MovieChat Forums > Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) Discussion > About the John Connor situation

About the John Connor situation

posted 4 years ago by conanurdevilish (73)
42 replies | jump to latest

Okay for those who haven't seen Dark Fate or heard what happens in it, turn away now.

For those who have seen it and kept up with spoilers, you'll know John Connor dies in the opening scene. This has caused a split in the fanbase. Who else besides me was not bothered that this happened? I have seen every Terminator movie and the TV series, and I just viewed it as natural progression. I'll address the common complaints about this and put my 5 cents into it.

"This made T1 and T2 meaningless" - How so? John's destiny was to stop Skynet. Skynet never existed due to the events of T2. Now that Skynet is gone, John is no longer needed. So how did this make T1 and T2 meaningless? This isn't even touching the films post T2 which I'll get to soon.

"John was the heart/most important thing about the franchise" - No he wasn't. I was born in the 80s and grew up throughout the entire Terminator craze. If you ask anyone who's their fave character or fave part of the Terminator films, John Connor was likely going to end up near the bottom of the list. The dude was just a plot device to get the characters people actually care about something to do.

"But the Terminator films are about John" - No it wasn't. The Terminator films are as much about John as they are about future war and purple lasers. The Terminator films are mainly in my opinion about the every complex relationship between humans and machines and the destinies the two of them are locked into. If this franchise is about John, I shouldn't be watching the TV series and Salvation and think this franchise needs to get the hell away from the Connors in order to properly flesh out.

"Dark Fate basically did to John what Alien 3 did to Hicks and Newt." - Speaking of that, for the REAL Terminator fans out there aka the people who actually remember the movies, anyone remember that little alteration from T3 to T5? The one where it's revealed in T3 that changes to the timeline not only made Skynet more powerful than ever, but it actually successfully murdered John? That was the reason T-X didn't even care to search for John when she originally came back and mainly was concerned about safeguarding Skynet and killing some 2nd in commands along the way? Then in T4/Salvation that destiny was brought up again when T-800 seemingly fulfilled it's destiny in killing John until Sam Worthington gave him his heart? Then in T6/Genysis John not only got killed by Skynet again, but kind of got killed twice in that movie? Yeah this isn't the first time Skynet killed John.

Furthermore unlike Hicks and Newt, John had 3 movies and a TV series about him after his introductory film and each portrayal was wildly different from the others. Hicks and Newt had 0 after their introductory film. That should tell how little writers actually knew what to do with John as a character. That they had to change his destiny into being murdered by Skynet and have his portrayal be different in every outing just to try and make him interesting.

[–] Kowalski (57268) 4 years ago

I CLICK ON TERMINATOR POSTS WITH A HEAVY FEELING IN MY GUT LATELY...SO MUCH INSANITY....LOVES YOURE POST...AGREE WITH EVERY WORD..VERY COOL!

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I totally disagree. There was a natural progression to this series that hinged on the strong relationship between the three main leads.

"This made T1 and T2 meaningless" - How so? John's destiny was to stop Skynet. Skynet never existed due to the events of T2.

I'd fine tune that answer to say that it was John's destiny to save humanity against Skynet, or any other 'Skynet in everything but name' AI.

In that respect it rendered the first two movies meaningless.

Replacing John with another 'saviour' -- a Latin American female -- in a plot that's more or less identical to T2 with a bit of Genesys tossed in screamed 'virtue signaling'.

"John was the heart/most important thing about the franchise - No he wasn't."

Yes, he was the heart and soul of the series. Hicks spends a good deal of the first movie idolizing this character we only see off screen. He was Hick's motivation. Otherwise, Cameron could have just written a script about any grunt who comes from the future. Knowing the stakes for the future raised the entire emotional pull of the movie.

The whole damn second movie is built up around Sarah's need to protect him, and the relationship that builds up between Connor and this father figure who "would never hurt him, never shout at him, or get drunk and hit him, or say it was too busy to spend time with him."

