PDA

View Full Version : Anyone see terminator?


Flex Gunmetal
05-23-2009, 02:01 PM
If not, wait for the DVD. Talk about a letdown.

Spider
05-23-2009, 02:04 PM
i was wanting to , but i will take your advice ..... How about fast and Furious 4 ? My wife wants to see that , I was thinking of taking her ( part of our lets work out our problems instead of divorce things)

Flex Gunmetal
05-23-2009, 02:06 PM
Hahaha. Didnt see fast and furious. I was looking forward to wolverine and terminator, both were pretty disappointing. Star trek was sweet tho. Maybe that can save your marriage?

FADERPROOF
05-23-2009, 02:08 PM
i was wanting to , but i will take your advice ..... How about fast and Furious 4 ? My wife wants to see that , I was thinking of taking her ( part of our lets work out our problems instead of divorce things)

fast and furious was really good, not sure if it will save a marriage but still go see it.

Spider
05-23-2009, 02:09 PM
Hahaha. Didnt see fast and furious. I was looking forward to wolverine and terminator, both were pretty disappointing. Star trek was sweet tho. Maybe that can save your marriage?

;D maybe .........Hell I will save the Marriage , I am the one that wants out not her , but I cant leave her with 6 kids ........i will stay until the trips turn into teenagers ......... Only part that really sucks is , I want to cheat on her , but I cant ........ ****ing morals

Spider
05-23-2009, 02:13 PM
fast and furious was really good, not sure if it will save a marriage but still go see it.

;D thanks ........

TheReverend
05-23-2009, 02:13 PM
If not, wait for the DVD. Talk about a letdown.

I like your taste, but this is one I still gotta see... going in a couple hours. Will post confirmation of suckage or turn thread into flame war tonight.

dbroncos31
05-23-2009, 02:35 PM
I think the key to T4 is to not have crazy expectations. I saw it last night and I didn't expect much more than good action. And I thought it was awesome. Granted, I was also pretty baked, but to me it was a really good movie. Obviously there were pretty big plot holes and some of the stuff was a little ridiculous, but IMO the movie made up for that with non-stop action. It was fantastic. I actually recommend seeing this in theaters rather than DVD because on DVD the action scenes won't be as good as they will on the big screen.

Don't go into this movie expecting Citizen Kane. Go into it expecting a decent story and tons of stuff blowing up and you won't be disappointed.

(For best results, see it while inebriated)

Borks147
05-23-2009, 02:40 PM
I was very very entertained for 2 hours. prepare to suspend your disbelief regarding one character in particular, but overall I wholeheartedly recommend it*



*sci-fi geek talking

Flex Gunmetal
05-23-2009, 02:46 PM
I think the key to T4 is to not have crazy expectations. I saw it last night and I didn't expect much more than good action. And I thought it was awesome. Granted, I was also pretty baked, but to me it was a really good movie. Obviously there were pretty big plot holes and some of the stuff was a little ridiculous, but IMO the movie made up for that with non-stop action. It was fantastic. I actually recommend seeing this in theaters rather than DVD because on DVD the action scenes won't be as good as they will on the big screen.

Don't go into this movie expecting Citizen Kane. Go into it expecting a decent story and tons of stuff blowing up and you won't be disappointed.

(For best results, see it while inebriated)

Good point. I was blazed out when I saw it, I just love the 1st 2 and despise the 3rd one. I had high hopes. A lot of stuff didn't add up and it was frustrating. I loved the post-apocalyptic feel and the action was great.

Dukes
05-23-2009, 02:51 PM
It was a good action flick, but I left feeling something was missing. I still can't put my finger on what exactly, it just seemed incomplete.

Flex Gunmetal
05-23-2009, 02:51 PM
I like your taste, but this is one I still gotta see... going in a couple hours. Will post confirmation of suckage or turn thread into flame war tonight.

ROFL!

Hercules Rockefeller
05-23-2009, 02:52 PM
Thought it was too short, as in any scene that might develop any character, was left on the cutting room floor. Even with a 2 hour run time, it didn't seem like that long of a film.

This should have been unquestionably R like the prior 3 films.

The final 2 minutes almost killed it for me. Either something got cut, or they had no idea how to end it.

I have other complaints, but there would be spoilers.

Even with all that, I had a great time and might even go see it again.

ludo21
05-23-2009, 02:53 PM
T 4 was sweet!!

You got explosions, action, high tech SkyNet, what else was one looking for?

If you want to see it, go see it, dont let this ruin thread ruin it for ya.

Flex Gunmetal
05-23-2009, 02:58 PM
Thought it was too short, as in any scene that might develop any character, was left on the cutting room floor. Even with a 2 hour run time, it didn't seem like that long of a film.

This should have been unquestionably R like the prior 3 films.

The final 2 minutes almost killed it for me. Either something got cut, or they had no idea how to end it.

I have other complaints, but there would be spoilers.

Even with all that, I had a great time and might even go see it again.

I had heard that the original ending was leaked online. They scrapped it and had the ****ty one the audience was left with.
From what I heard, the original had Connor getting aced, but who knows.

Hercules Rockefeller
05-23-2009, 03:02 PM
I had heard that the original ending was leaked online. They scrapped it and had the ****ty one the audience was left with.
From what I heard, the original had Connor getting aced, but who knows.

Leaked online version was: Connor dies. Marcus takes Connor's face so no one knows that Connor is dead and the Resistance continues.

Nearly as stupid as what they put out there, but I know that everyone involved with the film always denied that was the ending.

Flex Gunmetal
05-23-2009, 03:26 PM
Leaked online version was: Connor dies. Marcus takes Connor's face so no one knows that Connor is dead and the Resistance continues.

Nearly as stupid as what they put out there, but I know that everyone involved with the film always denied that was the ending.

Wow that's just as bad.

Crushaholic
05-23-2009, 03:26 PM
Terminator was always about Arnold Schwarzenegger. Without seeing the movie, I can't imagine Christian Bale taking on the role with any credibility...

Punisher
05-23-2009, 03:27 PM
If not, wait for the DVD. Talk about a letdown.

Yea i read the reviews.... http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810025211/critic

Borks147
05-23-2009, 03:48 PM
Terminator was always about Arnold Schwarzenegger. Without seeing the movie, I can't imagine Christian Bale taking on the role with any credibility...

hehehe......

I'm not going to spoil it, but you wouldn't be disappointed

Borks147
05-23-2009, 03:50 PM
Leaked online version was: Connor dies. Marcus takes Connor's face so no one knows that Connor is dead and the Resistance continues.

Nearly as stupid as what they put out there, but I know that everyone involved with the film always denied that was the ending.

I hadn't read that leak, but I actually thought that was how it was going to end (Connor dies, Marcus takes over....only without the silly face thing)

DeusExManning
05-23-2009, 04:07 PM
I just saw it and loved it, I do not see what the problem is. There was a lot of action, Christian Bale does a great job. The Marcus storyline was great. A good set up for a sequel.

Killericon
05-23-2009, 04:15 PM
I just saw it and loved it, I do not see what the problem is. There was a lot of action, Christian Bale does a great job. The Marcus storyline was great. A good set up for a sequel.

I would've cared more about cardboard cutouts than those characters. They had the depth of a puddle.

