Originally posted by Darth Thor
Maybe Because it didnt matter?But clearly it does to some people.
So if it doesn't matter there was no reason to change it, but also if it doesn't matter there is no reason to question the change? So we're going in circles.
But hey I'll eat crow if they auditioned both men and women for the role and just decided the female minority was the best choice. On a scale of 1 to 10 how likely do you feel that is the case?
Originally posted by Surtur
Why lie? Nobody feels threatened, people are just tired of pandering.
That's not it at all.
It's fear of change and the mentality of "if we allow this, then what's next!" slippery slope nonsense, branched off reason as to why you fear becoming a minority, a small silly [film] slice of the bigger picture.
Originally posted by Robtard
That's not it at all.It's fear of change and the mentality of "if we allow this, then what's next!" slippery slope nonsense, branched off reason as to why you fear becoming a minority, a small silly [film] slice of the bigger picture.
It's really not though. This is a silly explanation the uneducated cling to.
The question becomes who will be naive enough to agree with you?
Originally posted by Surtur
It's really not though. This is a silly explanation the uneducated cling to.The question becomes who will be naive enough to agree with you?
The reason you fear becoming a minority (and you've expressed this before unknowingly in the GDF) is because you view and treat minorities poorly and you fear if the places are reversed, you'd be treated in kind.
When it comes to films, where say a Brown person replaces a previously "White role", or a woman replaces a man, it's not a huge deal, but it triggers passive feelings in your head from the above/the real issue and we get what we got here and with other films.
YW
Originally posted by Surtur
So if it doesn't matter there was no reason to change it, but also if it doesn't matter there is no reason to question the change? So we're going in circles.But hey I'll eat crow if they auditioned both men and women for the role and just decided the female minority was the best choice. On a scale of 1 to 10 how likely do you feel that is the case?
Yes we are going around in circles, but i dont have an issue with it either way because its an entirely new character.
If they auditioned both men and women then that would mean they had no idea who the character was. So that would be worrying.
By the way I know you havent seen the film, but her being a minority actually plays a part that helps them along the way.
And it's already been established that with time travel, etc. we didn't need to have a middle aged John Connor. So can you still explain why he needed to be killed off?
And having the fact a character is a minority "helped them along the way" screams wokeness.
Why'd we need a new character for John, but not Sarah? No new father figure to replace the mother figure?
Originally posted by Robtard
The reason you fear becoming a minority (and you've expressed this before unknowingly in the GDF) is because you view and treat minorities poorly and you fear if the places are reversed, you'd be treated in kind.When it comes to films, where say a Brown person replaces a previously "White role", or a woman replaces a man, it's not a huge deal, but it triggers passive feelings in your head from the above/the real issue and we get what we got here and with other films.
YW
Wrong, but you tried. I'm curious as to who will embarrass themselves by agreeing with you 🙂
Originally posted by Robtard
This seems to be your newest shtick, you reply and claim anyone who agrees with the post will "embarrass" themselves as a means to not have to actually refute what was said. You've done it in the GDF, OTF and now here.
^He says, after employing his own newest shtick.
Top notch. Also the *same* guy who has deployed the "I win if you disagree with me" tactic.
You just can't make this stuff up. Watch him feign ignorance now 🙂
I really think James Cameron had the right idea that the story concluded in T2, back in 1991. All these films since then have been doing the same thing over and over again - the post apocalyptic future is still coming despite all this time travelling and stopping events in the past, despite the fact we're decades past the date Skynet got activated. I want the movies to keep losing money, so they STOP making them.
Originally posted by roughrider
I really think James Cameron had the right idea that the story concluded in T2, back in 1991. All these films since then have been doing the same thing over and over again - the post apocalyptic future is still coming despite all this time travelling and stopping events in the past, despite the fact we're decades past the date Skynet got activated. I want the movies to keep losing money, so they STOP making them.
I mean from the expanded material, there were multiple timelines, multiple Connors, one of which was female and multiple Skynets.
Soo...this isn't exactly a new thing with it. Well...ok new for the movie scene I suppose.
But yeah, rehashing the same premise would get old after awhile, especially doing it 5 times(T1 n T2 included).
Salvation moved on from that and we would have gotten a trilogy of the Future War, but people complained about one thing or another. Kinda wish for once, they just bit the bullet and continued with it anyway.
Originally posted by RobtardIt's not a strong game from Surt, I noticed his attempt at employing it and sniggered a little.
This seems to be your newest shtick, you reply and claim anyone who agrees with the post will "embarrass" themselves as a means to not have to actually refute what was said. You've done it in the GDF, OTF and now here.
Originally posted by Zenwolf
Kinda wish for once, they just bit the bullet and continued with it anyway.
Yeah I agree with this part. And also agree Salvation had a decent premise. Moving on from the same old repeated story. Unfortunately it just didnt have that wow factor for audiences. But you’re right, if they just carried on we could have got something special for a sequel.
Unfortunately thats not usually how Hollywood works.
Originally posted by Surtur
1)And it's already been established that with time travel, etc. we didn't need to have a middle aged John Connor. So can you still explain why he needed to be killed off?2)And having the fact a character is a minority "helped them along the way" screams wokeness.
3)Why'd we need a new character for John, but not Sarah? No new father figure to replace the mother figure?
1) I wouldnt say it was established. You brought it up as an idea, but that would be a very different story. And they basically already went over the top with time travel shenanigans bringing Middle Aged John Connor to any convenient time in the last one.
2) Or... Maybe it just Fit the Story. Would really help if you actually watched a movie before criticising it. Ive noticed with this most the critics have just read the spoilers, which is not the best way to judge.
3) Hmm. I see your point. Although like I said it was an unexpected plot twist. It is interesting though no one complained about killing off Sarah Connor off screen for Terminators 3 & 4. Was that not sexist? What about replacing T-1000 with that laughable T-X?