-- cont'd--

[–] conanurdevilish (73) 4 years ago

Yes, he was the heart and soul of the series. Hicks spends a good deal of the first movie idolizing this character we only see off screen. He was Hick's motivation. Otherwise, Cameron could have just written a script about any grunt who comes from the future. Knowing the stakes for the future raised the entire emotional pull of the movie.

The whole damn second movie is built up around Sarah's need to protect him, and the relationship that builds up between Connor and this father figure who "would never hurt him, never shout at him, or get drunk and hit him, or say it was too busy to spend time with him."

Okay first his name is Kyle Reese, not Hicks. You're getting that mixed up with that other James Cameron movie. Secondly you realize everything you wrote just confirmed my statement of "The dude was just a plot device to get the characters people actually care about something to do."

On top of my other point that "The Terminator films are as much about John as they are about future war and purple lasers. The Terminator films are mainly in my opinion about the every complex relationship between humans and machines and the destinies the two of them are locked into."

That whole quote you made was about the complex relationship between humans and machines and their destiny together.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Hicks... LOL. Yeah, I had Aliens on the brain there.

We'll have to disagree on this one.

I think the fact that the movie failed to find traction speaks for itself. The Wikipedia article has some quotes from some of the prominent reviewers who also complained of the mishandling of the John Connor character.

FWIW, I haven't see it yet. Once I learned how they handled John Connor, I lost any interest. I'm probably typical of the many fans who stayed away.

Nothing more I can add to this thread.

[–] conanurdevilish (73) 4 years ago

We are going to have to disagree here.

The reason the movie lost traction is due to a bunch of reasons, many of which wasn't Dark Fate's fault. Yes there is the population who didn't like Connor's handling because as said in the OP, he dies in opening scene. Those people tend to be T1 and T2 purest who likely would've had a problem with the film for any number of reasons even if they did kept John alive.

The general audience though, I talked to a lot of people throughout the year of 2019 about movies leading up to Dark Fate's release, and you won't believe how many people I encountered who didn't even know there was a Terminator movie coming out or cared. You can take a guess between T3, TSCC, TS or TG at which point did they lose interest in the franchise.

Then add movies in 2019 in general all struggled at the box office unless you were Disney or a superhero movie. Most people just wait for movies to hit streaming now and those who do watch in theatres, many of the general audiences are kids with their parents, and most wouldn't know anything about the Terminator films. Not all though because I have seen numerous kids at my Dark Fate screening. Only other exception is if you have a devoted cult like the Marvel and DC does.

[–] Kowalski (57268) 4 years ago

YOU HAVE ADDED TOO MUCH ALREADY....PEOPLE WHO DONT WATCH A FILM SHOULD...HOW DO I PUT THIS?.....KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT.

[–] TalkinPikchorBox (2249) 4 years ago

Just like people shouldn’t type in all caps.

[–] Kowalski (57268) 4 years ago

THAT IS FALSE.

[–] conanurdevilish (73) 4 years ago

I'd fine tune that answer to say that it was John's destiny to save humanity against Skynet, or any other 'Skynet in everything but name' AI.

Except this stop being the case from T3 and onwards. The only reason humanity was winning the war in the first 2 movies was because Skynet had a power core/defense system that controlled all of it's machines and the humans were able to destroy that which rendered most of Skynet's defenses inactive. T3 completely established Skynet has no such weakness anymore, and that it managed to kill John. Salvation showed the rest of the human resistance wasn't even taking John seriously and he almost died prematurely, and we know what happened in Genysis.

John Connor was out of a destiny way before Dark Fate came out.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I think you are muddying the waters here. T3 is now considered 'not canon'.

You are taking the stand that the DF story is somehow related to the developments or concepts expressed in T3, Salvation and Genesys movies.

My case comes from the producers' stated position that T3, Salvation and Genesys were no longer canon... or a different timeline as they tried to pass it off.

So, for many of us, that meant that a continuation and exploration of that three-way relationship and story from T2.

I can't debate of relevancy of facts in movies which were deliberately put aside. It's meaningless.