Spider
05-23-2009, 04:20 PM
I would've cared more about cardboard cutouts than those characters. They had the depth of a puddle.

Not that is a bad thing , some times we just go to movies to escape our own reality , just escape and have fun and enjoy the ride ........No deep thinking , no need to follow closely ;D

DeusExManning
05-23-2009, 04:27 PM
Leaked online version was: Connor dies. Marcus takes Connor's face so no one knows that Connor is dead and the Resistance continues.

Nearly as stupid as what they put out there, but I know that everyone involved with the film always denied that was the ending.

That is not what happened, but that would have been interesting none the less.

TheReverend
05-23-2009, 07:26 PM
Alright just got back and thought it was great. Whoever thinks the plot had inconsistency with the previous films, please PM whatever you're talking about because I didn't notice any...

I even like how they slid in GNR "You Could Be Mine" from the T2 soundtrack.

And the characters lack depth? Well, that's kind of fine because the characters have been in decades worth of movies so they already have established depth and connections with the viewers.

Honestly, wtf? How does someone not like this movie?

maher_tyler
05-23-2009, 08:19 PM
i was wanting to , but i will take your advice ..... How about fast and Furious 4 ? My wife wants to see that , I was thinking of taking her ( part of our lets work out our problems instead of divorce things)

I thought it was pretty good..non stop action start to finish!!

NYBronco
05-24-2009, 06:37 PM
Great movie, I recommend watching it.
The first portions of the movie reminded me of the Mad Max movies. I like that kind of setting.

Natedogg
05-24-2009, 09:32 PM
recommend it.

first half is better than the second.

but much better than t 3

epicSocialism4tw
05-24-2009, 09:41 PM
If not, wait for the DVD. Talk about a letdown.

I agree. As a fan of the series, I was disappointed. Its similar in feel to 'Transformers', and really doesnt do justice to the Terminator franchise.

Houshyamama
05-24-2009, 10:43 PM
Saw it. AWFUL movie, don't waste your money.

Houshyamama
05-24-2009, 10:46 PM
Honestly, wtf? How does someone not like this movie?

Bad acting. Laughable action. Boring plot. Everything seems to be on fire for no reason. It was just a bad movie all around.

TheReverend
05-24-2009, 10:53 PM
Bad acting. Laughable action. Boring plot. Everything seems to be on fire for no reason. It was just a bad movie all around.

I'm guessing this was your first Terminator movie then...?

epicSocialism4tw
05-24-2009, 10:59 PM
I'm guessing this was your first Terminator movie then...?

T3 took the carnage lightly by using a tongue-and-cheek presentation, and it served the movie better. The previous Terminator movies were great because they created meaningful action around a solid, sophisticated plot that had you guessing whether or not the machines could actually dictate the future by killing young Connor. The plot was deep and rich and the action was awe-inspiring. Remember, T2 featured the first real character whose defining feature was computer generated..which was great symbolism in itself. This movie had nothing of that significance, and it didnt look at itself in humor like T3, but instead presented a cheap Mad Max wannabe without near the style or character.

Houshyamama
05-24-2009, 11:02 PM
I'm guessing this was your first Terminator movie then...?

Ha, no. I have no problem with Terminator-like movies, this one just failed to get me to suspend my disbelief. There were too many moments where I thought, "now that's just ridiculous." While a movie like Star Trek invited you to overlook its obvious ludicrous bits by winking at the audience every now and then, Terminator was all retarded all the time. There were no 'please allow us to insult your intelligence' moments.

TheReverend
05-24-2009, 11:03 PM
T3 took the carnage lightly by using a tongue-and-cheek presentation, and it served the movie better. The previous Terminator movies were great because they created meaningful action around a solid, sophisticated plot that had you guessing whether or not the machines could actually dictate the future by killing young Connor. The plot was deep and rich and the action was awe-inspiring. Remember, T2 featured the first real character whose defining feature was computer generated..which was great symbolism in itself. This movie had nothing of that significance, and it didnt look at itself in humor like T3, but instead presented a cheap Mad Max wannabe without near the style or character.

...but we already know the plot. It's been in all movies and in the TV show.

What more do you want them to do? Change it so you have something to think about?

As for the acting... the acting in this one was better than all the other three combined, not that that's saying much.

It's a terminator movie... it's shoot em up and have fun watching great action scenes. How was that not evident when you bought your ticket?!?

TheReverend
05-24-2009, 11:05 PM
Ha, no. I have no problem with Terminator-like movies, this one just failed to get me to suspend my disbelief. There were too many moments where I thought, "now that's just ridiculous." While a movie like Star Trek invited you to overlook its obvious ludicrous bits by winking at the audience every now and then, Terminator was all retarded all the time. There were no 'please allow us to insult your intelligence' moments.

Without any spoilers, please expand on that.

If you need to use spoilers, just PM it to me. I really have no idea what people disliked...

My ONE issue with it... the T-800s wore doo-rags... wtf...

epicSocialism4tw
05-25-2009, 12:34 AM
It's a terminator movie... it's shoot em up and have fun watching great action scenes. How was that not evident when you bought your ticket?!?

That's why I said that I liked the way that T3 was handled better. The action sequences were intentionally over-the-top so as to make them a bit humorous. It was fun, but it didnt have the gravity of the first two. It was produced with more wit and savvy than the latest version.

T4 failed at creating a post-epocalypse environment that was congruent with the way that it was presented in T2. Instead, they went with a Mad Max kind of approach with the backdrop of Transformers camera-work and feel, which seemed contrived and didnt fit the Terminator franchise, IMO. I think that the director did it a disservice.

Also...Bale is starting to get on my nerves. His action hero bits are cheap. He even brought the low grumbling Batman voice to this one. Bleh.

FireFly
05-25-2009, 05:11 AM
Hahaha. Didnt see fast and furious. I was looking forward to wolverine and terminator, both were pretty disappointing. Star trek was sweet tho. Maybe that can save your marriage?

Star Trek could TOTALLY save a marriage!

And yes I'm aware of the irony as I type this, but I'm pretty sure they could use that movie to cure the common cold if they wanted to!

FireFly
05-25-2009, 05:15 AM
As for the acting... the acting in this one was better than all the other three combined, not that that's saying much.

?

Whoa whoa whoa!

The governor's performances in T1 and 2 = totally epic

Granted they seem dated now, but he TOTALLY pulled it off in terms of exactly what was required to make those movies the classics they are.

Rulon Velvet Jones
05-25-2009, 05:31 AM
Why shut your brain off just because it's a movie?

There's a reason it's getting panned. It's a terrible film. Bad dialogue, acting, pacing, direction, editing, there's a CGI Arnold, Common is in it and the film, as a whole, is all over the place. McG was in over his head. This project was too much for him. Bale was outperformed by Worthington and the Anton kid.

All in all, it sucked balls. I never buy into anyone that thinks you have to 'shut your brain off' to watch a movie. Why?

Miss I.
05-25-2009, 05:49 AM
Whoa whoa whoa!

The governor's performances in T1 and 2 = totally epic

Granted they seem dated now, but he TOTALLY pulled it off in terms of exactly what was required to make those movies the classics they are.

