a bad sign when multiple trailers which are supposed to help sell the movie just end up making it more confusing as to what it's even trying to be.

Also, I like Emilia Clarke as an actress, but I just can't buy her as Sarah Connor, even a young version of her.

[talonmalon333]

Nobody even knows. It's a bad sign when multiple trailers which are supposed to help sell the movie just end up making it more confusing as to what it's even trying to be.

Also, I like Emilia Clarke as an actress, but I just can't buy her as Sarah Connor, even a young version of her.

She seems like a far cry from Linda Hamilton's portrayal of the character. Linda Hamilton did such a good job of portraying the innocent, somewhat shy waitress who's doesn't know what to do in danger, who then grows into an extremely tough and strong, while also somewhat unstable, soldier ready to fight for the human race against a future of robots. Two roles that are so different, but I was equally sold on her as both.

Similar to Jurassic Park after the first movie, there is nothing that can be done with Terminator after the second movie. The story has been told.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Honestly, it's even a miracle that the second movie was so great. Really, this kind of story is only suited to being stand-alone, and if you think enough about it, the basis of Judgement Day's plot doesn't really make sense since if Skynet sent a Terminator back to kill John Connor in the 90's then that would mean that their 1984 attempt failed and that they already knew that....so then why would they have sent that original Terminator back in the first place, or even go for a second attempt since technically they'd have to know that it failed as well.

But, if you can ignore that massive plot hole, both of the Cameron-era Terminator movies were Sci-Fi and action masterpieces. Trying to make anymore as sequels was pointless because you couldn't do a different kind of story-line. And trying to remake or reboot the story could only lead to an inferior product that, at best might manage to avoid being terrible, but in all likelihood probably will suck.

[Avaitor]

Clarke doesn't really seem right for Sarah Connor. I actually would have been more interested if Tatiana Maslany got to stick around, since she seems like a much better fit for the character. Even then, she's what has me the most interested in the new Terminator.

But man, I'd much rather give Pacific Rim another chance than go see Jurassic World. And I probably will in time for the sequel and/or animated series, depending on whether or not del Toro pulls a del Toro.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Well, at the very least I can assure you that if you didn't enjoy Pacific Rim, you'll probably like Jurassic World even less. Like I said, I'd recommend renting it in a few months as opposed to spending a lot of money to see it in theaters, and that's only if you're curious to see it.

Also, fun fact about Sarah Connor: Clarke isn't the first GOT actress to play the character. Lena Headey actually portrayed the character in the short-lived TV show.

As for my pick, if they were doing an older version of Sarah Connor, I would have found Emily Blunt to be a perfect fit for the role. That said, I can't really think of a good young actress to play the character, probably because I don't keep tabs on most young actors in general. I should probably change that.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Linda Hamilton was perfect as Sarah Connor. She got the normal woman aspect of the character and tough as nails mom down great. None of the others have felt anywhere as good in both sides as she did.

As for this new one, well, since 3 convoluted everything up (seriously, there's a Terminator timeline video on youtube, watch it and marvel how the simple events of 1 and 2 are made pointlessly convoluted thanks to 3 and Salvation) I really have no emotional investment here. The new Terminator going back and destroying the one from Terminator 1 is a bit silly, IMO.

[talonmalon333]

So the events of the original series did happen in this new Terminator movie? At least, before the time travel messed that up? Or something?

[Spark Of Spirit]

No one has any idea what's going on here.

But what it seems to be is that Kyle Reese is sent back in time to the events of The Terminator and at the beginning of the movie where he steals the clothes he is assaulted by these new terminators instead and saved by Sarah Connor. That's where the movie starts.

Here's a tip, if you can't sum up your story in a two minute trailer, then there's a good chance that your story makes no freaking sense.

[talonmalon333]

No one has any idea what's going on here.

But what it seems to be is that Kyle Reese is sent back in time to the events of The Terminator and at the beginning of the movie where he steals the clothes he is assaulted by these new terminators instead and saved by Sarah Connor. That's where the movie starts.

Here's a tip, if you can't sum up your story in a two minute trailer, then there's a good chance that your story makes no freaking sense.

But wait, if this happens at the same time as the first movie, why did they want a younger Sarah Connor played by a younger actress? Shouldn't she be the same age as she was in that movie?

[Dr. Insomniac]

Oh, I can make sense of the story in the trailer perfectly. So many AUs have happened thanks to time travel that one of Skynet's trips accidentally crossed into another trip thanks to how much they've unraveled linear time. The problem is that I just don't like it.

[Spark Of Spirit]

No one has any idea what's going on here.

But what it seems to be is that Kyle Reese is sent back in time to the events of The Terminator and at the beginning of the movie where he steals the clothes he is assaulted by these new terminators instead and saved by Sarah Connor. That's where the movie starts.

Here's a tip, if you can't sum up your story in a two minute trailer, then there's a good chance that your story makes no freaking sense.

But wait, if this happens at the same time as the first movie, why did they want a younger Sarah Connor played by a younger actress? Shouldn't she be the same age as she was in that movie?

Because whoever is behind this has no idea what they're trying to do.

Oh, I can make sense of the story in the trailer perfectly. So many AUs have happened thanks to time travel that one of Skynet's trips accidentally crossed into another trip thanks to how much they've unraveled linear time. The problem is that I just don't like it.

Fair enough.