[–] conanurdevilish (73) 4 years ago

I think you are muddying the waters here. T3 is now considered 'not canon'.

I'm referring about John as a whole. I'm aware there's like four alternate universes for the Terminator franchise now. The original timeline which goes from T1-T2-T3-TS, then that terrible Sarah Connor Chronicles timeline which was some fanfic version of T1 and T2 when time travelled forward in time. Then that other bizarro timeline from Genysis which pretty much more or less does the same thing as TSCC. Then we have the current timeline where Cameron obviously just went "I'm not going to even try and keep track of all these timelines that I didn't create" and just went like T1-T2-TDF.

John Connor as a whole however just didn't work with all his outings. He stopped being important both in story and out of story, and people are surprised when Cameron decides to abandon the character? That's like being shocked that a car from that same company breakdowns down for the 4th time. I'm just left with a "this isn't new, so I'm not surprised" feeling from what happened in Dark Fate. It was hard to grow an attachment with that character since this would be the 4th time writers would have to try and write for the character of John in a more grown up role, and he wasn't connecting very well in all prior instalments if they didn't kill him off. Do you really think 4th time was going to be the charm?

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

The next logical progression would be to see this character evolve into the warrior we know he becomes... something both T3 and Salvation acknowledged.

"that little alteration from T3 to T5? The one where it's revealed in T3 that changes to the timeline not only made Skynet more powerful than ever, but it actually successfully murdered John?"

You got that wrong. John was still the future resistance leader. Skynet couldn't locate John in our present because he was off grid. So it went after his future wife and his lieutenants instead.

In summary, in trying to take a giant step forward with its 'hit em over the head' feminist and pro-immigration agenda, DF took a big step backwards simply regurgitating a mashup plot between T2 and Genesys.

Ironically, the series already had a strong and admirable female lead in Linda Hamilton's character. And I don't think anyone would have objected to Mackenzie Davis' character either.

And, even killing off John might have been acceptable if it had been in service of the over all epic. Instead, it's casually tossed off in the opening scene, and it carries no emotional weight other than profound disappointment.

Apparently it was Cameron's idea. Considering how the opening of Alien 3 eviscerated the events of Aliens in its opening scene, you would have thought he'd have more sense.

[–] conanurdevilish (73) 4 years ago

John was still the future resistance leader. Skynet couldn't locate John in our present because he was off grid. So it went after his future wife and his lieutenants instead.

You got that wrong and mixed up dude. I know because I own T3, seen it multiple times and am one of the people who would defend that movie despite certain aspects I hate like the stupid humour.

That's present John Connor, that wasn't what happened to future John Connor. When John was asking Arnold how he is here because they stopped Skynet and the changes to the future, Arnold tells him John tried to send another Model 101 Terminator aka the Arnold model as his protector due to his attachment to it in T2. However this plan backfires and it ends up killing him, so Claire Danes character had to be the one to reprogram it which is why Arnold in the movie listens to her instead of John. This also puts into context why T-X didn't even care to find him at first until she found out he's literally in the area. Because she knows Connor is dead in the future and failed to stop Skynet, so that's why her mission in the film was always to safeguard Skynet and make sure what happened in T2 didn't repeat itself. Killing off the 2nd in commands who are still alive and kicking in the future was just a added bonus.

John being destined to be killed by Skynet literally was John's new recurring storyline from T3 to T5.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

John isn't killed by Skynet til 2032. He still becomes the future leader of the resistance for 20 years or so.

I thought you were saying he died before Skynet was born after the events of T2 changed the future.

During those years, he would have amassed and passed on to his followers information critical to defeating Skynet. So my point still stands... he was critically important to the story and evolution of the series.

[–] conanurdevilish (73) 4 years ago

During those years, he would have amassed and passed on to his followers information critical to defeating Skynet.

You got one part wrong here. Nothing was established in either T3 or Salvation that humanity ever defeated Skynet. You're mixing up the original T1 and T2 timeline which only establishes Skynet was losing, not fully defeated with the new more powerful Skynet from T3 and Salvation. It was totally left ambiguous what was humanity's fate in the new future which the attempted failed Salvation trilogy was building up on.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

C'mon, stop being obtuse. You know what I mean here.

