In defense of this video, he wasn't revealed as Aberforth's son until the following film. The lie presented to him (and the audience) by Grindelwald at the end of the second film was the (apparent) truth until the reveal in the next film.
@AustynSN I can agree with you that It was not mentioned how he was a Dumbledore at the end of the film. However, this video states that he was Dumbledore's brother. It had already been revealed he was Aberforth's son by the time this video was released. So, you should not defend the fact that this video chose to say he was revealed as Dumbledore's brother with nothing to back up this claim...while also already knowing this was inaccurate. This is simply a script error by this video's staff.
The Cloverfield Paradox DID answer where the monster came from. When the space station activated that machine, it tore a hole into alternate universes. The monster(s) came through the hole from one of those universes. The one seen at the end was either a different one from the first movie, or the whole movie takes place in another universe from the first one. Meaning multiple monsters entered multiple different worlds.
"Last Christmas" is basically the "Sixth Sense" of romantic comedies. Nine times out of ten, if a certain character is only ever seen interacting with one person, or only has one outfit, then they're likely dead, or a figment of their imagination.
The 4 rules of plot twists: 1. It's not predictable (obviously) 2. It's not to unpredictable (it can't just come out of nowhere) 3. It makes sense (people can look back and rewatch the story and it makes sense) 4. It actually affects the plot and characters in some impactful way (never do a plot twist for the sake of having a twist, it has to mean something) If you fail at any of these then the twist won't work. Maybe a 5th rule is never go back on a twist, like how rise of skywalker went back on the last jedi twist, if youbmske a twist then you need to follow through on it (which in a way is rule 4). But along with that you can do misleading twists and red herrings.
Both franchises after part 2 feel like studios trying to cash in on Intellectual property rather than finding a director who has an interesting idea. Alien 1 & 2 are very different movies but both are examples of a creative idea executed according to one persons vision. Alien 3 is David Fincher’s worst movie, made before he had the power to tell the studio to but out.
I see Alien 3 as being a bad dream Ripley had in hypersleep on her way back to earth with Newt, Hicks, and Bishop. I do that with Alien Resurrection also. Try it, it works.
Actually, I don't mind the twist in "Last Christmas." It's incredibly sad, of course. But it doesn't bother me all that much. And it makes sense, seeing as no one but Kate interacts with Tom. Quite frankly, there really is no point in whining about the plot twist because it's OBVIOUS that Tom is either dead or a figment of Kate's imagination.
Exactly. And like... I felt like the twist wasn't that Tom was dead (or even that it was meant to be a "full blown" twist in the first place), it was supposed to be that Kate has been struggling to find reasons to keep living. Picking apart a movie that was really about being open to meeting people and accepting love/living life just because someone was revealed to have died is just kind of... annoying to me. I saw that movie in theaters with my sister and my father-in-law, and while I'd figured out the "twist" long before it was revealed, that didn't take from my enjoyment of the movie at all.
Aside from ruining the character John Connor, Terminator Genisys and Terminator Dark Fate both were meant to restart the franchise and create sequels that would involve a temporal cold war storyline. Great on paper but Hollywood has nowhere near the creative story writing talent to pull it off even with James Cameron lending a hand
The Dark Fate twist not only is a slap in the face to fans of the franchise, but it also makes the entire series irrelevant and not make any sense or have any weight. The entire premise of the Terminator series' was that John Connor was so incredibly integral to the future humans ability to contend against Skynet. If successfully killing John Connor just results in someone else becoming the new person to take charge, that just shows that there IS no significant individual to make such a difference and Skynet may as well not even bother trying. Whoever they kill, someone else will just rise up in their place. In which case, Dark Fate and any future theoretical movies just dont matter as there is no reason we as the audience should care about whether such and such terminator kills their target or not. Hell, it also makes no sense that Skynet would ever bother sending more terminators to the past as at that point the only realistic solution to Skynet's problem is the total annihilation of the human race which was already the course of action they were attempting in the first place.
Yep. I always wanted to see that war and adult John Connor both starting the resistance and winning in the end, but the studios seem unable to do even that right, that only effort was a damn mess, and why the hell didn't they just focus on John Connor as the main character and the leader in that movie in the first place but tried to make the whole thing more complicated, with a twist or two... damn I'm getting bloody bored with plot twists, at least when it's sequels to stories that already hinted at what would happen next and it seemed to be pretty straightforward. With Terminators: if Skynet is still created after T2 and the machines attack humans, or we are shown the original alternate timeline the Terminators and Kyle Reese came from, an adult John Connor then still starts the resistance, leads it, is damn good doing that, humans win, they use the time machine a couple of times and then destroy it, the end. Just take a few pointers from any good old WWII war film for the plots.
In the case of the last Christmas movie other than the trailers, it's obvious because the song the movie's named after is last Christmas. I gave you my heart
I'm so glad somebody is talking about this, cloverfield Paradox's so-called connection to the OG cloverfield was lazy and stupid. And I'm so glad that Matt Reeves is doing a proper sequel to the original and has said that the monster is, in fact, an alien that we saw crash in the ocean. Please don't let jj abrams have ANY input in the film.
She was fine and Jai Courtney was good too as Kyle Reese. He just can't catch a brake with the movies he appears in as they usually are not well received. There also seems to be quite vocal group of people that some reason hates him and come out of woodwork to blame him of any movie that does not do well that he is in. Still the whole second act of the movie was bad and John Connor being a Terminator was just bad decision.
@@Wezqu Lol. Jai Courtney can't catch a break? There are people in Hollywood saying Emilia Clarke is cursed. As if it's her fault the writers for the projects she gets involved with keep screwing up.
Cloverfield Paradox did explain everything. The ship tore a hole in the invisible barrier between dimensions/universes and the monsters entered our reality and others. The general idea is that the monster from the first movie was not full grown. It was adolescent and searching for it's mother. The monster at the end of Paradox was full grown. All 3 movies are very likely to happen within 3 separate realities that give us 3 different perspectives of the major event meaning they're all taking place around the same time
Terminator: Dark Fate - Edward Furlong is a trainwreck now. Having him come back to play an adult John Conner would have been a disaster. So, did the fans want the part recast? Did they want John just written out of the movie? Did they want CGI used to paste all three actors' faces on standins for the entire movie? Or did they want a drugged out Furlong playing the part? Because none of those options is all that appealing to me.
Adult John Connor has already been played by at least 4 actors, 5 if you count that alternate ending to T2 that shows Sarah as an old woman looking at an adult John playing with his child, I would not have had any problems with recasting if they found a good actor. Most movie characters who keep appearing in long-running franchises will be played by several different actors anyway, and while Edward Furlong did a good child version of John Connor why the hell would only he be right for the adult version? He might still have been totally wrong even if he hadn't become a wreck as an adult.
@@pohjanakka4992 No need to invoke the alternate ending to T2, the same actor played the adult John Conner at the start of the movie while Sarah is describing the situation. That was set in a time when Sarah was much older though. As for the other actors, Cameron has said that in his mind, only The Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, and Terminator: Dark Fate are canon. Finally, a big deal was made about not only Arnold being in it, but also Linda Hamilton returning. Typically, the most respected franchises are the ones who DON'T recast characters, unless it's absolutely necessary, such as with the death of the previous actor. Recasting a character automatically lowers the movie's credibility a notch. Many feel like "If this was a good movie, all the original actors would have wanted to return.
right!..i was like, wtf?!..and then followed with a shtty movie where the entire first half Ripley flat out refused to divulge what she suspected at the very beginning (a xeno was there), led to unnecessary stupid deaths
John Connor had no more story left to tell. his fate changed the minute they destroyed Cyberdyne in T2, by then he was just a normal kid. if anything, they completely ruined Sarah Connor by killing her off off-screen in T3.
i could be wrong but creedence became aberforth's son? I thought that twist was reasonable since aberforth is barely mentioned in the books so why would they mention his son?
you're right, but the problem is that we as the audience didn't know that yet. The Crimes of Grindelwald specifically stated that Credence is Albus' brother, only for The Secrets of Dumbledore to correct that by saying Grindelwald lied to him and that he is Albus' nephew.