I agree with that, but I would guess the performance that stands out as being the most dated to me is the kid that played John Connor in part 2, he sort of seems wooden and not a little bit whiny now.

As for T3, don't remember it, the tv show is okay (not great, but all right). I want to see T4, but I have low expectations as I tend to think of McG as kind of a lame ass director (Charlie's Angels was okay, but I think it was too in love with its coolness and the stuff it ripped off from the Matrix, etc).

Hercules Rockefeller
05-25-2009, 07:02 AM
My ONE issue with it... the T-800s wore doo-rags... wtf...

There was only 1 T-800 in the movie that was online, the only others you saw were getting built.

The things with the doo-rags were T-600s.

The 600 series had rubber skin. We spotted them easy, but these are new. They look human... sweat, bad breath, everything. Very hard to spot. I had to wait till he moved on you before I could zero on him.

Hercules Rockefeller
05-25-2009, 07:05 AM
T4 failed at creating a post-epocalypse environment that was congruent with the way that it was presented in T2. Instead, they went with a Mad Max kind of approach with the backdrop of Transformers camera-work and feel, which seemed contrived and didnt fit the Terminator franchise, IMO. I think that the director did it a disservice.


What did you expect for the post-apocalyptic world? All the flash-forwards in the prior movies were night scenes (which heightens the sense of dread) and even the day scenes on the SCC don't really show much of the world.

Archer81
05-25-2009, 10:04 AM
T3 took the carnage lightly by using a tongue-and-cheek presentation, and it served the movie better. The previous Terminator movies were great because they created meaningful action around a solid, sophisticated plot that had you guessing whether or not the machines could actually dictate the future by killing young Connor. The plot was deep and rich and the action was awe-inspiring. Remember, T2 featured the first real character whose defining feature was computer generated..which was great symbolism in itself. This movie had nothing of that significance, and it didnt look at itself in humor like T3, but instead presented a cheap Mad Max wannabe without near the style or character.


Men come from the future to kill or protect someone in the present. Thats been the plot for 3 films. Its no longer sophisticated, its boring. Live a little.

:Broncos:

Gort
05-25-2009, 10:09 AM
It was a good action flick, but I left feeling something was missing. I still can't put my finger on what exactly, it just seemed incomplete.

it's missing an engaging plot. other than that, the special effects are good.

TheReverend
05-25-2009, 10:32 AM
There was only 1 T-800 in the movie that was online, the only others you saw were getting built.

The things with the doo-rags were T-600s.

Where's that quote from? And I'm talking about the metal ones guarding Skynet. Wait, just looked up online you're completely right. I thought the dude in 2 was a 2000 and Arnold was a 1000. I'm way off.

TheReverend
05-25-2009, 10:35 AM
Quote's from first movie, right?

TheReverend
05-25-2009, 10:37 AM
Whoa whoa whoa!

The governor's performances in T1 and 2 = totally epic

Granted they seem dated now, but he TOTALLY pulled it off in terms of exactly what was required to make those movies the classics they are.

Listen, you can barely find a bigger Arnold fan than I am. I stayed up till 5 am watching Conan the Barbarian last night.

But let's be honest, he's not getting confused with Brando or DeNiro anytime soon...

TheReverend
05-25-2009, 10:39 AM
Why shut your brain off just because it's a movie?

There's a reason it's getting panned. It's a terrible film. Bad dialogue, acting, pacing, direction, editing, there's a CGI Arnold, Common is in it and the film, as a whole, is all over the place. McG was in over his head. This project was too much for him. Bale was outperformed by Worthington and the Anton kid.

All in all, it sucked balls. I never buy into anyone that thinks you have to 'shut your brain off' to watch a movie. Why?

First off, whats a "common"? Secondly, how did you not like the CGI Arnold?!?! Thirdly, it's less about shutting your brain off and more about people having absurd expectations for movie series because one hasn't been released in so long.

You're putting the pussy on a pedestal RVJ

Hercules Rockefeller
05-25-2009, 10:45 AM
Quote's from first movie, right?

Yes

Hercules Rockefeller
05-25-2009, 10:47 AM
First off, whats a "common"?

Common was the rapper who played Barnes. He also had 0 character development, just like Marcus and Williams.

TheReverend
05-25-2009, 10:53 AM
Common was the rapper who played Barnes. He also had 0 character development, just like Marcus and Williams.

And how do you create character development when these people don't have families, homes, and all their jobs involve killing machines...?

And how much do you care about Barnes, Marcus and Williams? The ****ing story is about John Connor and robots for christs sake!

bronco militia
05-25-2009, 10:58 AM
Alright just got back and thought it was great. Whoever thinks the plot had inconsistency with the previous films, please PM whatever you're talking about because I didn't notice any...

I even like how they slid in GNR "You Could Be Mine" from the T2 soundtrack.

And the characters lack depth? Well, that's kind of fine because the characters have been in decades worth of movies so they already have established depth and connections with the viewers.

Honestly, wtf? How does someone not like this movie?

no doubt..I liked it

if you like the series, this one won't let you down.

now if you want to see a bad movie go check out paul blart Mall Cop

yee gads

Hercules Rockefeller
05-25-2009, 11:00 AM
And how do you create character development when these people don't have families, homes, and all their jobs involve killing machines...?

And how much do you care about Barnes, Marcus and Williams? The ****ing story is about John Connor and robots for christs sake!

Barnes and Williams were definitely alive for Judgement Day, so presumably they did have families, homes, and jobs before Skynet destroyed it all. It's mentioned in passing when Connor returns from the initial mission that Barnes' brother was killed on the same mission. There's something to delve into.

The last thing Marcus remembers, OTOH, was being on death row and then he wakes up in a post-apocalyptic world where the machines have taken over. He took it rather well up until the point he found out he was a hybrid, then he just wanted to find out who he made him who he was. He also tells Serena in the beginning that he killed his brother and 2 cops. He talks about redemption and a second chance at the end, but unless he told Kyle Reese about his past in the 2 minutes I walked out to take a piss, not a single perosn in the future knows why he needs to redeem himself.

DHallblows
05-25-2009, 11:01 AM
Wow. I went into that movie with zero expectations because of this thread. But it was great! You guys are expecting way too much from the movie, it had great action, special effects, some terribly corny humor and a solid plot considering the **** that's came out recently. I'm glad there's at least 4 people in this thread that can appreciate a quality action movie

TheReverend
05-25-2009, 11:08 AM
Barnes and Williams were definitely alive for Judgement Day, so presumably they did have families, homes, and jobs before Skynet destroyed it all. It's mentioned in passing when Connor returns from the initial mission that Barnes' brother was killed on the same mission. There's something to delve into.

The last thing Marcus remembers, OTOH, was being on death row and then he wakes up in a post-apocalyptic world where the machines have taken over. He took it rather well up until the point he found out he was a hybrid, then he just wanted to find out who he made him who he was. He also tells Serena in the beginning that he killed his brother and 2 cops. He talks about redemption and a second chance at the end, but unless he told Kyle Reese about his past in the 2 minutes I walked out to take a piss, not a single perosn in the future knows why he needs to redeem himself.

Wow, really?

I mean, what about the Mexican guy that tries to kick Kyle Reese out of the shack when they need gas?

I'm infuriated they didn't spend 30 minutes developing him.

