Has anyone watched this and what did you think of it?

[Anonymous]

[Kaneki05]

It's good and you'll watch it thinking how the hell did this get cancelled. It's really good.

I saw it on blue ray in a chairty shop and bought it right away I saw it years back but remember it been good, going to watch it again of course.

[Asker]

Like it's not as good as the movies but it's not as bad as people say

[Kaneki05]

I don't know it beats all movies but T2. Nothing beats T2 of course.
My list would go T2, Chronicles, Salvation, T3, T1 I never liked T1 but tbf I saw T2 first so it was going back to a much less in depth film of basic robot chases woman to kill her.
Than the other films which go more into about the actual aftermath and machine vs humans on a whole.

[Asker]

I was talking about T2

[Kaneki05]

You said movies. Implying more than one not just T2.

[Asker]

Which movie did you like most

[Kaneki05]

Like is said T2 by far the best.

[Asker]

Do you like T3

[Kaneki05]

Apart from the terminator been hot not really.

I thought the idea that it was doomed to happen anyway and John had to be in a bunker just watch it happen was quite a good idea actually but the film just isn't a good film.
Good dark ending though.

[abc3643]

I think it was a brand extension / cash grab which is what the entertainment industry has fallen to after 50 years.

[Kaneki05]

No it was really good, but people like yourself didn't give it chance sadly.

[abc3643]

@Kaneki05 Oh I didn't say it was good or bad. As to the content and the production, I have no comment. That said Lena Headey is very good-looking and, for that reason, perhaps should not have played Sarah Connor. Same with Summer Glau's terminator character since the John Connor character was old enough to wanna get it on with her/it.

[Kaneki05]

Your arguing against attractive actors? You and me do not have compitable thoughts lol

Also Summer been attractive is a plot point in the show from what I remember. As she looks based on a future woman that John knows in the future possibly girlfriend?

But honestly been years so can't remember but still attractive actors are good.

[abc3643]

@Kaneki05 Attractive actors are good. And, yes, Summer Plau's "Cameron" is based on a real female. However, while Linda Hamilton was an attractive woman when she made the Terminator movies, Lena Headey is sufficiently attractive that her character becomes unplausible.

Let me put this another way...

In "The Terminator" from 1984, Linda Hamilton was an attractive 27 year old actress but not stunning so it could be believable that Sarah Connor would not have much of a life or had a boyfriend. We could see how she would have evolved between "The Terminator" and "Terminator 2" made 7 years later but taking place about 11 to 12 years later (which would be 1996 just before "Judgment Day").

Had Lena Headey been 27 and cast in the original the 1984 film (she was 13 when it came out), a 27-year old Headey's Sarah Connor would have been unbelievable as not having a life or a boyfriend. She's just too good-looking - especially at that age.

Here's Lena Headey in 2000 when she was 27.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-Lgf2SbWzI

Can you imagine that girl playing the 1984 Sarah Connor?
No, of course not. She'd be out partying and getting her brains fucked-out. In the words of Heidi Gardner in the Beavis and Butthead AI SNL sketch, "I was pretty, so I was going to parties and hooking-up."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86qKgK0asGo

[Kaneki05]

Films don't have to be that realistic, they didn't need to hire someone older and try to fit to the original actress.
Hell trying to fit in the original actress could be a bad idea like Terminator Dark Fate... Which was way more of a cash grab than this show.

I do get your point she is younger for the role but eh I watched it and found no problem with it, I think they just found a good actress who they wanted for the role and it worked.

[abc3643]

For a lot of fiction films, television, and books, there is something called "suspension of disbelief". I will let Google Gemini explain it.
https://g.co/gemini/share/49ba800f48f2

PROMPT: What does the term "suspension of disbelief" mean and why is it important?

RESPONSE:
"Suspension of disbelief" is a term coined by the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge. It refers to the audience's willingness to temporarily set aside their skepticism and accept the fictional world presented in a story, even if it contains elements that are unrealistic or improbable. It's like a silent agreement between the storyteller and the audience to pretend that what's being portrayed is real, for the sake of enjoying the narrative.