[–] conanurdevilish (73) 4 years ago

I know what you mean, but the future being uncertain if humanity gets exterminated or not basically made John really not much more important than any of the other military people we saw or even his own wife in Salvation trying to stop Skynet. Clearly there was always going to be people in the futue who survive who was going to try and organize the survivors against the machines as we saw. It was a case of "Is this guy even important anymore? I can't think of much special things he can come up with that others we saw can't, and he's destined to die from Skynet to boot."

[–] conanurdevilish (73) 4 years ago

Apparently it was Cameron's idea. Considering how the opening of Alien 3 eviscerated the events of Aliens in its opening scene, you would have thought he'd have more sense.

I heard about that bit too and wouldn't that tell you something about John's importance to the franchise? That even his own creator thought the best route to take with John was to have John fulfill his new destiny and die from Skynet? Judging by Cameron's comments of the movies that came after T2, it sounds like Cameron at least saw those movies. Which leads me to believe even Cameron didn't know what to do with the character and saw how much of a inconsistent mess it is trying to write that character.

[–] 10200 (656) 4 years ago

Oh BS, Cameron was just trying to get creative and reboot the franchise so it was more "relevant today." What a crock - he damn well knew what he was doing and thought by bringing Linda back it would make this one seem more like the true sequel to T2 than T3 or Salvation.

Regardless of Judgement Day ever happening or not, it would have been so easy to include John in DF in several different ways. Hell, he could even have been killed off fighting Legion as an adult if that is where the story really needed to go and I think most die hard fans could have bought into that. But no, it was decided to kill him off as a teen at the very beginning of the movie for shock value only resulting in sloppy writing and a poor story line.

[–] conanurdevilish (73) 4 years ago

he damn well knew what he was doing and thought by bringing Linda back it would make this one seem more like the true sequel to T2 than T3 or Salvation.

Well yeah, the creators of Dark Fate were pretty vocal about them thinking Sarah was the real heart of the films instead of the misadventures of the ever changing John Connor.

Hell, he could even have been killed off fighting Legion as an adult if that is where the story really needed to go and I think most die hard fans could have bought into that.

Several problems, and rather big problems here though.

1) T-800 would not have a storyline in the movie. T-800's storyline completely requires him to kill John and have a lot of time pass by since then. While I do agree with those that think the T-800 taking this face turn is a slight bit farfetched without the aid of some sort of reprogramming, but this character arc for him completely requires him to have killed John. You're suggestion would require the T-800 just chasing John throughout the entire movie again. Considering this movie was planning to be Arnold's final swan song to the franchise, not giving him that story arc will be a issue for the writers.

2) Sarah won't have a storyline. Her storyline is completely reliant on losing John and becoming a wreck from it. The intended heart of the film won't have a storyline outside babysitting John again and not having much agency of her own. Yeah I think that completely defeats the point in making Sarah the emotional focus tying back to the originals.

[–] conanurdevilish (73) 4 years ago

continued...

3) Not sure if you meant to have John killed off by Rev-9 or actually Legion. For Rev-9 to kill off John, again that means Sarah gets no storyline since she's already trying to kill Rev-9 to help Dani, so nothing will come out of that. T-800 100% gets no storyline. So two characters I'm sure many people prefers over John will lose their storylines just so a character who's going to die anyways gets a bit more screentime. Yeah I'm sure that's going to go well. I rather have a proper use of a character as oppose to a half ass excuse to pander to fanservice. That's why I hate franchises like the MCU because they have no balls and will always sacrifice story, continuity, logic, reason and character arcs just because it gets some fanboys/girls cheering to go buy their merchandise.

