before you prejudge..please watch the trailer, its actually dope and also a james cameron/tim miller film...got high hopes
Printable View
before you prejudge..please watch the trailer, its actually dope and also a james cameron/tim miller film...got high hopes
This completely removes every movie after T2 from canon right? so T3 and everything after didn't happen it was just a bad dream. I hope they nail it for the sake of the franchise.
Wack.
If someone came up to you and said "write a dumber movie than Terminator Genisys" Dark fate is what you would end up with. It's fucking stupid. As soon as the movie starts you're like wtf? why did they do that? its absurd. I really wanted to be there when the writers were brainstorming this shit.
Its a dumb pointless movie that shits on the first 2 movies.
^^glad i opted to see the lighthouse over this one , what an awesome movie man, I’ll prolly catch this on dvd
Wow. I thought that I was the only person that still purchased physical media. I barely even see new releases in even big box stores any more. Nowadays, when something drops, I just purchase it off of Ebay. Physical media has really gone the way of the dinosaur.. Best Buy stopped selling c.d.'s a few years back.
I purchase 4K blu rays (new movies) and blu rays (if isn't on 4K blu ray). Best Buy, Target, and Walmart sell blu rays. DVDs are obsolete and don't have good quality. 4K or 1080HP is the way to go nowadays. I'm seeing myself stream a little but I'm old school so I prefer discs over stream.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Daniel Davis
CDs are great. Better audio, photo booklet, artwork, physical disc. Target sells CDs but it's only the popular artists.}:|
I still buy Blu-Rays if its something classic and dope that I know I will rewatch multiple times. I still sometimes buy obscure foreign language films on DVD because they're often difficult to find online and not available on BR. The last one I got was 'Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring', great film. Its good to keep your old movies because they aren't always going to be available on TV, streaming etc, its good to have backups.
I mostly download or stream though.
As far as Terminator goes, I wish they'd stop with these films. Edit: The last movie did make a profit I guess, which explains why they're still cranking these films out, but the new one is predicted to lose money based on the first week.
They could easily go for smaller budgets, indie directors and smaller, self contained stories within a universe like this and make a nice profit. Instead they just put all the same plot elements and characters in a blender and come up with lesser versions of the first 2 films and are surprised when they don't make their hundred million dollar budgets back.
pompous
eh the trailer looks good. saw all of the other installments, might as well catch this one too
special effects on the Term face don't look all that convincing in the trailer though. mm I'll probably won't pay any attention to them when I'm immersed in the story ('story'? lol)
everybody shitted on 'Genisys' or however you spell that but honestly I rather enjoyed it
guess I'll always be a fan of the Terminator concept, no matter what movie they make to add to the universe
Genisys was okay, watchable, I just caught it a week or so back. It was forgettable and the plot was a mess but Emilia Clarke is hot, she definitely helped the 2 hours pass. She was good in the Solo film too, which was underrated.
One of the big problems I have with these films is the time travel, its so convoluted and it makes zero sense. If it made any sense the machines would just send back a bunch of T1000s to prehistoric times when humans were defenceless to wipe everybody out before anybody even knew what was going on. Lol I guess that wouldn't make for a good film, and the first 2 don't make much sense either but they're so scary and entertaining that you don't think about how nonsensical the storyline is.
I hear you about the time travel 'logic'
after having read many many many time travel stories (I love SF) I still wonder if it's really possible to come up with a time travel concept that leaves no plot holes at all
here's a classic Philip K Dick time travel story some of you might enjoy
http://sickmyduck.narod.ru/pkd002-0.html
interesting tidbit : PKD wrote this story after a major writer's block (a 'drought' that lasted about two years IIRC). the story reflects his weariness with SF, time travel and optimism about the US space program
it's one of the time travel stories I like best
Are there any decent looking people in this movie? The main roles are senior citizens and trannies.
good point , if i remember well though, i think the krogmags or prehistoric humans share a different DNA from us so wiping them out would be wiping them out, we would still be a thing .Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaDynasty
I don't know what you mean. If the terminators killed off all our ancestors we couldn't evolve and still exist to fight Skynet. We also couldn't have invented Skynet, so IDK what happens there.Quote:
Originally Posted by RADIOACTIVE MAN
Its the same paradox as Sara Connor trying to stop Skynet from taking over. What would actually happen if she stopped Skynet before it happened? Her whole life would be different, but how could it be different? She'd have to have been targeted by the terminator in order to change what happens, but then she wouldn't know about Skynet, so an Austrian farmer and a time travel sex tourist are always going to come back to fuck her life up. Lol.
cro mags were the earliest known version of pre historic human, it was recently discovered that they were a seperate race from us and aren't really our ancestors
Quote:
Originally Posted by RADIOACTIVE MAN
I can't find anything online about this.