Why is it important? Because without suspension of disbelief, stories wouldn't work. If we constantly questioned every little detail that didn't align with our real-world experiences, we'd never be able to get invested in the characters, the plot, or the themes. We'd be too busy picking apart the mechanics of the story instead of experiencing its emotional impact.

(more)

[abc3643]

Think about it:

* Fantasy and Science Fiction: These genres rely heavily on suspension of disbelief. We need to accept magic, fantastical creatures, spaceships traveling faster than light, and other impossible things to enjoy these stories.

* Realistic Fiction: Even in stories that aim to depict reality, some degree of suspension of disbelief is necessary. Narrative is inherently selective; it can't capture every single moment of a person's life. We accept that the story is a condensed and edited version of reality.

* Emotional Engagement: Suspension of disbelief allows us to connect with characters and their experiences on an emotional level. We empathize with them, even if their situations are far removed from our own lives. This emotional connection is a key part of what makes stories meaningful.

* Immersion: A successful suspension of disbelief allows us to become fully immersed in the story world. We forget, for a time, that we're reading a book or watching a movie, and we become part of the narrative.

In short, suspension of disbelief is the magic ingredient that allows stories to transport us to other worlds, explore different ideas, and ultimately, have a powerful impact on us. It's the bridge between the fictional and the real, allowing us to experience things beyond the boundaries of our own lives.

(more)

[abc3643]

So, depending on the story (or the universe of the story), once suspension of disbelief is shattered, the audience "tunes out" and doesn't care any longer.

I think a classic example is the immediate and almost instantaneous failure of the 1990 heavily-hyped ABC show "Cop Rock".

It was supposed to be the next big thing in cop shows. My girlfriend and I tuned in...
The first minute or two is an action-packed large-scale arrest in an inner city neighborhood.
As the perp is being arrested, is in cuffs, and about to be placed in the cop car, he breaks out in song... He's singing... This is a musical. Someone being arrested - a rather traumatic experience - breaks out in song. My girlfriend and I instantly burst out laughing and turned it off. So did the rest of America.

Why?

No one could believe that a perp being arrested would start singing. Cops and musicals don't mix - especially if you don't know it's a musical to begin with.

So, as you see, suspension of disbelief is critical to keeping your audience or even attracting one.

I warn you before you watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX3U2QMjZRo

[abc3643]

Excerpt from:
brightlightsfilm.com/.../
Something to Sing About: Why Cop Rock Fails
Katharine Coldiron
May 9, 2021
...

Police procedurals, on the whole, intend to display realism. To a fault, perhaps. Writers of cop shows try to tackle current issues, consult with real police officers, be gritty. Nothing about a police procedural communicates that you’re watching a fantasy. It asks of its audience only minimal suspension of disbelief: the ordinary kind of “get metaphysically absorbed in these small moving pictures that are plainly simulacra.” What we’re asked to believe once we’re in there is not different from what could conceivably happen if we were living in the circumstances depicted by the show.

Compare this to the audience investment required in a musical, with its proliferation of fantasy. Everything about a musical is fake – not simulated, as with many fictions, but falsely conceived. In the course of their ordinary lives, people do not ever behave as they commonly do in musicals.

In short, a cop show asks its audience to believe we’re watching something real, while a musical contracts with its audience to watch something artificial. Blending these two genres was just never going to work. Or, at least, it wasn’t going to work under these circumstances – in 1990, on television, with the demands of a major network in play.
==========

With Lena Headey's Sarah Connor and, to a certain extent, Summer Glau's Cameron, the suspension of disbelief is an onerous task. Furthermore, most viewers realize these women are cast solely as eye candy for the nerdy guys who are the target audience for the show.

[Kaneki05]

It's not any easier than accepting why do Robots and Humans have to come back naked when time travelling.
And how would humans and robots survive both the same kind of travel if materials can screw up the journey.

So if you want to go into this like you said you would be nit picking the entire story. Where as hot actress anyone with a brain can understand that in moment.
Or even hot character.
Most stories don't intentionally make ugly women, and everyone knows why because nobody really wants that anyway.

But try and explain why on earth do robots and humans need to come back naked. Which is more unrealistic and harder to explain?
Like did we need to see a naked Arnold?
Not really but no questions it because the reality is who cares it's not the problem. Nether is a hot actress lol. But in a tier list I would say that naked problem is actually worse as it makes sense in the lore nor for filming purposes.

