New Video Games/ Movies

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by Spartan198

A woman obsessing over shoes? Nah...

On a side note, though, I'm glad the actress they got at least looks like she could be Linda Hamilton's double.



But I'm not too fond of how they're messing with the timeline. Only events after the point when the first movie took place would be altered, since 1984 is when the past and future converge. It's like making Back to the Future 4 and having Marty McFly sent back in time to before he went back the first time, then expecting the events in BttF 1 to play out exactly the same.

I really hope we never manage to get time travel working, because this is all really confusing and could really fuck the world up.

Edit: Here, this (unintentionally) explains just how confusing this all is.

http://io9.com/all-the-details-you-m...=1417797282076

So assuming the old T-800 filled Sarah Connor in with the details, she know she needs to rescue this random stranger, and then sleep with him?

[Spartan198]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

So assuming the old T-800 filled Sarah Connor in with the details, she know she needs to rescue this random stranger, and then sleep with him?

That's another paradox that's never been cleared up: How was John Connor even born in the first place to send Reese back through time? Logically, he shouldn't exist in the pre-T1 future and therefor couldn't have sent Reese back in time.

[Swordfish941]

Originally Posted by Spartan198

That's another paradox that's never been cleared up: How was John Connor even born in the first place to send Reese back through time? Logically, he shouldn't exist in the pre-T1 future and therefor couldn't have sent Reese back in time.

As Jeff Daniels put it in Looper: "This time travel crap, just fries your brain like an egg…"

[Swordfish941]

I wonder how much pot the executives at Paramount were smoking when they came up with this idea:

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansit...news/?a=112058

[commando552]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

Can't take a moment to use guns appropriate for 1984, but will convince a multi-million dollar corporation to make them shoes from 1984.

http://io9.com/terminator-genisys-go...eak-1667369939

Can't tell for sure as obviously I am just going by the trailer, but I do not think the gun choices are necessarily inappropriate as it is clear from several shots in the trailer that they use a time machine built in 1984 to travel forward to the present day like in "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles". The only guns that we know are from the 80's scenes are the ones that appear in scenes from the original movies. From my reckoning this means that they only weapons that are "period guns" are the Remington 1100, Barrett M82, Desert Eagle, and possibly the Remington 870 and CAR-15, and all of these are possible for that time.

Edit: Oh, and the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle in the scene in (I think) the 60s which again is period correct.

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by Swordfish941

I wonder how much pot the executives at Paramount were smoking when they came up with this idea:

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansit...news/?a=112058

In related news, this makes me want to throw up. Not that it's on top, but by the margin. Damn those Red Chinese. First then run my family off the mainland, they fight us in Korea, and now they're keeping Michael Bay employed?

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/...ldwide&yr=2014

[Swordfish941]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

In related news, this makes me want to throw up. Not that it's on top, but by the margin. Damn those Red Chinese. First then run my family off the mainland, they fight us in Korea, and now they're keeping Michael Bay employed?

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/...ldwide&yr=2014

Why couldn't Guardians of the Galaxy be the highest grossing movie of the year? Not only was it a better movie, but had characters that were likable and it didn't stretch out its plot for another 45 minutes with mindless action.

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by Swordfish941

Why couldn't Guardians of the Galaxy be the highest grossing movie of the year? Not only was it a better movie, but had characters that were likable and it didn't stretch out its plot for another 45 minutes with mindless action.

It is the highest grossing film domestically though. Good writing often doesn't translate well, but 'splosions are universal.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2014

It was a good year for Chris Pratt and Marvel.

[Excalibur]

A bunch of people I know didn't really like Guardians of the Galaxy because there's something about the humor they don't get.

[funkychinaman]

Oh come on! Don't chain the corpse of franchise like MiB to the Jump Street franchise!

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2014/...eet-crossover/