Rate the last movie you've seen

[MinionZombie]

If I were forced to rank the three non-Cameron sequels, it’d probably be in reverse order from their release: Genisys, Salvation, Rise of the Machines. That’s not saying much at all, though. That’s like being asked to rank the Transformers films.... I actually quite like the first Transformers movie, there was at least a solid theme of 'a boy and his first car' running through it ... but the sequels? Get tae fuck. As for the non-JC T-sequels? Yeah, I'd probably agree with you. T4 and T5 are par with each other, and T3 is an embarrassment. T1 vs T2. I love them both. Each provides different things. T1 is gritty, grungy 'tech noir' ( ), with a version of a love story strung throughout (the scene where Kyle opens up to Sarah in the motel in the depths of night is really touching). T2 boasts all of JC's skills and finesse as a director up to that point with different themes dotted throughout, and where the first film is like a punk song with larger ambitions, the second film is a full blown orchestra that's in total command. Both excellent in their own ways. I'd still, out of the two, opt for T2 personally. I actually saw that one first and was blown away by it.

[bassman]

Yeah, I actually have a soft spot for Bay’s first Transformers. I was relating them more as the kind of dumb, eye candy style of films they are. That felt pretty appropriate for Terminator 3-5. I didn’t even realize it until just now, but I’d actually watched the Director’s/Unrated Cut of Salvation yesterday. It didn’t occur to me until you started mentioning the ratings of the films. I can’t recall anything different that would have given it the tougher rating except for brief shots of Moon Bloodgood’s breasts??

[Neil]

Yeah, I actually have a soft spot for Bay’s first Transformers. I was relating them more as the kind of dumb, eye candy style of films they are. That felt pretty appropriate for Terminator 3-5. I didn’t even realize it until just now, but I’d actually watched the Director’s/Unrated Cut of Salvation yesterday. It didn’t occur to me until you started mentioning the ratings of the films. I can’t recall anything different that would have given it the tougher rating except for brief shots of Moon Bloodgood’s breasts?? Same here... Apart from the pointless/needless sex/sexism stuff, it was a nice film...

[beat_truck]

I didn't want to immediately chime in and say that I thought T3 sucked, but now I know that I'm not alone and I'm not going to get flamed. It's not a wonder I see copies of it (sometimes multiple copies) in every thrift thrift store I go in. Maybe someday I'll watch the later movies, but after seeing 3, I really haven't had the urge.

[JDP]

So like The Exorcist for example? That's why I said "almost" always. There are exceptions. I'll give you the original is probably aimed at a more mature audience, but T2 is hardly a dumbed down family flick is it And ultimately none of this detemines which is the superior film. IMHO they're equally as great. The second movie was certainly intended to be more appealing to a younger audience; for example, it relies more on action than the first one, which is more well-balanced between action and slower-paced plot & character development, building up atmosphere, tension, etc. Younger audiences tend to get "bored" with slower paced movies. And T2 also introduced a too fanciful element that the first one did not have: the "mercury" robot, which the younger audiences might more easily swallow, but the older more critical audience will have a very hard time to try to accept. This is, after all, a science-fiction story, not a sword & sorcery one. You can get away with more fanciful stuff in pure fantasy movies, even with adults, who are willing to be more open minded and less critical about highly unlikely stuff, but not so much with science-fiction properly. There needs to be a basic degree of "believability/possibility" in order to make truly good sci-fi movies.

[bassman]

I’ve always felt like the two had roughly equal amounts of action. And to me, regardless of the amount of action, T2 has always had a great amount of story and heart, it’s just more of a parental love plot as opposed to the romantic love of the original. It seemed like a natural progression, as well as the underlying theme of humans being self destructive. Being that both these films are literally built around time travel to the past, a scientific impossibility, the T-1000 doesn’t seem anymore of a fantastical stretch, in my mind. Again, it feels like a natural progression. I mean....an advanced robotic artificial intelligence endoskeleton wrapped in living, regenerating human tissue doesn’t feel anymore believable to an advanced liquid metal, or some sort of nanobot technology, that can form into a humanoid shape, IMO.

[JDP]

I’ve always felt like the two had roughly equal amounts of action. And to me, regardless of the amount of action, T2 has always had a great amount of story and heart, it’s just more of a parental love plot as opposed to the romantic love of the original. It seemed like a natural progression, as well as the underlying theme of humans being self destructive. Being that both these films are literally built around time travel to the past, a scientific impossibility, the T-1000 doesn’t seem anymore of a fantastical stretch, in my mind. Again, it feels like a natural progression. I mean....an advanced robotic artificial intelligence endoskeleton wrapped in living, regenerating human tissue doesn’t feel anymore believable to an advanced liquid metal, or some sort of nanobot technology, that can form into a humanoid shape, IMO. Apparently you haven't been paying attention to the current advancements in robotics and A.I. Things are already getting closer to machines like the ones in the first movie. It is hardly a stretch of the imagination that one day these disciplines will be so advanced that they could very well build such machines. But I don't see anything even remotely resembling the "mercury" robot of the second movie anywhere in the horizon. As for time-travel: theoretically conceivable, but just too difficult/complex to attempt to carry it out, at least currently.