This should've been a 30 hour movie.

Natedogg
05-25-2009, 11:13 AM
I will say Common SUCKED. His acting when they killed the HK with the radio was HORRIBLE.

Hercules Rockefeller
05-25-2009, 11:17 AM
Wow, really?

I mean, what about the Mexican guy that tries to kick Kyle Reese out of the shack when they need gas?

I'm infuriated they didn't spend 30 minutes developing him.

This should've been a 30 hour movie.

Yeah, because they should have developed the Mexican guy to the same degree as the hybrid (and the real main character in this movie), Connor's 2nd in command, and the woman who finds the hybrid after Reese is captured.
You're really reaching at this point.

TheReverend
05-25-2009, 11:21 AM
Yeah, because they should have developed the Mexican guy to the same degree as the hybrid (and the real main character in this movie), Connor's 2nd in command, and the woman who finds the hybrid after Reese is captured.
You're really reaching at this point.

I was completely satisfied with how they developed Reese. The other characters didn't really have anything beyond bit roles in this movie.

Barnes goes on ONE mission with John... that lasts roughly two minutes. The girl pilot served two purposes and that's all. These two don't deserve character development. I'm sure that in the coming war, when Barnes is actually involved in the story, you'll get more.

Reese, on the other hand, had a large amount of emotional development. Even to the point where Connor is risking his own life for the machine he previously hated.

Hercules Rockefeller
05-25-2009, 11:53 AM
I was completely satisfied with how they developed Reese. The other characters didn't really have anything beyond bit roles in this movie.

Barnes goes on ONE mission with John... that lasts roughly two minutes. The girl pilot served two purposes and that's all. These two don't deserve character development. I'm sure that in the coming war, when Barnes is actually involved in the story, you'll get more.

Reese, on the other hand, had a large amount of emotional development. Even to the point where Connor is risking his own life for the machine he previously hated.

First, I said nothing about Reese's development. You saw his name in my post and immediately went off on it, try re-reading my post again.

Second, Barnes is the 2nd in command of the TechCom forces. They did a **** job developing him if this was only a single movie, it was a terrible job for the first of three movies unless they plan to kill him off inbetween the two (He'll die in the next one is my guess). He and Williams are not bit characters in a three-movie arc, which is how this needs to be looked at. This movie was supposed to lay the groundwork for the next two.

TheReverend
05-25-2009, 12:35 PM
First, I said nothing about Reese's development. You saw his name in my post and immediately went off on it, try re-reading my post again.

Second, Barnes is the 2nd in command of the TechCom forces. They did a **** job developing him if this was only a single movie, it was a terrible job for the first of three movies unless they plan to kill him off inbetween the two (He'll die in the next one is my guess). He and Williams are not bit characters in a three-movie arc, which is how this needs to be looked at. This movie was supposed to lay the groundwork for the next two.

But it's also supposed to tell it's own story as a stand alone feature. Which it did.

Listen, I'm not trying to have a huge argument with you. But I think if your main complaint about the film is a lack of character development for a guy who literally had less than 10 minutes of face time... I don't get that complaint.

Rulon Velvet Jones
05-25-2009, 02:04 PM
Rev needs to get off it.

The movie sucked. Moviegoers and critics agree.

TheReverend
05-25-2009, 02:15 PM
Rev needs to get off it.

The movie sucked. Moviegoers and critics agree.

Well, it looks like Maners disagree with your assessment.

ITT: 9 liked, 5 disliked.

But I need to get off it why?

Rulon Velvet Jones
05-25-2009, 03:47 PM
Well, it looks like Maners disagree with your assessment.

ITT: 9 liked, 5 disliked.

But I need to get off it why?

Because, despite all the arguments for, it's still not a good movie. It's just poorly put-together from a filmmaking standpoint. Yes, some of the action is kinda cool and the 3rd Act is alright, but all in all it's just rough.

Rotten Tomatoes has it at 34%.

To compare: Angels and Demons 37%, Xmen Origins: Wolverine 36%, Night at The Museum 2 43%. (T3 - 70%)

TheReverend
05-25-2009, 04:06 PM
Because, despite all the arguments for, it's still not a good movie. It's just poorly put-together from a filmmaking standpoint. Yes, some of the action is kinda cool and the 3rd Act is alright, but all in all it's just rough.

Rotten Tomatoes has it at 34%.

To compare: Angels and Demons 37%, Xmen Origins: Wolverine 36%, Night at The Museum 2 43%. (T3 - 70%)

I had no idea you were actually Francis Ford Coppolla! Between that and the official results from Rotten Tomatoes, those of us that liked this movie are clearly wrong. We need to re-examine our entire outlook because of our taste in terminator.

Thanks for setting us straight.

NYBronco
05-25-2009, 04:40 PM
I (we) still enjoyed the movie and recommend it to others even knowing the rotten tomatoes dis.

Rock Chalk
05-25-2009, 06:32 PM
Because, despite all the arguments for, it's still not a good movie. It's just poorly put-together from a filmmaking standpoint. Yes, some of the action is kinda cool and the 3rd Act is alright, but all in all it's just rough.

Rotten Tomatoes has it at 34%.

To compare: Angels and Demons 37%, Xmen Origins: Wolverine 36%, Night at The Museum 2 43%. (T3 - 70%)

That tears it, Im definitely gonna love this movie.

Rotten Tomatos and their stupid ass ****ing fans are have **** taste in movies in general and for the most part I think most movie goers want too much in a movie.

Its a ****ing movie, supposed to entertain. You want character development, read a god damn book.

Rulon Velvet Jones
05-25-2009, 07:47 PM
That tears it, Im definitely gonna love this movie.

Rotten Tomatos and their stupid ass ****ing fans are have **** taste in movies in general and for the most part I think most movie goers want too much in a movie.

Its a ****ing movie, supposed to entertain. You want character development, read a god damn book.

Nice example of the dumbing down of America.

And Rotten Tomatoes isn't a bunch of fans voting for a film. It's a compilation of the most prominent film critics in America. But hey - that might be too much for you. Good thing the film is in color, otherwise you might fall asleep.

10 bucks says you haven't understood a Best Picture nominee in the last 20 years.

Bronco Bob
05-25-2009, 09:26 PM
If not, wait for the DVD. Talk about a letdown.

Without Ahnold in it what's the point?

alkemical
05-26-2009, 07:18 AM
I saw it, it was good if you like the Terminator series. But, i have my beefs with it...but then it was my fault. It was T4, how much "new" stuff can they have?

In t3 or what not, he was told how he'd die (connor) - i was expecting that ending...



I want someone to do some A.R. type script rewrites and tie robocop/OCP to skynet tie ins, and to be honest - IMO - the resistence is the beginning to the start of the matrix (which is where i want another A.R. link up too)

MagicHef
05-26-2009, 07:55 AM
I kind of felt like the whole movie was Mad Max meets The Matrix.

It's 2018 in this movie. How is the T800 coming out when it's supposed to be new in 2029? The robot factory having touch panels and stairs for ease of use by humans was interesting, too.

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 08:22 AM
It's a good movie, worth the price of a ticket. The post apocoplyptic world in which it is set is not as dark and gloomy as the original Terminator movie where Kyle Reese has his flashbacks.