[Kaneki05]

Makes no sense in the lore*

[abc3643]

@Kaneki05 I understand what you are saying and I am not nitpicking. Since I didn't watch the show, it wasn't because of Lena Headey (although, as beautiful as she is, that was a hit against my suspension of disbelief). In short, I was busy; my life has evolved past TV for the most part - I just do not have time to "appointment view" TV anymore (like we did before streaming) and, since I am terrible at "on-demand viewing" (because I can procrastinate so I do), I just don't watch much of anything anymore.

My original answer to this question holds: It's a brand extension / cash grab which is the sort of thing that's been going on since the dawn of TV.

As for the "lore" of "The Terminator", I am not obsessed about it. I loved the original movie when it came out and I was OK at the time with the time travel suspension of disbelief.

(more)

[abc3643]

On a complete tangent, first, you need to know that I got my physics BS 40 years ago.
If I was to be the architect of a science fiction universe for TV, books, or movies, here are my fundamental commandments:
0. Have a "show bible" for the universe. Under no circumstances are any plot points inconsistent with the show bible.
1. No time travel. None, whatsoever in any form.
2. No mirror universes or similar bullshit. (Like the Star Trek episode "Bread and Circuses" in which, on this one planet, it was the Roman Empire in the 20th Century and they called themselves "Romans". Bullshit.)
3. No incorporeal extraterrestrials.
4. No superbeings.
5. No extraterrestrials that "feed off emotions" or similar bullshit.
6. Avoid beings that exist in other dimensions.
7. No humanoid extraterrestrials unless there is a valid reason that is central to the universe of the story.
8. No sound in space. Realism is paramount like in "2001: A Space Odyssey".
9. No "everyone speaks English". A "universal translator" (whose operation is clear and plausible) is acceptable to permit English to be heard.
10. (Filming directive) No queasy-cam, cinema verité bullshit. Minimize CGI but CGI aliens are permissible.

and, of course, all of these rules would be in the show bible.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_(screenwriting)

[abc3643]

oh, I forgot something big...

9.5 No psychic / ESP crap (*). Especially clairvoyance.

(*) ... unless there is a consistent working theory in the show bible that explains psychic any psychic phenomena that is subject to scientific theory and experimentation.

[Kaneki05]

It's just a underrated show that got canned when it shouldn't have. So it's annoying if dismissed as cash grab. They obviously wanted to make profit and yes it's of an existing IP but that don't mean it was a cash grab.
If we class a good effort show as a cash grab based on just that we paint with such a broad bush it don't matter, and then we might as well be saying every show needs to be an original and we can't have franchises no more.

And no don't worry I don't really blame you for not watching it, reflecting I came off a bit harsh there. I was meaning not yourself but the idea it's self. Many had that thought 'Oh it's a cash grab.' which then leads to oh it must be trash or why care etc.

We should only be calling things cash grabs when they are just that, messy effort just to make money. Also applying it so broadly would mean even original films are just cash grabs because I am sure they didn't make T1 to fail profit.

[Kaneki05]

On your random tangent, all good commandments to follow for sure if looked at logically.
Which can help, however look at how many successful stories have all those things against what they are, these things don't really matter if you can capture what the audience wants.
It's emotional than logical.

That's something I know as a writer, and been someone who lives and breaths fiction. You want a balance of both really that's what makers a grasping story. One way would be to clinical the other would be to dumb lol.

[abc3643]

@Kaneki05 That's true. Lots of things to enjoy that violate those commandments.

[Abbycado]

Nope, hadn’t even heard of it until now.

[Asker]

It carries on from terminator judgement day it was a TV series

[Abbycado]

Ah, got it.

[Asker]

You should check it out

[douride2]

What is this a new tv series?

[Anonymous]

Not interested.

[Anonymous]

I watched it, and I liked it.

[Asker]

The only thing I didn't like about it was that thay gave Sarah black hair when in the movie's she has dark blonde hair

[Opinion Owner]

Yes, we agree on that.

[Anonymous]

I thought Summer Glau was the girl in this.

[Anonymous]

I can't Stand it.