Anyway it doesn't matter, you could theoretically go back a few million years to when all the human offshoots started to diverge from a common ancestor, or you just wipe out homo sapiens at almost any point in history or pre-history (maybe before nuclear weapons, just to be safe).
can't argue with you there.
I just read that the most recent common ancestor to everybody alive is from some time in the last 2000 years, which is kind of mindblowing. When I said ancestor I meant like a species as an ancestor to this species, but apparently there's a literal sole individual who did a lot of fucking in Asia around year 0, and over time with people travelling, fucking etc those genes are in everyone. Its an interesting read, at least me overanalyzing Schwarzenegger movies made me learn something new:
All humans can trace their family tree back to a surprisingly small group of common ancestors. Every person on Earth's most recent common ancestor might have died less than 2000 years ago.
A Question of Proper Breeding
When we get right down to it, we must face the truth that we're all hopelessly inbred. It's a question of basic mathematics - there simply aren't enough ancestors to go around. To understand what I mean, let's say you were born in 1975, your parents were both born in 1950, your four grandparents were born in 1925, your eight great-grandparents in 1900, and so on. In other words, your number of ancestors doubles every 25 years the further back in time you go.
If you take this back just 1,000 years, you'll find that you have well over 500 billion ancestors in a single generation. Considering there's fewer than seven billion people on this planet - and even that is far, far more than any other point in human history - there's something seriously wrong here. The solution, of course, is that you don't have 500 billion distinct ancestors, but rather a much, much smaller number of ancestors reappear over and over and over again in your family tree.
Figuring out just how many of your ancestors in a given generation were "real" and how many were duplicates can make for some fascinating statistics:
Demographer Kenneth Wachtel estimates that the typical English child born in 1947 would have had around 60,000 theoretical ancestors at the time of the discovery of America. Of this number, 95 percent would have been different individuals and 5 percent duplicates. (Sounds like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, but you know what I mean.) Twenty generations back the kid would have 600,000 ancestors, one-third of which would be duplicates. At the time of the Black Death, he'd have had 3.5 million - 30 percent real, 70 percent duplicates. The maximum number of "real" ancestors occurs around 1200 AD - 2 million, some 80 percent of the population of England.https://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/im...EAAAICTAEAOw==
Tangling the Family Trees
Exactly where this genealogical repetition kicks in can vary. Royal families are notorious for marrying off closely related relatives - which reached its most tragic extreme with Charles II of Spain, who actually would have been significantly less inbred if he was the son of a brother-sister pairing - creating some spectacularly tangled trees. Outside the aristocracy, there tends to be societal taboos against close intermarriage, but that can only be carried so far in small communities where people stay in the same place for their entire lives - which has been the norm for much of human history.
In those circumstances, it's quite common for people to have repeated great-grandparents or great-great-grandparents. The recent mass movement of humans in the last two centuries or so has scrambled this somewhat, so that people today tend to have far more diverse family trees than their ancestors of two hundred years ago, but this of course is just shunting all the inbreeding further back up the tree.
I should point out that, while this is inbreeding in the technical sense, the negative effects usually associated with the practice don't really apply because everyone involved is so distantly related. Indeed, since humans have 2^32 base pairs in their genomes, and only about half of a person's genes are passed on in reproduction, this means that a person's genes will be more or less completely flushed out of his descendants' genomes after 32 generations...or just about 1,000 years. So the fact that some geneticists believe we're all at least 50th cousins to everyone else on this planet thankfully doesn't mean we've completely corrupted our gene pool. Quite the opposite in fact.
A Most Recent Common Ancestor
While we don't really have 500 billion different ancestors, we can still look at the reverse of that idea: is there a single common ancestor that every person on Earth shares? The answer to that is a resounding "yes, of course" - indeed, the real question is figuring out which common ancestor you want to talk about. There are at least three different kinds of common ancestor that crop up in scientific discussion, and each lived at radically different parts of history.