The main overall theme is still prevelant. The main theme or question is this: Fate vs. free will, in other words, can we change the future based on our actions today, or is the future set no matter what we do.

The question gets played over and over throughout these movies and it's no different in T4. The introduction of Marcus is just a variation of the same theme (fate vs. determinism).

From the first Terminator movie, the story is told that Humans have basically won the war and that the machines are taking desparate measures to change this fate. The question is, can the machines change fate? It's not so much as can humans change their fate (why would they want to, they've won) but can the machines change their fate?

Flex Gunmetal
05-26-2009, 10:07 AM
Because, despite all the arguments for, it's still not a good movie. It's just poorly put-together from a filmmaking standpoint. Yes, some of the action is kinda cool and the 3rd Act is alright, but all in all it's just rough.

Rotten Tomatoes has it at 34%.

To compare: Angels and Demons 37%, Xmen Origins: Wolverine 36%, Night at The Museum 2 43%. (T3 - 70%)

+1

I would hardly site OM as a credible collection of movie critics.
Salvation was almost as bad as T3. T1 and T2 were great. 3 and 4 will be forgotten.
Plot holes, nonsensical, unrealistic and impossible situations, etc (Spoiler: Why capture reese, not kill him?, How can connor ride a machine bike, why do terminators throw people around instead of killing them?).
If they had a decent script to go with the great action, I would have left a happy camper.
It was a vehicle to keep the franchise alive and make some quick cash (hence the pg-13 rating), but it's unlikely the film will gross the 400 mill it cost.

The Big E
05-26-2009, 10:21 AM
I want to see it and my 9 year old son is bugging me like crazy to see it.

2 questions:

1. Is it appropriate for a 9 year old, or is it too much like letting him see Ghostbusters?
2. Would a 9 year old like it?

I have to admit that I have already watched the first 3 Terminators with my son, so can my crappy parenting really get any worse if I take him to see this?

Doggcow
05-26-2009, 10:25 AM
Noone mentioned the chicks ridiculously neon white teeth? Seriously, that ripped me out of the story every time she opened her mouth. They must have awesome robot dentists.

Doggcow
05-26-2009, 10:27 AM
Without Ahnold in it what's the point?

If this is your beef, go see it..... :)

Hercules Rockefeller
05-26-2009, 10:35 AM
It's 2018 in this movie. How is the T800 coming out when it's supposed to be new in 2029?

Yep, hopefully the ending is why they were also new in 2029.

MagicHef
05-26-2009, 10:38 AM
+1

I would hardly site OM as a credible collection of movie critics.
Salvation was almost as bad as T3. T1 and T2 were great. 3 and 4 will be forgotten.
Plot holes, nonsensical, unrealistic and impossible situations, etc (Spoiler: Why capture reese, not kill him?, How can connor ride a machine bike, why do terminators throw people around instead of killing them?).
If they had a decent script to go with the great action, I would have left a happy camper.
It was a vehicle to keep the franchise alive and make some quick cash (hence the pg-13 rating), but it's unlikely the film will gross the 400 mill it cost.

Spoiler:
Why are they capturing people at all? They never did anything with them, just herded them around like cattle.

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 10:40 AM
+1

I would hardly site OM as a credible collection of movie critics.
Salvation was almost as bad as T3. T1 and T2 were great. 3 and 4 will be forgotten.
Plot holes, nonsensical, unrealistic and impossible situations, etc (Spoiler: Why capture reese, not kill him?, How can connor ride a machine bike, why do terminators throw people around instead of killing them?).
If they had a decent script to go with the great action, I would have left a happy camper.
It was a vehicle to keep the franchise alive and make some quick cash (hence the pg-13 rating), but it's unlikely the film will gross the 400 mill it cost.

It's funny you nit pick the last two T movies. You do realize that the first Terminator movie was laughed at by critics. LAUGHED AT FOR IT'S STUPID STORYLINE AND WHY DOES A ROBOT HAVE A BAD ACCENT??

Ya know, stuff like that.

Just thought you should know the truth whilest ye judge so hard...

MagicHef
05-26-2009, 10:43 AM
Yep, hopefully the ending is why they were also new in 2029.

Spoiler:
Do you mean blowing up the factory? If SkyNet is a global network, it should have the design information for it accessible somewhere else, too. It shouldn't forget how to make something for 11 years because a factory got blown up.

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 10:43 AM
Spoiler:
Why are they capturing people at all? They never did anything with them, just herded them around like cattle.

Don't you remember the first T movie where Kyle Reese is showing Sarah his bar code tattoo??

Reese says that humans were rounded up for orderly disposal by the machines.

This latest T4 movie is just following the original story line put forth by Reese himself...

MagicHef
05-26-2009, 10:46 AM
Spoiler:
Do you mean blowing up the factory? If SkyNet is a global network, it should have the design information for it accessible somewhere else, too. It shouldn't forget how to make something for 11 years because a factory got blown up.

Also, Marcus is much more advanced than Arnold's terminator was, and was apparently made 11 years earlier.

Don't you remember the first T movie where Kyle Reese is showing Sarah his bar code tattoo??

Reese says that humans were rounded up for orderly disposal by the machines.

This latest T4 movie is just following the original story line put forth by Reese himself...

True, I forgot that.

Flex Gunmetal
05-26-2009, 11:00 AM
It's funny you nit pick the last two T movies. You do realize that the first Terminator movie was laughed at by critics. LAUGHED AT FOR IT'S STUPID STORYLINE AND WHY DOES A ROBOT HAVE A BAD ACCENT??

Ya know, stuff like that.

Just thought you should know the truth whilest ye judge so hard...

I do. But they are undeniably classics, I dont think 3 and 4 will be.
Just my opinion.

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 11:01 AM
The whole dealio with Marcus is that he was a project started by Skynet back in 2003. Obviously, this is where T4 gets creative with it's time line.

Basically, Marcus is another result of the machines knowing that they are doomed and trying to create a machine that stops the humans from winning the war. They can't kill Connor with the T101 or the T1000 or the Thotty in T3 so they go a different direction. Instead of making a better machine, they make a better human-machine to get to Conner.

In the end, the human part of the equation wins out when Marcus sacrifices himself to save Connor. Even though Marcus accomplished his mission for the machines (he brought the machines Connor) he fails the machines by his very human emotions and his angst and hate for the machines that created him. Marcus wants revenge against the machines and he get's his revenge by helping Connor and Connor saving Reese...

MagicHef
05-26-2009, 11:08 AM
The whole dealio with Marcus is that he was a project started by Skynet back in 2003. Obviously, this is where T4 gets creative with it's time line.

Basically, Marcus is another result of the machines knowing that they are doomed and trying to create a machine that stops the humans from winning the war. They can't kill Connor with the T101 or the T1000 or the Thotty in T3 so they go a different direction. Instead of making a better machine, they make a better human-machine to get to Conner.

In the end, the human part of the equation wins out when Marcus sacrifices himself to save Connor. Even though Marcus accomplished his mission for the machines (he brought the machines Connor) he fails the machines by his very human emotions and his angst and hate for the machines that created him. Marcus wants revenge against the machines and he get's his revenge by helping Connor and Connor saving Reese...