John Connor becoming a terminator POST the original timeline I think works fun. IF they hadn't shown it literally in the trailers AND if they hadn't shown Matt Smith lurking obviously evil, I still stand that this would've been an interesting point. and would really fit well with 1 and 2 and casaulity.
I think it might have worked if there had been a sequel where the story was of his parents figuring out a way to save their son from that fate after they find out they didn't manage to stop Skynet - again - after all. Badly, partly due to pretty badly miscasting Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese. And after that we maybe would finally have seen the adult John Connor being what the first movie promised he would become, an all around badass and great leader who wins that war. But as the whole franchise goes the lack of that - never showing the adult leader John Connor just glimpsed in that first movie - has been the biggest disappointment, the only time they have tried to show the actual war and adult John Connor he wasn't really the main character, or at least not the main one, and he wasn't yet the leader running the whole thing, which, at least to me, was also a big disappointment because the impression from the first movie was that he was the one who not only ended up leading and winning the human war effort but also STARTED the whole human resistance. I have been hoping for that movie the whole time after we saw the first one, but looks like we will never get it. As things are, my headcanon is pretty much that nothing real happened after T2, everything else is maybe something like nightmares Sarah Connor, and John, occasionally had during their lives.
Alien 3 The Director's cut is brilliant. While it sucked that Newt and Hicks were killed it did fit in with the overall bleakness of the movie. Ripley was doomed from the get go. Her sacrifice at the end would have seemed selfish if she were leaving Newt.
the thing with Dark Fate was that the future didn't need John Connor anymore. Sarah and young John changed their future by destroying Cyberdyne. So the timeline had to readjust and find an alternate route to Judgement Day because it's a fixed point in time. in the new future timeline they created, John Connor isn't mankind's savior. time/fate chose a different savior. at least, that's how i see it.
Both movies are decent enjoyable flicks, they don't deserve the hate they get. OG fans can't let go of their delusions and fantasies about certain characters...
The thing that Dark Fate ignores is Sarah's own character. In Terminator 3 (yes, I know it's not considered canon), it makes the point that Sarah never truly believed Skynet/AI was gone and so she and John continued to hide. This also happened in the Terminator TV show. These both feel like an accurate portrayal of the path the justifiably paranoid Sarah would take. (As an aside, in T2 they failed to stop Skynet anyway, just delayed it by a year or so - the new processor was all but complete and off-site backups of data have been standard practice for decades). But in Dark Fate, Sarah is suddenly so happy and optimistic about humanity and the future that she and John go on holiday as themselves ??? That just doesn't ring true to her character. As for the Arnie terminator, once it completed it's primary mission, it seems much more likely that it would hide in a cave and shutdown, or would have been given a secondary mission, such as ensure Skynet happens (Again, the TV show has Skynet send back terminators just to ensure the steps toward it's creation are followed and that it has materials available for it's future war against humanity).
The only thing worse than the beginning of Alien 3 having two great figures dead is the book 2.5. A story squeezed between the movies that is just a stupid money grab where Ripley has her memory wiped about another alien attack
Originally I was was glad that they chose their ambiguous ending for Terminator 2. But after the string of terrible movies since that film I chose to think of the alternate ending with an old Sarah Conner watching an adult John playing with his daughter in a clearly not-blown-up-by-skynet world as canon, because it means the story ends there and there are no sequels.
I've always said that every movie is a different split in the timeline, due to Skynet and the Resistance meddling with the past too much. The first film existed in it's own singular loop, but split the moment Skynet decided to send the T-1000 back. The cut ending could be considered the "main" ending, but also just one of many more futures that split from the end of T2. That's all just my headcanon though.
Am I the only one who saw the 6th Sense twist coming from the opening scene? Bruce Willis is literally shot in the first moment of the movie and then spends the next 2 hours NOT interacting with anyone other than a boy who says directly to the audience: "I see dead people." C'mon man!
It was a good twist because there were so many clues all through the movie. But, especially if you go in knowing there is a twist, the clues can give the twist away to some. On rewatch it is really obvious
@@andreasmeelie1889 Your way sounds like a much better way to enjoy the movie. At least you were only upset at the end. I was annoyed the entire time, having to restrain myself from yelling in the theater: "The twist better not be that he's dead!" LOL
Someone told me the twist BEFORE I saw the movie so my first viewing of the film was everyone else's second. You see it completely different if you know the twist beforehand. Some might not have clued in, simply because it was TOO obvious a twist. "I see dead people" says the kid. Yes but he can see everyone else too so why would you assume that Bruce's character is dead based just on that one line?
The only two parts of the story that mattered were his relationships and interactions with the kid and with his wife, and both of those things made perfect sense in context. How many times do couples having marriage troubles just not talk to each other? We're given subtle indications of his job, of having talked to people offscreen, like when we see him sitting with the mother. We see him interacting with the physical world and moving objects. He never saw any other ghosts himself. Everything could've easily just been framed as the stylistic choices of a director trying to be artsy. Regardless of people who saw through it, it was a masterfully-crafted twist that did catch most people, myself included.
Except Specter is telegraphed all the back in Casino Royale, and then alluded to again in Quantum of Solace. It is made entirely clearly that an unnamed organization is behind literally everything. While you're correct in saying that Specter fell short of Skyfall, the entire point concerning retcon and undermining previous villains is nonsense.
7:59 - The twist in High Tension isn't exactly random. Halfway through the movie, there's a scene where the *killer* has tied up Alex and left her on the floor. Marie finds her and hides beside Alex, but makes no effort to untie her, or even take the gag out of her mouth, although the door to the room was shut, and she could have silently freed Alex. From that point on, I knew something was wrong with Marie. While I didn't expect her to turn out to be the killer herself, I expected her to be in cahoots with him all along. So, not a random twist at all.
That movie scared me so badly, I had to cut it off halfway through and watch the second half the next day during daylight 😂😂. I won't lie, I didn't suspect a thing.
I hated Cloverfield. 8:10 How did that punish fans? IT'S SAID THAT YOU WOULD DESTROY THE TERMINATOR NOT JOIN THEM! I never felt like the Terminator franchise punished me. I didn't realize people threw a hissy fit over it.
It's just such a waste of a twist. John turning out to be the T-3000 could've been a brilliant plot twist if he pretended to be human and spent the vast majority of the film working alongside his parents to "stop the next skynet" only for it to be revealed in the final act that John is a terminator and he's actually been manipulating his parents into creating the next skynet.
I get why so many don't like it but killing off newt and hicks didn't bother me. I would have preferred it didn't happen off screen but them dying was not an issue. From part 1 the series was going to be a lone survivor type story. If they didn't kill them off in the beginning of part 3 they probably would have killed them off as the story went on. Ripley was the main hero. I also may be in the minority here but I think the biggest mistake for Terminator Dark Fate was that it got made in the first place. I personally hate when people try to start a story by saying we are going to pretend all of this never happened. No. Write a good story within the universe that already exists. While I love the character Sarah Conner and Linda Hamilton is great in the role, the story was never about her. Her son was the target from the very beginning. She was targeted only because they wanted to prevent her from ever giving birth in the first place.
I found Terminator Dark Fate to be worse than Terminator Genysis honestly. It felt like a very poor effort to retcon girl power a series that already had one of the best female character arcs in action movie history. So unnecessary
Um did you not watch Cloverfield Paradox? It’s literally explained that the particle accelerator opens doors to other dimensions across time and space. It’s a weak explanation but still an explanation
The movie In Darkness was about a blind woman who hears a murder in the apartment above her. Throughout the movie we see her going through her daily life and other events with the accommodations and struggles that come with being blind. And then at the end it is revealed that she was never blind and the movie stops making sense. Things she did while alone that showed her struggles with blindness now make zero sense and the whole movie is ruined. Before that reveal I quite enjoyed the movie, but that ending ruined it.