The first type is simply known as the Most Recent Common Ancestor, or MRCA. The name says it all, really - this is simply the most recent person who, through any and all genetic lines, can be connected to every single person alive today. While it's fun to imagine a very small band of humans from which all humans are descended, the MRCA lived long, long after any such population bottleneck.
The MRCA is basically just a quirk of statistics, a random individual who happens to be the latest person who connects to everyone. He or she might have shared the planet with millions of other humans, all of whom left either no living descendants or are only related to some smaller subset of the people alive today. In fact, depending on who you believe, the MRCA might have lived just 2,000 years ago, so this definitely has nothing to do with being the world's only human.
https://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/im...EAAAICTAEAOw==
Shifting Dates
What's particularly fascinating about this is that we in the present day can actually change who our most recent common ancestor was. After all, the estimate that the MRCA lived only two or three millennia ago, long after humans became isolated on far distant continents, only works because of the globalization of the last 500 years. The theory is that enough European explorers intermarried with the various indigenous populations of the places they colonized so that, over time, even the most isolated groups become linked into the overall family tree.
This is a controversial theory, particularly since there are still thought to be a handful of uncontacted groups in South America and southwest Asia. If these peoples - each group of which only numbers about two hundred or so - really have remained completely cut off from other humans for millennia, then that would force the most recent common ancestor back to the Upper Paleolithic, anywhere from 40,000 to 10,000 years ago.
We can at least say this: in 2011, it's possible but not proven that the MRCA dates back to a surprisingly recent date, anywhere from 8,000 to 2,000 years ago. In 1511, before European exploration had really begun in earnest, the MRCA was still unquestionably an individual who lived in the Upper Paleolithic. And, by 2511, the current trends in globalization suggest that everyone will definitely share a recent MRCA...and one that gets more recent with each passing generation as more and more lineages mix.
https://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/im...EAAAICTAEAOw==
Mitochondrial Eve
So far, we've mostly discussed the MRCA in a purely statistical sense, without really bringing more tangible evidence to bear on the topic. There is some reason for that, and it goes right back to what we were discussing about long-term genetic inheritance. In sexual reproduction, a person will only pass on half of his or her genes, and their contribution to ensuing generations will continually divide by half. After a thousand years, even the MRCA's genetic contributions to humanity drop to virtually nil. That means the MRCA, who lived anywhere from 2,000 to 40,000 years ago, is more a statistical curiosity than a genetic benefactor, and he or she is related to all of us today in only the most technical of senses.
In order to find a common ancestor whose genetics have passed on, we need to look for things that are passed down from generation to generation with little or no alteration. Both genders pass along one thing that is unchanged during sexual reproduction. For women, this is the mitochondrial DNA, which is a distinct subset of genetic material found not in the cell nucleus but rather in the mitochondria, the power plants of the cell.
In most species, including humans, the female egg cells completely destroy the mitochondria in the male sperm cell shortly after fertilization, leaving only the female mitochondria behind. This is where we get the term "Mitochondrial Eve", made popular on shows like the new Battlestar Galactica. This individual passed down her mitochondria relatively unchanged to every human alive today, and all females will continue to pass down her mitochondria indefinitely.
By tracing the subtle mutations to mitochondrial DNA that have accumulated over the millennia, we can figure out which groups are most closely related, and ultimately fix the existence of Mitochondrial Eve to a fairly specific time in the past, which is currently estimated at about 200,000 years ago. As with the regular MRCA, Mitochondrial Eve would not have been exceptional during her own life. She certainly wasn't the only woman alive at the time, merely the only one who can trace descent to everyone alive right now.
https://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/im...EAAAICTAEAOw==
Y-chromosomal Adam
Less well known than Mitochondrial Eve is her male counterpart. The science here is simple enough - since only men have a Y-chromosome, fathers pass it on more or less unchanged to their sons, which allows geneticists to trace patrilineal descent in much the same way that mitochondrial DNA allows us to trace matrilineal descent. Intriguingly, genetic evidence suggests that Y-chromosomal Adam lived about 90,000 to 60,000 years ago, long after Mitochondrial Eve.
Why is everyone's male ancestor so much more recent than everyone's female ancestor? It's all down to breeding patterns. In Paleolithic times, the general rule was that any fertile woman could expect to have a certain number of offspring, and this was fairly evenly distributed. Paleolithic men, on the other hand, might father many children by multiple mothers, or they might fail to father any children at all.
Of course, that's something of an oversimplification - anything describing tens of thousands of years of human activity inevitably will be - but it explains why our male ancestors cluster together more and why our common patrilineal ancestor is so much more recent than her matrilineal counterpart.
