TF Views

Sony supposedly came back to the table with a 30% offer in exchange for including their Venom and other characters in the MCU, and I cringed at that notion, Disney said no. Now there's a new deal in place, hopefully this deal sidesteps some of the worse choices in that idea.

Sat through Terminator 3 after 16 years of successfully avoiding it. What a hollow, pathetic waste of time that all comes down to bad directing and bad producing. Recasting John Connor didn't help either, Nick Stahl just never clicked, and nothing about this storyline felt like it mattered or had weight. It felt like a bland chase movie and it was only at an hour twenty that I realized there was only twenty more minutes and NOTHING HAD HAPPENED. Then it ends on a sequel-bait that just fizzles, and the whole thing says the Terminator franchise should have stopped at 2.

I was amazed the Sony was willing to walk away from Marvel/Disney in the first place.

What would the problem have been with including Sony's Venom in the Marvel movies though? (I have not seen "Venom". But, was it that bad that Marvel would be damaged by touching it?)

Sat through Terminator 3 after 16 years of successfully avoiding it. What a hollow, pathetic waste of time that all comes down to bad directing and bad producing. Recasting John Connor didn't help either, Nick Stahl just never clicked, and nothing about this storyline felt like it mattered or had weight.

I am forgiving of recasting in a franchise like "Terminator". Sometimes, it works well (Jason Clark as John Connor). Other times, it works less so, (Christian Bale as John Connor). Stahl worked visually. But, the movie itself hobbled him.

There were a few things that I liked in the third film, such as the implication that Skynet was learning and getting smarter. (Giving the Terminator a shopping list of people makes more sense than sending a killing machine back to do one thing and only one thing.) But, there were too many problems with T3, not the least being a degree of contrivance that would makes Silver Age comics seem well plotted.

4 is actually worse. 5, while not perfect, was good enough that I am sad they are not following up from it.

Dominic wrote:What would the problem have been with including Sony's Venom in the Marvel movies though? (I have not seen "Venom". But, was it that bad that Marvel would be damaged by touching it?)

Part of the problem is that Marvel doesn't have any say in the films Sony makes. It'd sorta be like, you're writing a book and suddenly somebody else gets to put in a chapter of their own, and you're not allowed to help them incorporate it. So, you end up with this side storyline that you have no control over that doesn't fit with anything you're doing. And I do believe Marvel/Disney is afraid Sony could damage the MCU brand if the audience thinks they're part of the same universe. I haven't seen Venom myself either, but some of the more positive reviews I've seen of essentially called it a fun train-wreck, meaning it has some highlights, but it is that bad.

Nothing I heard about "Venom" made me want to see it. But, I know that some reviewers will bash a comic-movie on principle.

My biggest complaint (not having seen the movie) is that it derailed what was likely to have been a fantastic "Venom" series about 2 years ago.

Dominic wrote:But, I know that some reviewers will bash a comic-movie on principle.

True. But even many comic book fans who reviewed the film didn't like it.

Dominic wrote:I was amazed the Sony was willing to walk away from Marvel/Disney in the first place.

What would the problem have been with including Sony's Venom in the Marvel movies though? (I have not seen "Venom". But, was it that bad that Marvel would be damaged by touching it?)

What's wrong with Venom? In pop culture, Venom is a look, nothing more. The movie looked horrible, I didn't see it, everyone who saw it said they liked it and also it was horrible.

There were a few things that I liked in the third film, such as the implication that Skynet was learning and getting smarter. (Giving the Terminator a shopping list of people makes more sense than sending a killing machine back to do one thing and only one thing.) But, there were too many problems with T3, not the least being a degree of contrivance that would makes Silver Age comics seem well plotted.

Skynet learning and getting smarter was baked into the franchise from the first movie, this one didn't create that, it just regurgitated the concept and in the background there was this notion that it had turned into a virus in the wild even before it was launched.

4 is actually worse. 5, while not perfect, was good enough that I am sad they are not following up from it.

I hope nobody tries to get me to sit through them or Dark Fate.

Skynet learning and getting smarter was baked into the franchise from the first movie, this one didn't create that, it just regurgitated the concept and in the background there was this notion that it had turned into a virus in the wild even before it was launched.

I just said that "Terminator 3" had some good points. I sat through it once, and would not likely do so do so again.

I hope nobody tries to get me to sit through them or Dark Fate.

The 5th movie is good. It is not "Terminator 2". But, it is still worth seeing. If nothing else, I like the idea of Skynet pushing humans just enough so humans make better tech, which makes a better Skynet.

Passssss.

Dawn of the Dead (2004) - Zack Snyder's first big film, and while it's not as egregious as his later works, it still comes off as someone who doesn't know why a shot is the way it is. There's a lot of hard work put into this tepid film but without a director who knows why he's putting it in, shots that are complicated but not saying anything, actors who are emoting but with no characters behind their eyes. One of the pioneers of the "fast zombie" films just doesn't feel substantial, and adding character after character after character to what in the original was a very taut group doesn't really say anything better, just more chances for blood. A disappointing entry, in part because it's lauded and in part because it has such an easy premise and it doesn't do anything notable with it; there's not much worse than a "eh" movie.

Terminator: Dark Fate

Despite Cameron returning to the property, "Dark Fate" is yet another failure. It is important to parse ticket sales from the the quality of the movie. But, in this case, there is little point.

There are some bright spots, and a few potentially interesting ideas. But, those are not enough to balance out the film's many creative deficits.

As with the previous 3, I wanted to like this movie far more than I did. (I like "Genisys" more than most, but will not ignore its flaws.) Really only worth seeing if somebody is a fan of "Terminator" on principle. Relative to the other entries in the series, it falls somewhere between "Rise of the Machines" and "Genisys" (on the lower end of that range_. At least it is better than "Salvation".


Grade: C/D

I'm debating whether or not to go see "The Rise of Skywalker". I've been very disappointed by the sequel trilogy, and as much as I'd enjoy seeing Palpatine again, like so many other things in these movies it feels like yet another rehash. This whole trilogy feels like it's brought very little that's new to the table. It' feels like a bunch of Star Wars fans reacted against the prequel trilogy and remade the originals as close as they could, though oddly they don't treat the OT characters well at all, with the exception of Leia.