Part of the reason they killed off John Connor in Dark Fate was due to Edward Furlong having been in rehab at the time. They didn't want to recast him, but he has been an alcoholic for years. I saw a recent interview with him, and he said that he would have been glad to to return to the role, but they didn't ask due to him being literally unable to do so. Also, I personally liked it, as it showed the ahead thinking that Skynet did, which is reflected in the Officially Licensed Roleplaying game. The plot of the game is you are playing Resistance trying to stop all the Terminators that have been sent back to kill various other important to the future people. Heck, one story is actually the opposite, though it's understood the characters should be reluctant to kill a human, the Terminator in that story is actually there by Skynet to protect someone, not kill them.
but if they kill john and it still made no difference because someone else can still get it done...then the whole point of the movies (protecting John to takedown skynet in the future) is senseless from the very beginning.
Hot take. The Terminator Dark Fate twist makes sense as without Skynet existing, there's no Kyle Reese to get Sarah Connor Pregnant or even go back in time in the first place. I therefore see it as the logical conclusion of the paradox. Not sure if I've explained this properly but I hope people know what I mean.
Except it doesn't. In the Dark Fate timeline, John Conner never exists; so Kyle Reese (assuming he even exists - which is not gauranteed) never hears stories about Sarah Conner and never falls in love with her. Even if he does exist, he's never sent back in time (as the movie itself addresses - the people of the future have no idea who Sarah or John Conner are) so John Conner is never born. Yet John Conner exists in the movie to be killed by a terminator. Meaning Kyle Reese must have been sent back in time. Paradoxes have no conclusion. That's why they're paradoxes. Trying to 'conclude' them is impossible. Edited for clarity because time travel is stupid.
I immediately walked out of Dark Fate when John Connor was killed. I was that upset. Never seen the rest of the movie. I don’t care how good it is. It completely betrayed the entire franchise
I’d hardly say I felt “punished” by High Tension. Yes, it was a dumb, nonsensical twist that elicited a groan but the film was still a great slasher with excessive gore and Muse on the soundtrack. Plus who, exactly, we’re the “loyal fans”? It was only Aja’s second film so I can’t imagine there was a rabid fanbase eagerly anticipating his every move so, yet again, I think Mr Hyperbole has had his way with you guys and you need to maybe rethink the titles for some of your lists. You know, for those “loyal fans” of yours 🥴
Shyamalan became so invested in twists that it seemed like his filmmaking went offroad fast. The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable were fantastic. Split was pretty good. Everything else was mediocre at best, and awful otherwise.
While Dark Fate is not my favourite entry in the Terminator franchise, the death of John Connor makes perfect sense. Reverse Temporal Relocation (RTR), AKA travelling back in time, stories exist in one of three basic type. RTR1 are closed loop stories. These stories feature past events which lead into future events, which in turn lead into the past events. RTR2 are grandfather paradox stories. These stories tell a story where time travellers alter the past and create a paradox which they somehow escape and must then set right. RTR3 are multiverse stories. In a multiverse story there is an alternate timeline for every possible outcaome, from every possible decission or action. While nultiverse stories let you avoid having to worry about the Grandfather paradox, you operate under the assumption that for every good outcome, there is a negative outcome. T1 is a closed loop story. It sets up that BOTH John Connor and Skynet were created by RTR events. Kyle Reese fathered John, and the original T-800 was used to create Skynet. T2 is a badly told grandfather paradox story. It is badly told because by destroying all links to the future you can not have John standing there at the end, as his fate is tied to Skynet's. You can't have John Connor without also having Skynet. By preventing Skynet from coming into being you also prevent John Connor from existing. There needed to be an explanation for how, even if only in a voice over, or a post credit scene of another Terminator looking exactly like Miles Dyson murdering his family, showing us that Skynet will survive. T3 used the idea of the multiverse and while following on directly from the events of the theatrical release of T2, changed events, such as the date of judgement day in an effort to get the franchise back on track. All other films and TV shows stuck to this multiverse idea, even if only loosely. Salvation, while acknowledging the three prior films, steared away from the whole time travel element. Genymess (I refuse to use its proper title) is a mess, but does include RTR events from multiple future events so at least stays with the multiverse. T:SCC (Sarah Connor Chronicles) has many episodes exploring different future timeline, usually through Derek Reese. Which brings us back to Dark Fate. Dark Fate is a direct continuation of T2, in that it directly follows on from the events of T2, but once again it is a multiverse story, because it does include both John Connor and Carl (a T-800 with a Cyberdine Systems model 101 infiltration sheath). However remember what was set up in T1. John and Skynet are linked. You can't have one without the other. In other words so long as John Connor still lived, then Skynet would also survive. The opening of Dark Fate is about closing that last door to the Skynet timeline. With the death of John, Sarah now finds herself in the Legion timeline. Because there is no John Connor, there needed to be a new leader to unite humanity against Legion. As much as we may like, that can't be John Connor, as Sarah can't teach him about what she doesn't know, and she only knows about Skynet because Kyle Reese told her. Enter Dani Ramos, the new future saviour of mankind. The Dark Fate timline does also solve one more problem. You can't keep trying to retell the same story by constantly shifting the date of Judgement Day, because John Connor was concieved in 1984, and was either born in late 84 or 1985. John Connor has to be young enough, and fit enough to survive Judgement Day, as well as the early years of the Future War until he can rally the forces of man against the machines. He also needs to be old enough that people won't simply dismiss him as being a kid, or so old that he's too weak and frail to be of any use to those fighting the future war. For me, Salvation had the right idea. Stay in the future war. T5 should have been about John and Kyle trying to survive, while John teaches Kyle everything he needs to know, so that Kyle can go back in time to save Sarah. T6 again should have stuck in the Future War and ended with the final assault on Skynet, and ended with Kyle Reese getting ready to travel back in time. The franchise should have been left there. If anyone then wanted to return to it, it should have been done as a complete reboot. For the record my favourite films/TV series are in order T1 T:Salvation T:SCC T2 T3 or T:Dark Fate (these two are about equal and so listed together) T:Genymess (listed last and so far behind T3 or Dark Fate it barely registers).
Should have included, John Connor gets killed off in the opening of Terminator: Dark Fate EDIT: Oh, you did. Thank you. But no, it didn't do anything right. And all of Star Trek: Discovery since it undermines Star Trek: Voyager
i've only seen the first two and the last two Halloween movies. How would anyone recognize Michael Myers was the real Michael Myers if they only see him in the mask ?
The death of Newt and Hicks did not affect me whatsoever. So many people want to act like they were these absolutely vital characters that fans were in love with. I’m one of the biggest Alien fans you can find and I thought it went well with the story. I love Alien 3 and my only issue with it is some wonky CGI on the xenomorph.
yeah I had a big issue with Ripley flat out refusing to say ANYTHING for half of the movie about her constant growing suspicions that a xeno was loose there. It was obvious at the beginning and she knew it, but wanted to be in denial while the alien ran rampant
spectre was STUPID ... i get wanting a nod to the original movies, but the only response should have been "who the hell is blofeild? why does this name mean anything?"
Why did Connor have to be the T3000 is kind of obvious....turn your greatest adversary into your greatest ally...willing or not. Using anyone else would have made it just another terminator movie.
Obviously the Fantastic Beasts movies went off the rails and only the first one is any good - they should have just been about the fantastic beasts and Newt's adventures around the world. But trying to be fair to them, Grindelwald lying to Credence or telling him a half-truth makes sense, since he is the villain. And it was pretty much an assumption that Grindelwald insinuated that he was Albus' brother. It tried something that didn't work for it, but mostly because we didn't know what it actually meant until the follow-up. Should have just done it like The Rocky Horror Picture Show...
Regarding Aliens 3 ,those people complaining about Newt dying in between Aliens and Alien 3 aren’t thinking logically ‼️ if you’re setting your film on an all male prison ship what exactly would the role be for the child throughout the movie🧐?Still a 💩movie though!!
Oddly, I haven't really liked most of the Daniel Craig films outside of "Casino Royale", which was a high point for the entire franchise. "Quantum of Solace" was just terrible, I liked "Skyfall" up unto the point where they made Q a first-class moron (I could not forgive the writers for that). "SPECTRE" would have been a better film if the previous films had done more to establish there was a greater enemy. It still had flaws. "No Time To Die" had good concepts, but was marred because the villain existed to be a villain. He had his bio-weapon, but there was no indication of what he was going to do with it. I think the last Terminator film I saw was "Salvation", and I didn't like it. So much so that I never bothered with seeing another one. Honestly, I didn't like the second film all that much because they pushed the indestructability of the Terminator one or two steps too far. At least when I saw "Salvation" it was a the drive-in movie, and it played with "The Hangover" (which I unexpectedly enjoyed).