All of this speaks to how small our planet really is - and, indeed, always has been - a powerful reminder of how little real difference there is between us all. As Joseph T. Chang, Douglas L.T. Rhode, and Steve Olson observe in their 2004 paper on the MRCA, we're all shocking interrelated, and getting more so all the time:
"No matter the languages we speak or the color of our skin, we share ancestors who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who first domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forests of North and South America, and who labored to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu. [And] within two thousand years, it is likely that everyone on earth will be descended from most of us."
on a side note there's a long standing loonie theory out there saying that cro magnon originated on Atlantis, which was supposed to be located in the Atlantic, between the Americas and the Westcoast of Africa and Europe
supposedly this explains common biological (genetic I assume) traits between the Basks (Europe, region of Spain) and whatever people grew out of the mayas
incidentally I'm reading a 1954 book on crackpot scientific theories at the moment, the cro magnon /atlantis thing popped up yesterday. I had myself a good long laugh
seems blavatsky was onto this ultimate truth earlier on too
http://www.blavatsky.net/index.php/37-topics/atlantis/343-cro-magnon-man-and-atlantis
knewcheeze & lordnose might buy this, it was probably a hot thread in KTL circa 2005
What book is it if you don’t mind me asking? I’m very fascinated with the cro mags
https://www.amazon.ca/latlantide-à-m.../dp/B00BYXF192Quote:
Originally Posted by RADIOACTIVE MAN
By a French author. I don't know whether an English translation exists. Possibly so, since I'm reading it in a Dutch translation. Mind you, only the first 15 pages or so deal with Atlantis/Cro-Magnons. The rest of the book discusses 12 other mysteries. The article deals mostly with the 'historic' evidence of Atlantis, Cro-Magnons are only mentioned in about two paragraphs
If you're interested in the Atlantis theories put forward, hit me up in N.I. and I'll post a summary. A lot of it deals with Paul Schliemann's fake evidence of Atlantis. He was Heinrich Schliemann's son or grandson (I forget). The original Schliemann discovered Troy based on theories he had developed. He found Troy where he expected to find it.
good shit broQuote:
Originally Posted by Hal Incandenza
thank you
Actually the question or theory you posed on here was really good that it had me thinking then my time travel knowledge cane to me, have you heard of the grandfather paradox shadynasty? If you have , then i think you know what the answer could be, if not, i could break down my theory for ya.
a good time travel story that is not directly linked to the grandfather paradox yet does have to do with relatives is Robert Heinlein's '- All you zombies'.
Here it ishttps://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Robert-A.-Heinlein-All-You-Zombies.pdf
I hope you all enjoy the read.
Here's a good analysis. (Full of spoilers, definitely don't read it before having read the story)https://daviramos.com/en/an-analysis-of-robert-heinleins-all-you-zombies-with-visuals/
Even this intricate time travel story has a plot hole in it (discussed in the analysis)
peace
Thats the theory that you can't kill your grandfather in the past or you can't exist. So I guess Skynet might need somebody around to create it, but I don't know if time travel would really work like that in reality. They would have stopped an old reality from happening but they would also have created a new one where Skynet appears through a wormhole, kills all humans and takes over the entire universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by RADIOACTIVE MAN
Some people have said the grandfather paradox makes time travel impossible because the only way it works is by making historically causal events inconsistent. It could be possible if its due to there being multiple universes/realities but then you still aren't changing your original timeline, you're changing a new one.
Who knows if time travel is even possible, we're way off understanding all the dimensions beyond the 3 we live in.
being that is a subject i'm very obsessed with, my ultimate understanding of time travel is this, if you mess with time, its messes back and some times the end result is worse than the original timeline, which brings me to this movie, if i was coming up with concepts for this movie, i would definitely do a prequel film where human's time travelled and skynet was the result of time pushing back at the alteration of events.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaDynasty
thank you for this, about to read :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal Incandenza
One more time travel story, more of a time loop really : Norman Spinrad's "The weed of time"
http://www.uky.edu/~mwa229/WeedTime.pdf
This one might require a print to read, unless you have a tablet.
Caught this one on tv earlier this week. 'Genysis' was better. 'Dark Fate' is just a rehash of 'T2'. Not a bad movie but really low on originality. I'm sure that if they tried they could make a far superior script that fits in neatly in the Terminator universe