4) If you mean actually Legion, than that's even worse. Legion likely won't even be up and operational until movie 3, so John will have to be alive for the entire trilogy? So you want a character who's likely going to be written as dead weight to live for the entire trilogy just because a certain group of T1/T2 purist can't let go of a character who was already losing his importance in the last 4 Terminator outings? That sounds like a terrible idea. Why not drag back Dr. Silberman back into the franchise while we're at it then?

[–] 10200 (656) 4 years ago

Interesting comments - but I have to run right now and don't have time to comment - will be back later.

I do have a question - how do you copy and paste comments and then grey them out? I've tried everything and can't seem to get anything to work. I'm on a Mac if that matters.

[–] conanurdevilish (73) 4 years ago

I do have a question - how do you copy and paste comments and then grey them out? I've tried everything and can't seem to get anything to work. I'm on a Mac if that matters.

To copy and paste, you simply highlight the words you want to copy. Afterwards you can either go to the top of your window where "edit" is and select "copy" or you can do it quicker by holding "ctrl" and "c" at the same time. At least that's how it works for me, but I'm using a PC laptop.

To grey them out, underneath the "add reply" button is a clickable "formatting help" that opens a tab showing you how to format the post with the options they have.

[–] 10200 (656) 4 years ago

Sorry, I know how to copy and paste - it's the greying out that I can't seem to figure out.

Oh I see what you're talking about. Will try it.

[–] 10200 (656) 4 years ago

You bring up some good points about keeping John alive in DF, but I don't think that is the direction another Terminator movie should have gone, I guess I'll just leave it at - I did not like a story where John was killed off. I did not want to see the franchise go off in new directions.

[–] conanurdevilish (73) 4 years ago

I did not want to see the franchise go off in new directions.

The franchise needed to go in a new direction in my opinion. If they keep the old direction, then I'm sure many will be asking "Why ain't I just watching T2 instead? Why ain't I just watching T3 instead?" Because not going off in new direction sounds like it will just be T2 again or T3 again with different casting.

My main issue with the movie was that they didn't go enough into new directions. Reading info about this movie before any trailers even came out, the writers were talking about reflecting today's society where humans become more reliant on technology and I thought they did not do enough of a good job there. Outside the car factory scene, the scenes of Rev-9 using all the satellites and cameras in the world to make searching for his target easier and the concept of Grace, I felt there needed to be a better connect with that idea. I felt the biggest shortcoming was rehashing the whole military leader vs AI machine angle. They should not have done that. I was hoping the Dani character was going to make something important looking at her job, and people like John Connor aren't needed anymore in this new machine landscape. I could think of many things that something could've been and it makes it more apparent John really had no where else to go in this new future.

[–] 10200 (656) 4 years ago

I think we agree on some things and don't on others. If the franchise needed to go in a different direction, then they should have had totally new characters and not bring Arnie and Linda back. IMO, they wanted it both ways - "Oh look we have a new threat, new future leader,new story, but oh wait ---- this is a direct sequel to T2 with Linda back as Sarah Connor and Arnie is still a T800. And we are still going to have terminators from the future come back to change the past - but be sure this is a new direction for Terminator." MEH.

I don't think you can change the theme of the Terminator franchise because if you change it too much then why call it a Terminator movie? Just come up with a new AI threat storyline and call it something else - make it original.

I still believe if they wanted to make DF a direct sequel to T2 with Arnie and Linda then it had to include John. It didn't have to be, ( and shouldn't have been), the story told in DF.

[–] conanurdevilish (73) 4 years ago

If the franchise needed to go in a different direction, then they should have had totally new characters and not bring Arnie and Linda back.

They needed to connect the film with T2 in some way, and bringing back both Linda and Arnold was the best way to do so. The writers did say they were going to make the movie regardless if they can get Linda or Arnold back, but preferably they wanted Sarah back as a emotional core and Arnold back because Cameron wanted Arnold's last outing to be his movie since T1 was what jumpstarted both their careers.

I don't think you can change the theme of the Terminator franchise because if you change it too much then why call it a Terminator movie?