I liked Alien 3. It makes the series a trilogy. ”Resurrection”, on the other hand, doesn’t exist, or any prequels. I don’t understand how you could continue with Newt with that timespan, it would be impossible. Replace her with another actor? THAT would be a terrible decision.
I found 3 just ok and any movies after generally terrible. The Newt actor would have been 6+ years older plus the actress quit acting. She was too good to replace.
I liked Alien 3 too. It was darker and gritter. To be honest, I kept wanting Newt to die in Alien 2 because it was such an obvious thing, oh lets give the female heroine a kid to worry about so she cant do the regular badass things that the others are doing coz she has to worry about this brat's safety. Please. And no I dont believe, she could have survived alone that long at that age, by hiding the vents. The aliens would have found her LONG before the rescue ship had arrived and killed her or at least infected her. Better to have killed the kid early on to give Ripley a real motivation to go after the Queen(like she even needed one). Resurrection was interesting, because it shows what kind of abilities an alien/human hybrid would have. The series is a Quadrology and stops there. Alien Vs Predator are just alternative universe stories as far as I am concerned.
I disagree. Recasting can work, and there are always instances where just blandly killing them off is a worse disrespect to the character. And it felt like it trivialized the massive struggle that Ripley went through. Alien 3 made it feel like there had been no point in fighting at all, that you could never win against the Xenomorphs, so might as well give up. I hate bleak railroading like that.
@@Bllurr1 I hate that too, and most of all, I have gotten very, very tired of that because for years it seems to have been the only solution for any kind of horror sequel: any previous wins over the monsters turn out to have been meaningless, they always come back and again kill most of the characters, maybe apart from that one - who may or may not be the same one who survived in the previous movie - who seems to "win" in the end, except you know that if there is a sequel that "win" will be mostly meaningless. Again. All love interests, friends, or others who survived to the end of the movie before will now die. How about surprising us from time to time? The monster maybe comes back, but now they know it better and fight it better, and more people survive? Maybe even change the genre? Just a bit? From pure horror to horror thriller or adventure? Besides, with the Alien franchise, that genre change was exactly what was already done from the first movie to Aliens, Aliens was more of an action movie while Alien is pretty much pure horror. And it worked spectacularly well. Do NOT keep on repeating the same damn plot, play with that, play with the genre, make the franchise a continuing story, not just tired repeats of the first movie. In fact, that is what was done from the first Terminator movie to T2, and that worked pretty damn well too. And if not recasting they could always have kept Newt in cryosleep the whole time. Maybe have some minor malfunction in her machine that made waking her dangerous, they are waiting for a ship that would bring help for that, Ripley and Hicks are struggling to keep the chamber with her in it safe during the story. So while she is not seen during the story, except maybe just one scene of her being woken up in the end, she is still one of the motivations for Ripley and Hicks. And if they really wanted just Ripley then keep both Newt AND Hicks in cryosleep the whole movie... Or just go for a story where they have gotten somewhere, Earth or some human colony, and have been woken up several years ago, and Newt is now a teenager or near adult, and then they again have to face the xenomorphs, now as an established family. A lot easier to recast a character who was a child in the previous movie but is now a lot older.
Just try reading the book that features Ripley and is set between "Alien" and "Aliens". I actually liked "Resurrection" far more than I thought I would.
Alien 3 was six years after Aliens. Since they were in those things that make you sleep and not age. They couldn’t have the same actress play Newt. And recasting her would also be hated by audiences. So any sequel would either require her to die offscreen or have a very minor role where aunt takes Newt away.
@@Wezqu but then you’d have a mentally 8/9 year old Newt in body of a teenage girl. And that would just be different type of weird movie especially if it’s still set in a colony of rapists. Not sure you can make that work unless you change the whole story.
Well, where to begin... High Tension is a cult classic, in no way was it a waste of time to watch. John Connor was a whiny pos that didn't do much other than scream in T2 and was forgettable in T3, Genysis was far better than Salvation and no one cares about J Connor. Resurrection is better than H20, which should be forgotten and was my 2nd worst theater experience, 2nd to only the Halloween remake which I walked out of. Dark Fate was also a good film, have you even watched any of these movies you're judging so poorly? P.S. John Connor was a little bitch, it was a blessing that they retconned him from the future lmao.
@@offworlder1This. Resurrection was goofy, but it was a fun kind of goofy, a popcorn flick with decent action and good acting. I liked kind-of-alien Ripley, and the scruffy band of rogues were fun.
In Glass, the "twist" that they didn't fight atop a skyscraper after it being teased the entire movie was *not* harmless! Here I am expecting this dopeass fight the whole movie and then there's a stupid fight with a stupid secret organization in a parking lot. You can't promise a skyscraper and deliver a parking lot! And then the drowning in a puddle was the icing on the shit cake. I saw Glass as on a date and had never seen the other two movies (I read plot summaries so I'd at least know what was going on), and I *still* found every twist in that movie unsatisfying as hell; I can only imagine the anger true fans of Split and Unbreakable felt.
@@Stefan_Gerards Sarah calling herself just a womb being ashamed of being a mother to John. Being so bitter and resentful in Woke Fate is one of the reasons people hate the movie.
@@offworlder1 then by today's standards you'd call T2 'wOkE' because of the speech she gives to Dyson about being a mother. just ignore it if you don't like it, it's really not that deep.
![ประสบการณ์ จ้าง Developer ที่ผมจะไม่มีวันลืม [ภาค2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pZbsSDRrmXA/mqdefault.jpg)
Creedence would have been Albus' Nephew. He was the son of Aberforth.
Source: I actually watched the movie.
Mic drop
😂😂😂😂 I know and this came out today so that's just bad journalism
I can't remember much about those movies but even I remembered that he was Dumbledore's nephew lol
In defense of this video, he wasn't revealed as Aberforth's son until the following film. The lie presented to him (and the audience) by Grindelwald at the end of the second film was the (apparent) truth until the reveal in the next film.
@AustynSN I can agree with you that It was not mentioned how he was a Dumbledore at the end of the film. However, this video states that he was Dumbledore's brother. It had already been revealed he was Aberforth's son by the time this video was released. So, you should not defend the fact that this video chose to say he was revealed as Dumbledore's brother with nothing to back up this claim...while also already knowing this was inaccurate. This is simply a script error by this video's staff.
The problem is there shouldn't have been any Terminator movies after the second one.
Terminator 2 ruined the first movie, and its success doomed the series.
The Cloverfield Paradox DID answer where the monster came from. When the space station activated that machine, it tore a hole into alternate universes. The monster(s) came through the hole from one of those universes. The one seen at the end was either a different one from the first movie, or the whole movie takes place in another universe from the first one. Meaning multiple monsters entered multiple different worlds.
"Last Christmas" is basically the "Sixth Sense" of romantic comedies. Nine times out of ten, if a certain character is only ever seen interacting with one person, or only has one outfit, then they're likely dead, or a figment of their imagination.
The 4 rules of plot twists:
1. It's not predictable (obviously)
2. It's not to unpredictable (it can't just come out of nowhere)
3. It makes sense (people can look back and rewatch the story and it makes sense)
4. It actually affects the plot and characters in some impactful way (never do a plot twist for the sake of having a twist, it has to mean something)
If you fail at any of these then the twist won't work.
Maybe a 5th rule is never go back on a twist, like how rise of skywalker went back on the last jedi twist, if youbmske a twist then you need to follow through on it (which in a way is rule 4). But along with that you can do misleading twists and red herrings.
Actually, the first rule of plot twists is you don't talk about plot twists...
@@JC_2311 lol...nice plot twist reference!
Alien 3 did not happen. I refuse to accept that movie. The Terminator movies sucked after 2, period.
Both franchises after part 2 feel like studios trying to cash in on Intellectual property rather than finding a director who has an interesting idea. Alien 1 & 2 are very different movies but both are examples of a creative idea executed according to one persons vision.