In T1, Kyle talks about how these new terminators are so much deadlier than the previous model because the previous model had rubber skin, and this model looked exactly like a human. That doesn't make sense if they had been able to make machines or human-machines that looked human for 11 years.

EDIT - Not to mention the T800/T101 that shows up 11 years early.

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 11:31 AM
In T1, Kyle talks about how these new terminators are so much deadlier than the previous model because the previous model had rubber skin, and this model looked exactly like a human. That doesn't make sense if they had been able to make machines or human-machines that looked human for 11 years.

EDIT - Not to mention the T800/T101 that shows up 11 years early.

The timeline issue becomes very convoluted no doubt. Basically, by T4 the machines have tried to kill Connor 3 times in the past, all without success. But, each one of the machines that goes back to the past leaves traces of itself and therefore changes the future to a greater of lesser degree. In other words, Skynet keeps progressing. By 2003 they are so advanced that they take Marcus and basically make him a robocop--part human, part machine.

However, the big difference with Marcus is that he does not know who he is, or what he is. He thinks he's human and he acts human. That is the wild card that keeps fate on the Human's side.

The way I see it is that the first two movies (T1 and T2) were about stopping the war. Sarah Connor wanted to stop the war, that's what she tried to do.

In T3 the philosophy changed to the simple fact that war cannot be stopped. No matter what John and Sarah Connor tried to do, the war was inevitable.

So the basic question behind the latter movies is--will the machines win or will the Humans win the war? The war is a fact, you can't get around it. But who wins the war is up in the air...

MagicHef
05-26-2009, 12:08 PM
The timeline issue becomes very convoluted no doubt. Basically, by T4 the machines have tried to kill Connor 3 times in the past, all without success. But, each one of the machines that goes back to the past leaves traces of itself and therefore changes the future to a greater of lesser degree. In other words, Skynet keeps progressing. By 2003 they are so advanced that they take Marcus and basically make him a robocop--part human, part machine.

However, the big difference with Marcus is that he does not know who he is, or what he is. He thinks he's human and he acts human. That is the wild card that keeps fate on the Human's side.

The way I see it is that the first two movies (T1 and T2) were about stopping the war. Sarah Connor wanted to stop the war, that's what she tried to do.

In T3 the philosophy changed to the simple fact that war cannot be stopped. No matter what John and Sarah Connor tried to do, the war was inevitable.

So the basic question behind the latter movies is--will the machines win or will the Humans win the war? The war is a fact, you can't get around it. But who wins the war is up in the air...

I don't think SkyNet is progressing each time they send back a Terminator. In T1, Kyle says that all records are lost during Judgment Day. They don't know which Sarah Connor is John's mother, so the Terminator goes through the phone book killing all the Sarah Connors in LA. Besides, if they knew what happened before Judgment Day, they wouldn't send back any Terminators. They all fail, and if they don't make the time machine in the first place, John Connor would never exist.

I guess another reason I'm disappointed in the movie was that all 3 previous Terminators added a significant twist to the overall story.

T1: Laid out whole story, Kyle Reese is John Connor's dad.
T2: Chips are destroyed, Judgment day is apparently avoided.
T3: Judgment Day is unavoidable.
T4: Nothing really, maybe the fact that John Connor wasn't always the leader of the Resistance? That's pretty weak, though.

alkemical
05-26-2009, 12:12 PM
Spoiler:
Why are they capturing people at all? They never did anything with them, just herded them around like cattle.

because it's the start of the matrix... ;)

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 12:15 PM
I don't think SkyNet is progressing each time they send back a Terminator. In T1, Kyle says that all records are lost during Judgment Day. They don't know which Sarah Connor is John's mother, so the Terminator goes through the phone book killing all the Sarah Connors in LA. Besides, if they knew what happened before Judgment Day, they wouldn't send back any Terminators. They all fail, and if they don't make the time machine in the first place, John Connor would never exist.

I guess another reason I'm disappointed in the movie was that all 3 previous Terminators added a significant twist to the overall story.

T1: Laid out whole story, Kyle Reese is John Connor's dad.
T2: Chips are destroyed, Judgment day is apparently avoided.
T3: Judgment Day is unavoidable.
T4: Nothing really, maybe the fact that John Connor wasn't always the leader of the Resistance? That's pretty weak, though.

Great points, I agree with all of the above. Movies about traveling through time are never gonna be perfect because when you dissect them, you'll see error after error in the story and time lines.

Let's just say that these Terminator movies raise as many questions as they answer and all of it has to do with time travel and the time line.

None of it really makes any sense at all, it's just a lot of great special effects with some creative license.

MagicHef
05-26-2009, 12:19 PM
Great points, I agree with all of the above. Movies about traveling through time are never gonna be perfect because when you dissect them, you'll see error after error in the story and time lines.

Let's just say that these Terminator movies raise as many questions as they answer and all of it has to do with time travel and the time line.

None of it really makes any sense at all, it's just a lot of great special effects with some creative license.

Yeah, I honestly think that while right now most people are saying that T4 is better than T3, after a while when people look at what each movie contributed to the overall storyline and forget about the special effects and fight scenes, it will pretty much be consensus that T4 was the worst movie of the series so far (and I hope overall).

Hercules Rockefeller
05-26-2009, 12:27 PM
Also, Marcus is much more advanced than Arnold's terminator was, and was apparently made 11 years earlier.


No, he wasn't. Marcus was the first infiltrator, and the only one of his kind. He had a human brain and heart, and as you saw, that was a weakness that was exploited at the end of the movie.

Hercules Rockefeller
05-26-2009, 12:29 PM
Spoiler:
Do you mean blowing up the factory? If SkyNet is a global network, it should have the design information for it accessible somewhere else, too. It shouldn't forget how to make something for 11 years because a factory got blown up.

Shouldn't forget how to make something, but at the same time, who is to say that wasn't the only facility that Skynet currently had that was equipped to make T-800s (endoskeletons, power supplies, blood/tissue)?

alkemical
05-26-2009, 12:33 PM
No, he wasn't. Marcus was the first infiltrator, and the only one of his kind. He had a human brain and heart, and as you saw, that was a weakness that was exploited at the end of the movie.

the one that was crushed and then used again? ;)

Flex Gunmetal
05-26-2009, 12:33 PM
Shouldn't forget how to make something, but at the same time, who is to say that wasn't the only facility that Skynet currently had that was equipped to make T-800s (endoskeletons, power supplies, blood/tissue)?

Didn't the movie close with Connor saying the San Fran plant was just the beginning, and Skynet is worldwide?

Hercules Rockefeller
05-26-2009, 12:36 PM
the one that was crushed and then used again? ;)

That was so ****ed up, someone didn't know how to end a movie and took the easy way out.

alkemical
05-26-2009, 12:38 PM
Didn't the movie close with Connor saying the San Fran plant was just the beginning, and Skynet is worldwide?

Actually, they covered that with the "master command" and the "europa" branches of the resistance.

Hercules Rockefeller
05-26-2009, 12:44 PM
Didn't the movie close with Connor saying the San Fran plant was just the beginning, and Skynet is worldwide?

It is, but that doesn't necessarily mean that T-800s are produced all over the place at this point. It's the first batch of T-800s (in the data raid in the beginning, they kept mentioning the new Terminator) and 2018 is still a relatively early part of the war. Most companies or corporations don't go global off the bat with a new "item". It's usually manufactured in one place originally and the locations expand as time goes on.