This is coming across as what I call Michael Myers crybaby syndrome. Where tons of fanboys were crying in Halloween 3 "Where's Michael Myers? Why is this film called Halloween 3 if there's no Michael?" Um yeah, it's called Halloween and not The Michael Myers chronicles. I must be in the minority that when seeing the Halloween movies on the shelf of my local video store in the 90s and saw part 3 called "Season of the Witch" that I easily got that the Halloween franchise was intended to be an anthology. I was a pretty young kid back then and even I could figure that out. Honestly I would've loved for the Halloween films to have gone it's original direction of being an anthology since Halloween is my fave holiday and I know there's tons of horror topics that can be centered around that holiday. Movies that also use that idea like Trick r Treat are also films I love. Instead a good idea devolves into the Michael Myers wankfest saga. It's as facepalming as people claiming you can't have X-men films without Wolverine or you can't have Resident Evil films without Alice.

Back to Terminator, as long as the movie is about a killer robot called a Terminator created by a AI that humanity is fighting against in the future, it's a Terminator movie.

[–] conanurdevilish (73) 4 years ago

continued...

Just come up with a new AI threat storyline and call it something else - make it original.

Now this is reminding me of the Star Wars: Fallen Jedi Order situation where the original creators were planning to make a original game series with their idea, but someone at EA suggested that the ideas would work well for a Star Wars game and to transfer them over to the SW lore. The game was well received and likely would've been more successful than the original game the creators wanted to make due to the name recognition.

I still believe if they wanted to make DF a direct sequel to T2 with Arnie and Linda then it had to include John. It didn't have to be, ( and shouldn't have been), the story told in DF.

Considering neither you or any of the people online who complained about John dying was able to come up with a better story idea that didn't just sound like rehashing T2, T3 or worse TS with more fanservice thrown in like a moronic MCU film, that just says this franchise needed to branch out.

The Terminator franchise is also in a rough spot similar to Star Wars, Predator, Alien and Robocop to a lesser extent where they were seen as being more intelligent than many of the franchises around that 80s era like the many shameless slasher genres. So the bar was always much higher to come up with new ideas and approaches with each installment. Look at the franchise there that thought it was a good idea to keep on rehasing the original film, Predator, and look what those movies have become now. It's now seen as the worse of the bunch with worse box office of the bunch. Even Star Wars is slowly getting there with how Disney has been handling the material.

The TV series and Genysis thought it was a good idea to attempt a T1/T2 style reboot/direct sequel approach with many of the same rehashed characters and it turned many people off. This isn't the Michael Myers wankfest saga, they needed to do something new in hopes to revive the franchise.

[–] 10200 (656) 4 years ago

Bottom line - IMO, they did not need to revive the franchise. T1 was actually the complete story although I totally enjoyed T2. The only direction it should ever have gone was the future war and unfortunately that failed.

I'll be the first to admit I was excited as hell when I heard Linda was coming back, but it just didn't work for me. So, I will continue to love the first two movies and pretty much dismiss DF as fan fiction - just like T Gen.

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

Hollywood enjoys trashing and stomping on any movie that has a triumph of the real human spirit.

[–] conanurdevilish (73) 4 years ago

Well it's reported it was Cameron's idea to kill off John, so you only have the man himself to blame for this.

[–] ExTechOp (2737) 4 years ago

it's revealed in T3 that changes to the timeline not only made Skynet more powerful than ever, but it actually successfully murdered John? That was the reason T-X didn't even care to search for John when she originally came back and mainly was concerned about safeguarding Skynet and killing some 2nd in commands along the way?

I never thought of it that way but it's an interesting take.

Thing is, even in "Terminator," Reese pointed out that killing John at the end of the war would accomplish nothing. So the fact that the Arnold Terminator in "T3" succeeded is just gravy to Skynet. I'm pretty sure the stated reason the T-X was going after John's lieutenants was that John himself was too successful at hiding from Skynet by remaining off the grid.

Remember, the T-X "lost it" when she tasted John Connor's blood, and immediately started hunting him as her primary target.