Alien 3 is David Fincher’s worst movie, made before he had the power to tell the studio to but out.
I see Alien 3 as being a bad dream Ripley had in hypersleep on her way back to earth with Newt, Hicks, and Bishop. I do that with Alien Resurrection also. Try it, it works.
Actually, I don't mind the twist in "Last Christmas." It's incredibly sad, of course. But it doesn't bother me all that much. And it makes sense, seeing as no one but Kate interacts with Tom. Quite frankly, there really is no point in whining about the plot twist because it's OBVIOUS that Tom is either dead or a figment of Kate's imagination.
Exactly. And like... I felt like the twist wasn't that Tom was dead (or even that it was meant to be a "full blown" twist in the first place), it was supposed to be that Kate has been struggling to find reasons to keep living. Picking apart a movie that was really about being open to meeting people and accepting love/living life just because someone was revealed to have died is just kind of... annoying to me. I saw that movie in theaters with my sister and my father-in-law, and while I'd figured out the "twist" long before it was revealed, that didn't take from my enjoyment of the movie at all.
Aside from ruining the character John Connor, Terminator Genisys and Terminator Dark Fate both were meant to restart the franchise and create sequels that would involve a temporal cold war storyline. Great on paper but Hollywood has nowhere near the creative story writing talent to pull it off even with James Cameron lending a hand
It's 2023 and I'm still not over Newt and Hicks.
The Dark Fate twist not only is a slap in the face to fans of the franchise, but it also makes the entire series irrelevant and not make any sense or have any weight. The entire premise of the Terminator series' was that John Connor was so incredibly integral to the future humans ability to contend against Skynet. If successfully killing John Connor just results in someone else becoming the new person to take charge, that just shows that there IS no significant individual to make such a difference and Skynet may as well not even bother trying. Whoever they kill, someone else will just rise up in their place.
In which case, Dark Fate and any future theoretical movies just dont matter as there is no reason we as the audience should care about whether such and such terminator kills their target or not. Hell, it also makes no sense that Skynet would ever bother sending more terminators to the past as at that point the only realistic solution to Skynet's problem is the total annihilation of the human race which was already the course of action they were attempting in the first place.
The opposite is also true. Why is defeating a terminator important? Skynet are just sending back hundreds of them to kill Connor or whoever.
Well said!
Seems like every terminator sequel does something dumb with John Conner lol
Sheesh, Terminator got two entries here. The series should’ve stopped after T2
Terminator has been dragged through the mud for a few years now.
Yep. I always wanted to see that war and adult John Connor both starting the resistance and winning in the end, but the studios seem unable to do even that right, that only effort was a damn mess, and why the hell didn't they just focus on John Connor as the main character and the leader in that movie in the first place but tried to make the whole thing more complicated, with a twist or two... damn I'm getting bloody bored with plot twists, at least when it's sequels to stories that already hinted at what would happen next and it seemed to be pretty straightforward.
With Terminators: if Skynet is still created after T2 and the machines attack humans, or we are shown the original alternate timeline the Terminators and Kyle Reese came from, an adult John Connor then still starts the resistance, leads it, is damn good doing that, humans win, they use the time machine a couple of times and then destroy it, the end. Just take a few pointers from any good old WWII war film for the plots.
In the case of the last Christmas movie other than the trailers, it's obvious because the song the movie's named after is last Christmas. I gave you my heart
I'm so glad somebody is talking about this, cloverfield Paradox's so-called connection to the OG cloverfield was lazy and stupid. And I'm so glad that Matt Reeves is doing a proper sequel to the original and has said that the monster is, in fact, an alien that we saw crash in the ocean. Please don't let jj abrams have ANY input in the film.
I really liked Emilia Clarke as Sarah Conner, but it made me so freaking mad that they made John a terminator
She was fine and Jai Courtney was good too as Kyle Reese. He just can't catch a brake with the movies he appears in as they usually are not well received. There also seems to be quite vocal group of people that some reason hates him and come out of woodwork to blame him of any movie that does not do well that he is in. Still the whole second act of the movie was bad and John Connor being a Terminator was just bad decision.
@@Wezqu Lol. Jai Courtney can't catch a break?
There are people in Hollywood saying Emilia Clarke is cursed. As if it's her fault the writers for the projects she gets involved with keep screwing up.
I couldn't agree with you more. It's an absolutely ridiculous decision that made no sense whatsoever. It's a slap in the face to the fans.
Cloverfield Paradox did explain everything. The ship tore a hole in the invisible barrier between dimensions/universes and the monsters entered our reality and others. The general idea is that the monster from the first movie was not full grown. It was adolescent and searching for it's mother. The monster at the end of Paradox was full grown. All 3 movies are very likely to happen within 3 separate realities that give us 3 different perspectives of the major event meaning they're all taking place around the same time
There is no Alien3. I stand by this. Just as there is no Highlander 2.
Terminator: Dark Fate - Edward Furlong is a trainwreck now. Having him come back to play an adult John Conner would have been a disaster. So, did the fans want the part recast? Did they want John just written out of the movie? Did they want CGI used to paste all three actors' faces on standins for the entire movie? Or did they want a drugged out Furlong playing the part? Because none of those options is all that appealing to me.
Adult John Connor has already been played by at least 4 actors, 5 if you count that alternate ending to T2 that shows Sarah as an old woman looking at an adult John playing with his child, I would not have had any problems with recasting if they found a good actor. Most movie characters who keep appearing in long-running franchises will be played by several different actors anyway, and while Edward Furlong did a good child version of John Connor why the hell would only he be right for the adult version? He might still have been totally wrong even if he hadn't become a wreck as an adult.
@@pohjanakka4992 No need to invoke the alternate ending to T2, the same actor played the adult John Conner at the start of the movie while Sarah is describing the situation. That was set in a time when Sarah was much older though.
As for the other actors, Cameron has said that in his mind, only The Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, and Terminator: Dark Fate are canon.
Finally, a big deal was made about not only Arnold being in it, but also Linda Hamilton returning. Typically, the most respected franchises are the ones who DON'T recast characters, unless it's absolutely necessary, such as with the death of the previous actor. Recasting a character automatically lowers the movie's credibility a notch. Many feel like "If this was a good movie, all the original actors would have wanted to return.
the most disappointing about Newt and Hicks was that they died off screen, at least let us see it if you are killing them off
right!..i was like, wtf?!..and then followed with a shtty movie where the entire first half Ripley flat out refused to divulge what she suspected at the very beginning (a xeno was there), led to unnecessary stupid deaths
John Connor had no more story left to tell. his fate changed the minute they destroyed Cyberdyne in T2, by then he was just a normal kid. if anything, they completely ruined Sarah Connor by killing her off off-screen in T3.
Even if Laurie lost in Halloween Resurrection, I like to think that Jamie won by getting out of it so quick.
i could be wrong but creedence became aberforth's son? I thought that twist was reasonable since aberforth is barely mentioned in the books so why would they mention his son?
Yes, you are right. Abernathy didn't know Aurelius even existed until Albus found out.
you're right, but the problem is that we as the audience didn't know that yet. The Crimes of Grindelwald specifically stated that Credence is Albus' brother, only for The Secrets of Dumbledore to correct that by saying Grindelwald lied to him and that he is Albus' nephew.
John Connor becoming a terminator POST the original timeline I think works fun. IF they hadn't shown it literally in the trailers AND if they hadn't shown Matt Smith lurking obviously evil,
I still stand that this would've been an interesting point.
and would really fit well with 1 and 2 and casaulity.
I think it might have worked if there had been a sequel where the story was of his parents figuring out a way to save their son from that fate after they find out they didn't manage to stop Skynet - again - after all. Badly, partly due to pretty badly miscasting Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese. And after that we maybe would finally have seen the adult John Connor being what the first movie promised he would become, an all around badass and great leader who wins that war. But as the whole franchise goes the lack of that - never showing the adult leader John Connor just glimpsed in that first movie - has been the biggest disappointment, the only time they have tried to show the actual war and adult John Connor he wasn't really the main character, or at least not the main one, and he wasn't yet the leader running the whole thing, which, at least to me, was also a big disappointment because the impression from the first movie was that he was the one who not only ended up leading and winning the human war effort but also STARTED the whole human resistance. I have been hoping for that movie the whole time after we saw the first one, but looks like we will never get it.