The technology isn't up to the flash forwards yet either, the only plasma weapons I saw were on the HKs, all the Terminators looked like they were still using bullets and the same with the Resistance.

MagicHef
05-26-2009, 12:55 PM
That was so ****ed up, someone didn't know how to end a movie and took the easy way out.

Apparently they were kind of re-writing the movie as they went along.

Lots and lots of Spoilers:

EXCLUSIVE: WHAT WENT WRONG WITH TERMINATOR SALVATION?

* By Devin Faraci
* Published Today

This article, while about an alternate version of Terminator Salvation, does contain spoilers for the version in theaters now.

The Terminator Salvation you saw on movie screens this weekend was not always the Terminator Salvation that was meant to be. Like in the franchise itself, history has been changed, and the original script for Terminator Salvation ended up getting gutted. You can still see the outlines of that script in the current film (a form of deja vu, as similar vestigial script elements can be seen in this summer's blockbuster hit Star Trek), but the specifics that might have made Terminator Salvation if not better at least more interesting are gone.

What caused these massive changes? And what were they? The biggest change came when McG flew to the UK to talk to Christian Bale about starring in the fourth Terminator movie. The director wanted the Batman star to play Marcus Wright, the cyborg protagonist of the script. But Bale focused on another part: John Connor. The only problem is that John Connor had about three minutes of screen time in the entire film; most of Connor's moments were played offscreen. In the original script John Connor was the secretive leader of the Resistance. He lived on the HQ sub, and almost no one saw his face, so as to keep him hidden from the robots. Connor made radio addresses and existed as a legend for the fighting men and women of the Resistance, but in the original script Connor didn't show up onscreen until the last minutes of the movie.

You may remember in late 2007 when the rumor that Bale was signing on to Terminator 4 surfaced there were two competing reports: while Aint It Cool had Bale tipped to play Connor, we had him tipped to play a Terminator. As you can see both are correct; for a little while people involved in the film were assuming that Bale was going to let go of the Connor idea and move over to the Marcus role, but he had something else up his sleeve: massive rewrites to beef up the John Connor role.

Watching Terminator Salvation as it exists in theaters it's easy to see that this was a bad idea. The script that ended up getting shot never quite finds anything for John Connor to do. If you were to remove Connor from the film, relegating him once again to radio voice over, almost none of the film's plot would be changed. It's likely that the new Connor scenes were the work of Jonathan Nolan, who did do a lot of writing on the film, but who was denied credit by the WGA. The reason would be that all of the work Nolan did was cosmetic - adding Connor scenes that had no bearing on the film's structure or plot.

Bale's desire to star as John Connor was probably the most fatal blow to the film; it completely distorted the shape of the story as it existed. But the other fatal blow came from the internet. When the original ending of the script leaked - John Connor is killed by a Terminator and has his skin grafted onto Marcus Wright, who takes up the shadowy leader's place as the leader of the Resistance - many people went crazy. On the surface it seemed like a major slap in the face of the franchise, and doubly so on paper: John Connor, the guy who the entire franchise is ostensibly about, shows up for two and a half pages, gets killed and has his face transplanted onto a robot (in the original script it's actually just the face that gets slapped on Marcus).

There are differing reports as to how far that ending made it. McG has gone on the record again and again saying that was never the ending he wanted (he came on to the project after the script we're talking about here was written), but there's a lot of contrary evidence, including on-set reports that have 'Connor becomes robot' written on production calendars. The entire finished film itself feels like evidence that the original ending was always the intended ending. The movie seems to be inexorably building towards the 'Connor dies' finale, including elements like endless scenes featuring Sarah Connor's tapes, obviously intended to give Marcus/Connor a primer on John Connor's life and destiny. In fact, when John Connor got a pole through the chest I was excited - had McG been lying to us all along and kept the original ending?

Of course he wasn't. The film's biggest weakness comes in the final minutes, which feel almost completely slapped on, as the character we've been following makes a sudden and boring sacrifice. The air just explodes out of the movie as John Connor's rescue feels utterly unearned, and the ending of the movie is so final that you walk out of the theater not caring whether or not the future war is ever again revisited.

So what might have been? Before the Bale rewrites and before the internet kiboshed the original ending?

With John Connor relegated to the shadows for most of the film, the original Terminator Salvation focused more on the relationship between Kyle and Marcus. Star was always there, and was essentially always just as useless, but without the constant cutaways to pointless Connor scenes the film was able to delve more into Kyle/Marcus. The script spent time examining what it was like living in a post-apocalyptic world, and was more definitively R-rated. At the gas station Marcus saves Kyle and Star from a group of cannibals, throwing one of them into an open fire (intended as a callback to the biker on the stove in T2. It's important to note that the original script by extraordinary hacks Brancato and Ferris - the guys who wrote The Net, Catwoman and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines - is not some discarded gem. It's got plenty of problems of its own).

But again, with Connor out of the script the relationship between Kyle and Marcus gets to grow, which gives Marcus' later quest to rescue Kyle more weight. And the early scenes where Kyle can't drive are paid off in this script, first with a sequence where Marcus teaches him to drive and later, in the third act, where Kyle gets the final heroic beat he's missing in the finished film.

As in the final film Kyle and Star are captured by Skynet and transported to Skynet City, but with one major change: Skynet has no idea who Kyle Reese is. This is a point that bothers many viewers of the final film; I'm not radically concerned, as Kyle Reese's time traveling shenanigans are public record enough that it's believable Skynet would have found out about him while taking over the world's computer networks. But by having Skynet not know who Kyle is the original script removes the machines' idiotic plan to bring John Connor to Skynet City instead of simply killing his dad. This feels like the kind of change that was made to give John Connor more to do, since the whole sequence where Connor convinces the Resistance forces to step down doesn't occur in this script (and why would it? He's Michael Ironsides in this movie).

Marcus' adventures with Blair are slightly different. In the original script he saves Blair from a pack of rabid wolves as opposed to horny rapists. This scene was important because it gives Marcus his first awareness that he's much faster and stronger than he used to be, something he couldn't quite prove against humans in a PG-13 movie (although could you wreck a group of wolves in a PG-13 movie?). In the finished film Blair and Marcus have a tender moment; the original script takes things very, very differently: Blair offers Marcus a STAF. That's Sit Tight And ****, a phrase in common use in the Resistance. See, it's a horrible, miserable future and the humans of the time have gotten over their petty prudery. If the only joy they can get is ****ing, why not take it? Life is cheap and they may not live to see the next night, so tap whatever ass you can.

The next big change comes when Marcus is captured by the Resistance. John Connor remains offscreen and he interrogates Marcus via com-link. But Connor is thinking like the John Connor who has become used to temporal assassination attempts, and he believes that Marcus has been sent from an even more advanced future to kill him. Meanwhile, we have more cutaways to Kyle Reese being transported to Skynet City; this script really forwards Reese in a way that the finished movie fails to do.

Marcus escapes the Resistance more or less as seen in the finished and heads to Skynet City. And it's here that the major changes really come into play.