I personally agree with pretty much everything else the OP says - in fact I'd go further and point out that the TV series wasn't called the "John Connor Chronicles." John himself, in most of the films, is more of a human McGuffin than a central character. Sarah has generally remained at the heart of the story across most of the films.

[–] conanurdevilish (73) 4 years ago

Thing is, even in "Terminator," Reese pointed out that killing John at the end of the war would accomplish nothing.

You got to remember the future in T1 and T2 (even T2's future has been tweak slightly from T1) are drastically different from the future in T3 and Salvation. In T1 and T2 Skynet had a system core that gave it a glaring weakness. There should be some scripts out there floating around of the original T2 and I think even T1 extended war scenes showing this weakness where after the core got destroyed, the majority of Skynet's machines turned off.

T3 and Salvation did not have such weaknesses and it was ambiguous if human even won which is what the intended Salvation trilogy was relying on to draw people in. T3's future was basically Skynet going "we won this fight, we just have to make sure no one tries to stop Skynet from existing again, so send in T-X to keep everything on course for us."

Remember, the T-X "lost it" when she tasted John Connor's blood, and immediately started hunting him as her primary target.

Well yeah, John was still the biggest target, Skynet just wasn't anticipating to encounter him this early.

[–] conanurdevilish (73) 4 years ago

in fact I'd go further and point out that the TV series wasn't called the "John Connor Chronicles."

While it was called "Sarah Connor Chronicles", but the series was becoming more and more about that vortex of suck known as John Baum the more it progressed that by season 2, Sarah felt like a supporting character in her own show. I remember reading an interview from the creators about what season 3 would've been about, and looked like they were going to use the excuse that Sarah went MIA at the end of season 2 to make the series even more about John Baum and his stupid Twilight love triangle storyline and his moronic CW teen drama. If that's the direction the series was heading, then I'm glad the series got cancelled. It's actually ironic Thomas Dekker went on to play a actual CW character involved in one of those Twilight style love triangles, and this character wasn't as insufferable as John Baum.

Sarah has generally remained at the heart of the story across most of the films.

Yes exactly. That's why Tim Miller and the writers thought it was a better idea to make the human side of the film more about Sarah again.

[–] Jehosaphet (1055) 4 years ago

"But the Terminator films are about John" - No it wasn't. The Terminator films are as much about John as they are about future war and purple lasers."
This. John was only the "because" in "Why is a bunch of stuff exploding, why is this action so intense, why am I loving this movie?" etc.
Because they gotta save John!
John is just the reason for the movie to exist...like a human McGuffin (or whatever that trope's called). In fact, he's so interchangeable that they just swapped him out in this movie and not a beat was missed. Different people but same story, same action...

John was just a conduit IMO. Up until Salvation anyway, when he took on a leading role in a different kind of plot.

[–] conanurdevilish (73) 4 years ago

Yes you get. Also the term you're looking for is indeed called McGuffin over at TV tropes. As you mentioned, this movie does show John is interchangeable. And pretty much every outing post T2 including the TV series (whose incarnation I hate so much I only consider him John Baum) has John wildly different that it was hard for me to have any attachment to him in the long haul because it showed what happens when you try to gave a human mcguffin storylines.

[–] MaximRecoil (4045) 4 years ago

"This made T1 and T2 meaningless" - How so? John's destiny was to stop Skynet. Skynet never existed due to the events of T2. Now that Skynet is gone, John is no longer needed.

That's absurd. The importance of John Connor was that he was critical in defeating an AI that was trying to take over the world. The name of the AI is irrelevant.

"John was the heart/most important thing about the franchise" - No he wasn't. I was born in the 80s and grew up throughout the entire Terminator craze.

What year? There's a big age difference between someone born in 1980 and someone born in 1989. Even if you were born in 1980, you were only 4 when The Terminator was released.

If you ask anyone who's their fave character or fave part of the Terminator films, John Connor was likely going to end up near the bottom of the list.