[bassman]

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to the current advancements in robotics and A.I. Things are already getting closer to machines like the ones in the first movie. It is hardly a stretch of the imagination that one day these disciplines will be so advanced that they could very well build such machines. But I don't see anything even remotely resembling the "mercury" robot of the second movie anywhere in the horizon. As for time-travel: theoretically conceivable, but just too difficult/complex to attempt to carry it out, at least currently. No, I can’t say that I’m necessarily keeping up with all the advancements in robotics. Not exactly my forte. But I wasn’t debating the plausibility of robotics in the future, but stating that all of scientific elements of the Terminator films are of course based on things not yet achievable or could very well never be achievable, thus I don’t find one to be more believable than the other. Of course there is research being done in these fields, even the liquid metal/nanotechnology, but that really has no bearing on the films. One shouldn’t need to have done research on current or future technology to enjoy or compare these things within the context of a film. So with that in mind, within the context of a film involving time travel and robots with living tissue, liquid metal technology is not that much of a stretch.

[JDP]

No, I can’t say that I’m necessarily keeping up with all the advancements in robotics. Not exactly my forte. But I wasn’t debating the plausibility of robotics in the future, but stating that all of scientific elements of the Terminator films are of course based on things not yet achievable or could very well never be achievable, thus I don’t find one to be more believable than the other. Of course there is research being done in these fields, even the liquid metal/nanotechnology, but that really has no bearing on the films. One shouldn’t need to have done research on current or future technology to enjoy or compare these things within the context of a film. So with that in mind, within the context of a film involving time travel and robots with living tissue, liquid metal technology is not that much of a stretch. I am talking about reality here, not just what the movies show. When you take both into account, the first movie is waaaaaaaay more realistic/believable than the second one. I first saw the first Terminator movie when it came out in 1984, and even back then, with the less advanced computers and robotics of those times, I could already easily see the plausibility of the machines shown in that movie (there is even one great scene in the movie, when the Terminator, during the pursuit of its prey, watches the computer-controlled robotic arms of the automatized 1980s factory; this is very obviously intentional. Here we have this advanced machine of the future coming face to face with what can easily be seen as his "remote ancestors".) Now, 34 years later, I can see it even more. But I still see no signs whatsoever of anything remotely resembling that fanciful "mercury" machine of the second movie.

[Neil]

The second movie was certainly intended to be more appealing to a younger audience; for example, it relies more on action than the first one, which is more well-balanced between action and slower-paced plot & character development, building up atmosphere, tension, etc. Younger audiences tend to get "bored" with slower paced movies. And T2 also introduced a too fanciful element that the first one did not have: the "mercury" robot, which the younger audiences might more easily swallow, but the older more critical audience will have a very hard time to try to accept. This is, after all, a science-fiction story, not a sword & sorcery one. You can get away with more fanciful stuff in pure fantasy movies, even with adults, who are willing to be more open minded and less critical about highly unlikely stuff, but not so much with science-fiction properly. There needs to be a basic degree of "believability/possibility" in order to make truly good sci-fi movies. Again, I can't equate a film appealing to older/younger people as "quality?" And as for the liquid metal being unrealistic... Possibly, but I'm happy to take a single leap of faith as long as the rules are fairly solid a robust... Again, I get where you're coming from. But as overall films I love them both. T1 was more original and ground breaking. T2 was probably the more interesting ride overall. For me at least... Anyway, we're taking this thread off topic

[beat_truck]

I am talking about reality here, not just what the movies show. When you take both into account, the first movie is waaaaaaaay more realistic/believable than the second one. I first saw the first Terminator movie when it came out in 1984, and even back then, with the less advanced computers and robotics of those times, I could already easily see the plausibility of the machines shown in that movie (there is even one great scene in the movie, when the Terminator, during the pursuit of its prey, watches the computer-controlled robotic arms of the automatized 1980s factory; this is very obviously intentional. Here we have this advanced machine of the future coming face to face with what can easily be seen as his "remote ancestors".) Now, 34 years later, I can see it even more. But I still see no signs whatsoever of anything remotely resembling that fanciful "mercury" machine of the second movie. YOU may be talking about reality, but nobody else is. No offense, but you seem to take all of this stuff entirely too seriously. Movies are entertainment, not reality. They aren't usually made to analyse every single detail under a microscope and compare it to what is real and fact.

[bassman]

I am talking about reality here, not just what the movies show. Well, therein lies the issue that’s given a stalemate. As I stated a few times in my previous post, my points were taking into account only what the viewer is presented within the context of the film.

[JDP]

YOU may be talking about reality, but nobody else is. No offense, but you seem to take all of this stuff entirely too seriously. Movies are entertainment, not reality. They aren't usually made to analyse every single detail under a microscope and compare it to what is real and fact. How else are you going to estimate how "believable/realistic" a movie is unless you compare it with... you guessed it: REALITY! There is no other way. Plus this is a sci-fi flick. There is supposed to be "science" elements involved in the story-line, that's why these kinds of movies are judged by different standards than a pure fantasy movie, where the viewer is given more liberty to suspend disbelief.

[beat_truck]

How else are you going to estimate how "believable/realistic" a movie is unless you compare it with... you guessed it: REALITY! There is no other way. Plus this is a sci-fi flick. There is supposed to be "science" elements involved in the story-line, that's why these kinds of movies are judged by different standards than a pure fantasy movie, where the viewer is given more liberty to suspend disbelief. I guess you don't quite understand the purpose of entertainment. Spoiler alert! It's not always intended to be believable or realistic.

[JDP]

I guess you don't quite understand purpose of entertainment. Spoiler alert! It's not always intended to be believable or realistic. When it comes to sci-fi flicks, you bet this plays an important part. Otherwise it is not "science" fiction, just fiction.