As things are, my headcanon is pretty much that nothing real happened after T2, everything else is maybe something like nightmares Sarah Connor, and John, occasionally had during their lives.
@@pohjanakka4992 Given its box office performance, going that direction wouldn't have mattered, because a sequel never would've happened.
High tension has always bothered me, but so few people have seen it so it's hard to talk about without ruining it
Alien 3 The Director's cut is brilliant. While it sucked that Newt and Hicks were killed it did fit in with the overall bleakness of the movie. Ripley was doomed from the get go. Her sacrifice at the end would have seemed selfish if she were leaving Newt.
And doesn't help that Alien: Colonial Marines tried to retcon Hicks is alive by that point the damage was already done
the thing with Dark Fate was that the future didn't need John Connor anymore. Sarah and young John changed their future by destroying Cyberdyne. So the timeline had to readjust and find an alternate route to Judgement Day because it's a fixed point in time. in the new future timeline they created, John Connor isn't mankind's savior. time/fate chose a different savior. at least, that's how i see it.
Both movies are decent enjoyable flicks, they don't deserve the hate they get. OG fans can't let go of their delusions and fantasies about certain characters...
The thing that Dark Fate ignores is Sarah's own character.
In Terminator 3 (yes, I know it's not considered canon), it makes the point that Sarah never truly believed Skynet/AI was gone and so she and John continued to hide.
This also happened in the Terminator TV show.
These both feel like an accurate portrayal of the path the justifiably paranoid Sarah would take.
(As an aside, in T2 they failed to stop Skynet anyway, just delayed it by a year or so - the new processor was all but complete and off-site backups of data have been standard practice for decades).
But in Dark Fate, Sarah is suddenly so happy and optimistic about humanity and the future that she and John go on holiday as themselves ???
That just doesn't ring true to her character.
As for the Arnie terminator, once it completed it's primary mission, it seems much more likely that it would hide in a cave and shutdown, or would have been given a secondary mission, such as ensure Skynet happens
(Again, the TV show has Skynet send back terminators just to ensure the steps toward it's creation are followed and that it has materials available for it's future war against humanity).
What bothers me almost as much in Dark Fate, is how Sarah and John de-aged looks nearly perfect but Arnold looks so badly done.
The only thing worse than the beginning of Alien 3 having two great figures dead is the book 2.5. A story squeezed between the movies that is just a stupid money grab where Ripley has her memory wiped about another alien attack
Originally I was was glad that they chose their ambiguous ending for Terminator 2. But after the string of terrible movies since that film I chose to think of the alternate ending with an old Sarah Conner watching an adult John playing with his daughter in a clearly not-blown-up-by-skynet world as canon, because it means the story ends there and there are no sequels.
I've always said that every movie is a different split in the timeline, due to Skynet and the Resistance meddling with the past too much. The first film existed in it's own singular loop, but split the moment Skynet decided to send the T-1000 back. The cut ending could be considered the "main" ending, but also just one of many more futures that split from the end of T2.
That's all just my headcanon though.
Aliens3 expressed as ‘dodgy’ that’s brilliant.
Am I the only one who saw the 6th Sense twist coming from the opening scene? Bruce Willis is literally shot in the first moment of the movie and then spends the next 2 hours NOT interacting with anyone other than a boy who says directly to the audience: "I see dead people." C'mon man!
I don't blame you for being mad.
I myself actually felt that way once I saw the movie and for falling for that ghost twist! Lol
It was a good twist because there were so many clues all through the movie. But, especially if you go in knowing there is a twist, the clues can give the twist away to some. On rewatch it is really obvious
@@andreasmeelie1889 Your way sounds like a much better way to enjoy the movie. At least you were only upset at the end. I was annoyed the entire time, having to restrain myself from yelling in the theater: "The twist better not be that he's dead!" LOL
Someone told me the twist BEFORE I saw the movie so my first viewing of the film was everyone else's second. You see it completely different if you know the twist beforehand. Some might not have clued in, simply because it was TOO obvious a twist. "I see dead people" says the kid. Yes but he can see everyone else too so why would you assume that Bruce's character is dead based just on that one line?
The only two parts of the story that mattered were his relationships and interactions with the kid and with his wife, and both of those things made perfect sense in context. How many times do couples having marriage troubles just not talk to each other? We're given subtle indications of his job, of having talked to people offscreen, like when we see him sitting with the mother. We see him interacting with the physical world and moving objects. He never saw any other ghosts himself. Everything could've easily just been framed as the stylistic choices of a director trying to be artsy.
Regardless of people who saw through it, it was a masterfully-crafted twist that did catch most people, myself included.
Except Specter is telegraphed all the back in Casino Royale, and then alluded to again in Quantum of Solace. It is made entirely clearly that an unnamed organization is behind literally everything.
While you're correct in saying that Specter fell short of Skyfall, the entire point concerning retcon and undermining previous villains is nonsense.
7:59 - The twist in High Tension isn't exactly random. Halfway through the movie, there's a scene where the *killer* has tied up Alex and left her on the floor. Marie finds her and hides beside Alex, but makes no effort to untie her, or even take the gag out of her mouth, although the door to the room was shut, and she could have silently freed Alex. From that point on, I knew something was wrong with Marie. While I didn't expect her to turn out to be the killer herself, I expected her to be in cahoots with him all along. So, not a random twist at all.
That movie scared me so badly, I had to cut it off halfway through and watch the second half the next day during daylight 😂😂. I won't lie, I didn't suspect a thing.
It's awesome and anyone who calls it random wasn't paying attention
You could argue that every Fast and Furious has completely abandoned its previous material since Fast 5.
at least they embraced it (eventually) lol
I hated Cloverfield.
8:10 How did that punish fans? IT'S SAID THAT YOU WOULD DESTROY THE TERMINATOR NOT JOIN THEM! I never felt like the Terminator franchise punished me. I didn't realize people threw a hissy fit over it.
It's just such a waste of a twist.
John turning out to be the T-3000 could've been a brilliant plot twist if he pretended to be human and spent the vast majority of the film working alongside his parents to "stop the next skynet" only for it to be revealed in the final act that John is a terminator and he's actually been manipulating his parents into creating the next skynet.
I get why so many don't like it but killing off newt and hicks didn't bother me. I would have preferred it didn't happen off screen but them dying was not an issue. From part 1 the series was going to be a lone survivor type story. If they didn't kill them off in the beginning of part 3 they probably would have killed them off as the story went on. Ripley was the main hero.
I also may be in the minority here but I think the biggest mistake for Terminator Dark Fate was that it got made in the first place. I personally hate when people try to start a story by saying we are going to pretend all of this never happened. No. Write a good story within the universe that already exists. While I love the character Sarah Conner and Linda Hamilton is great in the role, the story was never about her. Her son was the target from the very beginning. She was targeted only because they wanted to prevent her from ever giving birth in the first place.
I found Terminator Dark Fate to be worse than Terminator Genysis honestly. It felt like a very poor effort to retcon girl power a series that already had one of the best female character arcs in action movie history. So unnecessary
The reason Halloween refuses to kill Michael Myers is because they legally can not. It is actually impossible for him to legally stay dead.
In the movie high tension Marie gives the plot away by saying she was dreaming of her chasing her
Given that the song "Last Christmas" contains the lyrics "Last Christmas, I gave you my heart...", it wasn't much of a surprise twist!
I insist, the twist on "high tension" was actually cool, crazy and scary. At the time was the only movie with such a twist .
Um did you not watch Cloverfield Paradox? It’s literally explained that the particle accelerator opens doors to other dimensions across time and space. It’s a weak explanation but still an explanation
The movie In Darkness was about a blind woman who hears a murder in the apartment above her. Throughout the movie we see her going through her daily life and other events with the accommodations and struggles that come with being blind. And then at the end it is revealed that she was never blind and the movie stops making sense. Things she did while alone that showed her struggles with blindness now make zero sense and the whole movie is ruined. Before that reveal I quite enjoyed the movie, but that ending ruined it.