John Connor didn't even exist as an onscreen character in the 1980s. If you're talking about the 1990s after the release of T2, and asking kids your age back then, the vast majority of them would have named one of the Terminator characters. If you asked who their favorite human character was, far more of them would have said John Connor than Sarah Connor, because far more kids will identify with a kid character who is the same age or a little older than they are, than with the kid character's mother.

In my case, I was 16½ when I saw T2 on opening day in the theater, and Edward Furlong was only 13 when he filmed T2. At those ages, that's a big age difference, so from my perspective he was a little kid, and a highly annoying one at that. Sarah "Wannabe Rambo" Connor was almost as annoying, and was a completely different character than the excellent Sarah Connor from T1. Arnold's character was ruined by making him a sensitive '90s guy who takes orders from a dipshit kid and isn't allowed by said dipshit kid to terminate anyone, leaving Robert Patrick as the only good character in that movie.

That's all irrelevant though, because people's favorite character has nothing to do with their objective importance to the story.

The dude was just a plot device to get the characters people actually care about something to do.

He was only a mere plot device in T1. In T2, T3, TS, and TG he was a main character.

[–] conanurdevilish (73) 4 years ago

That's absurd. The importance of John Connor was that he was critical in defeating an AI that was trying to take over the world. The name of the AI is irrelevant.

Nope his destiny was specifically tied to Skynet and by T3 and onwards it was now he was destined to be murdered by Skynet. So clearly his importance was diminishing as the franchise went on.

What year? There's a big age difference between someone born in 1980 and someone born in 1989. Even if you were born in 1980, you were only 4 when The Terminator was released.

Well the Terminator craze really didn't hit until the 90s since T1 was still a fairly low budget movie. T2 was when all the merchandising really popped onto the TV screens and store shelves.

That's all irrelevant though, because people's favorite character has nothing to do with their objective importance to the story.

Yes it does. If the audience finds you the least interesting character and couldn't care less about you, then you are clearly not the heart of the franchise as none of the audience can connect with them and the franchise as a whole suffers.

He was only a mere plot device in T1. In T2, T3, TS, and TG he was a main character.

He was still a plot device in the first 2 movies or more specifically as TV tropes call it, a human McGuffin. T3, TS and TG they basically rewrote his importance so he became less of a plot device and more of a character humanity didn't even really need anymore.

[–] MaximRecoil (4045) 4 years ago

"Nope his destiny was specifically tied to Skynet"

Again, that's absurd. The name of the AI doesn't matter. If it did, all Skynet would've had to do is change their name (you know, instead of sending Terminators back in time) and voila! John Connor can't harm them anymore because it's not Skynet (lol).

"and by T3 and onwards it was now he was destined to be murdered by Skynet."

First, this is about T1 and T2, because TDF is supposed to be a direct sequel to those. That's why Sarah Connor is alive and well in TDF even though she died before the events of T3. Second, his future death that was mentioned in T3 happened long after he'd already set things in motion to defeat Skynet, i.e., killing him by that time meant little to nothing. That's why the TX was so "excited" when it found him, and immediately made him the prime target. If his death in the future was good enough it would have ignored him.

"Well the Terminator craze really didn't hit until the 90s since T1 was still a fairly low budget movie. T2 was when all the merchandising really popped onto the TV screens and store shelves."

The Terminator was a popular movie (it grossed over 12 times its budget in theaters), and became even more so on home video and TV airings as Arnold's stardom increased throughout the 1980s. It obviously wasn't as big of a hit as T2, but it was popular enough to greenlight T2 with a huge (for the time) budget of $102 million (compared to $6.4 million for T1).

"Yes it does. If the audience finds you the least interesting character and couldn't care less about you, then you are clearly not the heart of the franchise as none of the audience can connect with them and the franchise as a whole suffers."

No, that's subjective. Objective importance is determined by their role in the story, not by popular vote.

"He was still a plot device in the first 2 movies or more specifically as TV tropes call it, a human McGuffin."

He was only a plot device in T1 as I already said. A main character (as he was in following movies) can't be a mere plot device.

[–] kenburke (2279) 4 years ago

After Judgement Day, the Terminator franchise nose-dived big time.