Part of the reason they killed off John Connor in Dark Fate was due to Edward Furlong having been in rehab at the time. They didn't want to recast him, but he has been an alcoholic for years. I saw a recent interview with him, and he said that he would have been glad to to return to the role, but they didn't ask due to him being literally unable to do so. Also, I personally liked it, as it showed the ahead thinking that Skynet did, which is reflected in the Officially Licensed Roleplaying game. The plot of the game is you are playing Resistance trying to stop all the Terminators that have been sent back to kill various other important to the future people. Heck, one story is actually the opposite, though it's understood the characters should be reluctant to kill a human, the Terminator in that story is actually there by Skynet to protect someone, not kill them.
but if they kill john and it still made no difference because someone else can still get it done...then the whole point of the movies (protecting John to takedown skynet in the future) is senseless from the very beginning.
MEMENTO - Leonard Shelby is Sammy Jankins.
Hot take. The Terminator Dark Fate twist makes sense as without Skynet existing, there's no Kyle Reese to get Sarah Connor Pregnant or even go back in time in the first place. I therefore see it as the logical conclusion of the paradox.
Not sure if I've explained this properly but I hope people know what I mean.
Except it doesn't.
In the Dark Fate timeline, John Conner never exists; so Kyle Reese (assuming he even exists - which is not gauranteed) never hears stories about Sarah Conner and never falls in love with her. Even if he does exist, he's never sent back in time (as the movie itself addresses - the people of the future have no idea who Sarah or John Conner are) so John Conner is never born.
Yet John Conner exists in the movie to be killed by a terminator. Meaning Kyle Reese must have been sent back in time.
Paradoxes have no conclusion. That's why they're paradoxes. Trying to 'conclude' them is impossible.
Edited for clarity because time travel is stupid.
I LOVED Dark Fate and John Conner being retired.
I immediately walked out of Dark Fate when John Connor was killed. I was that upset. Never seen the rest of the movie. I don’t care how good it is. It completely betrayed the entire franchise
I’d hardly say I felt “punished” by High Tension. Yes, it was a dumb, nonsensical twist that elicited a groan but the film was still a great slasher with excessive gore and Muse on the soundtrack. Plus who, exactly, we’re the “loyal fans”? It was only Aja’s second film so I can’t imagine there was a rabid fanbase eagerly anticipating his every move so, yet again, I think Mr Hyperbole has had his way with you guys and you need to maybe rethink the titles for some of your lists. You know, for those “loyal fans” of yours 🥴
Come on Last Christmas he gave her his heart.
Shyamalan became so invested in twists that it seemed like his filmmaking went offroad fast. The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable were fantastic. Split was pretty good. Everything else was mediocre at best, and awful otherwise.
While Dark Fate is not my favourite entry in the Terminator franchise, the death of John Connor makes perfect sense.
Reverse Temporal Relocation (RTR), AKA travelling back in time, stories exist in one of three basic type.
RTR1 are closed loop stories. These stories feature past events which lead into future events, which in turn lead into the past events.
RTR2 are grandfather paradox stories. These stories tell a story where time travellers alter the past and create a paradox which they somehow escape and must then set right.
RTR3 are multiverse stories. In a multiverse story there is an alternate timeline for every possible outcaome, from every possible decission or action. While nultiverse stories let you avoid having to worry about the Grandfather paradox, you operate under the assumption that for every good outcome, there is a negative outcome.
T1 is a closed loop story. It sets up that BOTH John Connor and Skynet were created by RTR events. Kyle Reese fathered John, and the original T-800 was used to create Skynet.
T2 is a badly told grandfather paradox story. It is badly told because by destroying all links to the future you can not have John standing there at the end, as his fate is tied to Skynet's. You can't have John Connor without also having Skynet. By preventing Skynet from coming into being you also prevent John Connor from existing. There needed to be an explanation for how, even if only in a voice over, or a post credit scene of another Terminator looking exactly like Miles Dyson murdering his family, showing us that Skynet will survive.
T3 used the idea of the multiverse and while following on directly from the events of the theatrical release of T2, changed events, such as the date of judgement day in an effort to get the franchise back on track.
All other films and TV shows stuck to this multiverse idea, even if only loosely.
Salvation, while acknowledging the three prior films, steared away from the whole time travel element.
Genymess (I refuse to use its proper title) is a mess, but does include RTR events from multiple future events so at least stays with the multiverse.
T:SCC (Sarah Connor Chronicles) has many episodes exploring different future timeline, usually through Derek Reese.
Which brings us back to Dark Fate.
Dark Fate is a direct continuation of T2, in that it directly follows on from the events of T2, but once again it is a multiverse story, because it does include both John Connor and Carl (a T-800 with a Cyberdine Systems model 101 infiltration sheath).
However remember what was set up in T1. John and Skynet are linked. You can't have one without the other.
In other words so long as John Connor still lived, then Skynet would also survive. The opening of Dark Fate is about closing that last door to the Skynet timeline. With the death of John, Sarah now finds herself in the Legion timeline. Because there is no John Connor, there needed to be a new leader to unite humanity against Legion. As much as we may like, that can't be John Connor, as Sarah can't teach him about what she doesn't know, and she only knows about Skynet because Kyle Reese told her.
Enter Dani Ramos, the new future saviour of mankind.
The Dark Fate timline does also solve one more problem. You can't keep trying to retell the same story by constantly shifting the date of Judgement Day, because John Connor was concieved in 1984, and was either born in late 84 or 1985. John Connor has to be young enough, and fit enough to survive Judgement Day, as well as the early years of the Future War until he can rally the forces of man against the machines. He also needs to be old enough that people won't simply dismiss him as being a kid, or so old that he's too weak and frail to be of any use to those fighting the future war.
For me, Salvation had the right idea. Stay in the future war. T5 should have been about John and Kyle trying to survive, while John teaches Kyle everything he needs to know, so that Kyle can go back in time to save Sarah. T6 again should have stuck in the Future War and ended with the final assault on Skynet, and ended with Kyle Reese getting ready to travel back in time. The franchise should have been left there. If anyone then wanted to return to it, it should have been done as a complete reboot.
For the record my favourite films/TV series are in order
T1
T:Salvation
T:SCC
T2
T3 or T:Dark Fate (these two are about equal and so listed together)
T:Genymess (listed last and so far behind T3 or Dark Fate it barely registers).
Omg im not the only person thats seen High Tention. That was REAL horror!
Fantastic Beasts put me to sleep ...tied to watch it a second time...Mr. Sandman again said nope. Did not try again.
Credence is Dumbledore's nephew not brother.
Should have included, John Connor gets killed off in the opening of Terminator: Dark Fate EDIT: Oh, you did. Thank you. But no, it didn't do anything right.
And all of Star Trek: Discovery since it undermines Star Trek: Voyager
Killing John Connor was a big ass middle finger to us Terminator fans....🤬
i've only seen the first two and the last two Halloween movies. How would anyone recognize Michael Myers was the real Michael Myers if they only see him in the mask ?
The death of Newt and Hicks did not affect me whatsoever. So many people want to act like they were these absolutely vital characters that fans were in love with. I’m one of the biggest Alien fans you can find and I thought it went well with the story. I love Alien 3 and my only issue with it is some wonky CGI on the xenomorph.
yeah I had a big issue with Ripley flat out refusing to say ANYTHING for half of the movie about her constant growing suspicions that a xeno was loose there. It was obvious at the beginning and she knew it, but wanted to be in denial while the alien ran rampant
I love the way she says haech twohoa. Those Daniel Craig bond films killed the franchise and literally the character
Albus's nephew
spectre was STUPID ... i get wanting a nod to the original movies, but the only response should have been "who the hell is blofeild? why does this name mean anything?"
Why did Connor have to be the T3000 is kind of obvious....turn your greatest adversary into your greatest ally...willing or not. Using anyone else would have made it just another terminator movie.
In Halloween H2O, he does try to remove the mask….
Vulcan destroyed in STAR TREK (2009), but the whole trilogy did it.
Obviously the Fantastic Beasts movies went off the rails and only the first one is any good - they should have just been about the fantastic beasts and Newt's adventures around the world. But trying to be fair to them, Grindelwald lying to Credence or telling him a half-truth makes sense, since he is the villain. And it was pretty much an assumption that Grindelwald insinuated that he was Albus' brother. It tried something that didn't work for it, but mostly because we didn't know what it actually meant until the follow-up.
Should have just done it like The Rocky Horror Picture Show...
Only way to save this is the multiverse.
Regarding Aliens 3 ,those people complaining about Newt dying in between Aliens and Alien 3 aren’t thinking logically ‼️
if you’re setting your film on an all male prison ship what exactly would the role be for the child throughout the movie🧐?Still a 💩movie though!!
Oddly, I haven't really liked most of the Daniel Craig films outside of "Casino Royale", which was a high point for the entire franchise. "Quantum of Solace" was just terrible, I liked "Skyfall" up unto the point where they made Q a first-class moron (I could not forgive the writers for that).
"SPECTRE" would have been a better film if the previous films had done more to establish there was a greater enemy. It still had flaws.
"No Time To Die" had good concepts, but was marred because the villain existed to be a villain. He had his bio-weapon, but there was no indication of what he was going to do with it.
I think the last Terminator film I saw was "Salvation", and I didn't like it. So much so that I never bothered with seeing another one. Honestly, I didn't like the second film all that much because they pushed the indestructability of the Terminator one or two steps too far. At least when I saw "Salvation" it was a the drive-in movie, and it played with "The Hangover" (which I unexpectedly enjoyed).
Star Wars sequel trilogy?!
I liked Alien 3. It makes the series a trilogy. ”Resurrection”, on the other hand, doesn’t exist, or any prequels. I don’t understand how you could continue with Newt with that timespan, it would be impossible. Replace her with another actor? THAT would be a terrible decision.
I found 3 just ok and any movies after generally terrible.
The Newt actor would have been 6+ years older plus the actress quit acting. She was too good to replace.
I liked Alien 3 too. It was darker and gritter. To be honest, I kept wanting Newt to die in Alien 2 because it was such an obvious thing, oh lets give the female heroine a kid to worry about so she cant do the regular badass things that the others are doing coz she has to worry about this brat's safety. Please. And no I dont believe, she could have survived alone that long at that age, by hiding the vents. The aliens would have found her LONG before the rescue ship had arrived and killed her or at least infected her. Better to have killed the kid early on to give Ripley a real motivation to go after the Queen(like she even needed one). Resurrection was interesting, because it shows what kind of abilities an alien/human hybrid would have. The series is a Quadrology and stops there. Alien Vs Predator are just alternative universe stories as far as I am concerned.
I disagree. Recasting can work, and there are always instances where just blandly killing them off is a worse disrespect to the character. And it felt like it trivialized the massive struggle that Ripley went through. Alien 3 made it feel like there had been no point in fighting at all, that you could never win against the Xenomorphs, so might as well give up. I hate bleak railroading like that.
@@Bllurr1 I hate that too, and most of all, I have gotten very, very tired of that because for years it seems to have been the only solution for any kind of horror sequel: any previous wins over the monsters turn out to have been meaningless, they always come back and again kill most of the characters, maybe apart from that one - who may or may not be the same one who survived in the previous movie - who seems to "win" in the end, except you know that if there is a sequel that "win" will be mostly meaningless. Again. All love interests, friends, or others who survived to the end of the movie before will now die.
How about surprising us from time to time? The monster maybe comes back, but now they know it better and fight it better, and more people survive? Maybe even change the genre? Just a bit? From pure horror to horror thriller or adventure?
Besides, with the Alien franchise, that genre change was exactly what was already done from the first movie to Aliens, Aliens was more of an action movie while Alien is pretty much pure horror. And it worked spectacularly well. Do NOT keep on repeating the same damn plot, play with that, play with the genre, make the franchise a continuing story, not just tired repeats of the first movie. In fact, that is what was done from the first Terminator movie to T2, and that worked pretty damn well too.
And if not recasting they could always have kept Newt in cryosleep the whole time. Maybe have some minor malfunction in her machine that made waking her dangerous, they are waiting for a ship that would bring help for that, Ripley and Hicks are struggling to keep the chamber with her in it safe during the story. So while she is not seen during the story, except maybe just one scene of her being woken up in the end, she is still one of the motivations for Ripley and Hicks. And if they really wanted just Ripley then keep both Newt AND Hicks in cryosleep the whole movie...
Or just go for a story where they have gotten somewhere, Earth or some human colony, and have been woken up several years ago, and Newt is now a teenager or near adult, and then they again have to face the xenomorphs, now as an established family. A lot easier to recast a character who was a child in the previous movie but is now a lot older.
Just try reading the book that features Ripley and is set between "Alien" and "Aliens".
I actually liked "Resurrection" far more than I thought I would.
Credence is actually Aberforth's son, so Albus' nephew.
Yall are a joke
In the Cloverfield paradox they told you multiple times were tge monsters came from
So I take it yall didn't watch it
Wandavision....
He is Dumbledore's nephew
Tom Webster was "real", he was just dead. He wasn't just some imaginary person she just made up.
but hicks did survive according to that terribly game aliens clonal marines
I'd add Clerks 3 to the list. After the twist in the beginning we were too bummed out to continue watching it.
5 ads.
I prefer the bedrock twist.
You mean plot twists that tested whether fans were loyal.
Alien 3 was six years after Aliens. Since they were in those things that make you sleep and not age. They couldn’t have the same actress play Newt. And recasting her would also be hated by audiences. So any sequel would either require her to die offscreen or have a very minor role where aunt takes Newt away.
Just state that the sleeping capsule was damaged and she aged like that has not happened before in other sci-fi movies/shows.
@@Wezqu but then you’d have a mentally 8/9 year old Newt in body of a teenage girl. And that would just be different type of weird movie especially if it’s still set in a colony of rapists. Not sure you can make that work unless you change the whole story.
I would rather watch Terminator Genisys over Dark Fate. Both are terrible though.
Wait, people liked Skyfall?
Well, where to begin... High Tension is a cult classic, in no way was it a waste of time to watch. John Connor was a whiny pos that didn't do much other than scream in T2 and was forgettable in T3, Genysis was far better than Salvation and no one cares about J Connor. Resurrection is better than H20, which should be forgotten and was my 2nd worst theater experience, 2nd to only the Halloween remake which I walked out of. Dark Fate was also a good film, have you even watched any of these movies you're judging so poorly? P.S. John Connor was a little bitch, it was a blessing that they retconned him from the future lmao.
The dark fate movie was a woman power play period and it was trash
you guys need to let Alien 3 go, lol
The movie is garbage, people are right to hate it and how it is a terrible follow up of Aliens. I even see Alien Resurrection as a much better movie.
@@offworlder1This. Resurrection was goofy, but it was a fun kind of goofy, a popcorn flick with decent action and good acting. I liked kind-of-alien Ripley, and the scruffy band of rogues were fun.
Early gang
11th
In Glass, the "twist" that they didn't fight atop a skyscraper after it being teased the entire movie was *not* harmless! Here I am expecting this dopeass fight the whole movie and then there's a stupid fight with a stupid secret organization in a parking lot. You can't promise a skyscraper and deliver a parking lot! And then the drowning in a puddle was the icing on the shit cake.
I saw Glass as on a date and had never seen the other two movies (I read plot summaries so I'd at least know what was going on), and I *still* found every twist in that movie unsatisfying as hell; I can only imagine the anger true fans of Split and Unbreakable felt.
The whole film Terminator Woke Fate was a punishment for fans.
It was a giant middle finger to all the fans who like the series.
Woke Fate was just another feminist project to crap on something men love.
@@offworlder1 100%.👍🏼
you people think everything is 'wOkE' lmao. go into movies with that mindset and you'll always find something to complain about.
@@Stefan_Gerards Sarah calling herself just a womb being ashamed of being a mother to John. Being so bitter and resentful in Woke Fate is one of the reasons people hate the movie.
@@offworlder1 then by today's standards you'd call T2 'wOkE' because of the speech she gives to Dyson about being a mother. just ignore it if you don't like it, it's really not that deep.