In the original script the title Terminator Salvation actually meant something. Watching the finished film it's hard to figure out why it has that name - is it because Marcus saves Connor's life in the last minute? In the original script Serena has a bigger role than a quick cameo, and she explains the salvation element.

Marcus comes to Skynet City and finds... a seaside resort populated with humans. He sees Terminator landscapers! It turns out that Skynet hasn't been trying to wipe out humanity. It's been trying to save us.

This is perhaps the most bizarre idea in the whole script, and the one that most obviously doesn't work. It seems as though Brancato and Ferris thought people liked the Matrix sequels, as this all feels like it could be in those films. See, Serena heads Project ANGEL, which is making Hybrids (ie, Cyborgs). The reason? Skynet did a calculation and realized that humanity was going to be extinct in 200 years; the machines decided to save a few by turning them into Hybrids and wipe the rest out. It makes no sense, and is the kind of thing that makes you wonder if these guys ever even watched the previous Terminator films.

What's fascinating is that the Project ANGEL stuff lasted well into production. While I was on set I was given a security badge that gave me access to all the stages; it had Project ANGEL's logo on it. While being given a tour of pre-production artwork we were told more about Project ANGEL and the role it would have in the movie, a role that's completely removed from the final film. At the time I visited the set it seemed like Serena was going to show up in person at the end of the movie, just as she does in the script, and I saw artwork depicting that.

It's here that you can really understand where Terminator Salvation fell to pieces. The film was being rewritten, piecemeal, on the set. Instead of re-engineering the whole picture it seems like McG and company were just tackling each segment, figuring out how to get John Connor more involved without fixing the underlying structure at which they were picking away.

Serena, a cyborg herself, meets Marcus and explains Project ANGEL and the seaside resort to him. She also explains the Transport chip - it's embedded in all cyborgs and prevents them from feeling pain and emotion. She then gives Marcus a tour of the whole Skynet City, showing off the T-800s that are being developed and giving him a peak at the T-1000 and T-X in the earliest stages. She also shows him the time machine technology they've been working on, and the neural net AI database of human brains, which will allow the Terminators to better act like humans and as such better infiltrate human encampments.

Then the big shock: Marcus is too late. Kyle's brain has been removed and he's been uploaded to the neural net database, and Star has been terminated. All hope is lost, and Serena has activated his Transport chip, so Marcus can't do anything.

Just then there's an explosion. Serena is distracted and, just like in the finished film (where it actually makes less sense), Marcus rips out his Transport chip. He then jumps into the time machine, which burns his clothes off, and he goes back in time just far enough to rescue Kyle and Star, grab a laser weapon and set off the explosion that distracted Serena (whether or not Brancato and Ferris were watching Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey while writing this scene is unconfirmed). And then the action begins.

The trio try to escape Skynet City with Kyle driving an ATV, paying off his driving lessons. They're pursued by Hunter/Killer Terminator Tanks, and they take most of them out as they rip through the seaside resort (including killing one Tank by... making it drive into a pool), but they end up on a dock and with one last H/K tank about to end them. Then suddenly Blair shows up leading an airstrike that destroys the tank. Then the sub surfaces, and John Connor finally makes his appearance, leading human troops in combat against the Terminators at the resort. Connor and Kyle meet, but it's not a big moment.

Marcus has rescued a bunch of humans while at Skynet City and the Resistance take them aboard the sub. Everybody is happy and it seems like the Resistance has won the day when Marcus suddenly realizes that Serena is among the refugees. She attacks, blowing off his arm and gut shooting John Connor. Fade to black.

Later Marcus wakes up in the hospital. Blair tells him that they're covering up Project ANGEL - even within the film this was too stupid to let anyone know about it. But there's bad news: John Connor's not going to make it. His wound is fatal. On his death bed John Connor gives Kyle the picture of Sarah Connor (when I interviewed Anton Yelchin he confirmed that this scene had been cut before shooting, which he thought was a good idea. That does make it seem like the original ending was never intended for production). John and Kate beg Marcus to take up the mantle of John Connor - since no one has really seen him anybody can be him. The legend is bigger than the man, they insist.

Marcus agrees, and John Connor's face is grafted onto Marcus (this, it turns out, is the source of Connor's scars. You would think they would have cut off his face from the back of the head, under the hair, but I guess not), despite the fact that nobody really knows what Connor looks like anyway. But it's done, and Connor dies and Marcus now must step up and lead the Resistance into the future.

In a lot of ways the original Terminator Salvation script is still poking through in the final film. In fact, except for the additional John Connor nonsense in the first two acts, the opening two-thirds of the movie (minus the prologue, which was not in this script) more or less follow the original beats. These are the best parts of the movie, and it's when the finished film moves into the third act that everything starts falling apart. It's obvious that McG and Jonathan Nolan never really cracked their own third act, and without the death of John Connor they never found a reason for this movie to even exist. In effect what they've done with their undercooked third act is make a movie that's a TV episode - in the end everything is more or less back at the status quo. And by backgrounding Kyle and robbing him of his third act heroics, the finished film has taken away its only other good reason to exist, namely that it's the beginnings of the Connor/Reese friendship.

Would the original ending have worked? People would have walked out of theaters mad, no doubt. But it was a ballsy idea that could have been executed better than it was in the script. You don't even need to do the face transplant - have Marcus be the original owner of those John Connor scars the whole movie and they'd read like a reveal at the finale. The ending of Salvation now is so pat that it isn't the opening of a new trilogy but just another boring prequel, setting up things we already knew about. Killing Connor would have been shocking and would have added drama to the upcoming installments. Hell, it sounds like Skynet City offered pretty great technology to the heroes - why not have Connor's brain downloaded into Marcus' body?

These are all pointless considerations now. The finished film opted to play utterly safe, and as a result it's a lump without buzz or excitement. Ironically Bale's demand to beef up John Connor, which led to a final film that is utterly distended, would have perfectly set up the character's demise. The biggest problem with Connor dying at the end of the original script is that his death carries no weight as he's a nobody throughout the film. But in the current movie, which feels like it's building to that death, it would have been the kind of surprise that works, one that's had a foundation laid.

The beefing up of Connor led to the diminishment of Reese, a big problem in the final product. Anton Yelchin came on to Terminator Salvation at a time when he was the second lead; I imagine his demotion must have been disheartening. And to audiences it's disappointing as Yelchin is the best actor in the piece. A Terminator Salvation with twice as much Yelchin might very well have been a movie that was more enjoyable, in the same way that Star Trek overcomes its script handicaps with great casting.

Looking at this weekend's box office it's likely that Terminator Salvation is the end of the franchise. And it's probably the end of Christian Bale forcing major rewrites on projects as well. I do think that a smarter rewrite of the original Brancato/Ferris script, one that allowed for a truly shocking ending, might have turned out a film whose failure at the box office would have been worth mourning. While I enjoyed myself watching Salvation, at no point did I really give a **** about what was happening or what was going to happen next in the series. McG and Nolan muddied the end of the picture, delivering action generics (yet another Terminator fight in a factory) while never finding their own hook that would give this movie more of an impact than you would get from an expanded universe novel. The only thing that was really, truly broken in Brancato and Ferris' script was Project ANGEL, and the finished film doesn't really give Skynet any better motivation for collecting humans. McG, fearing the fan backlash (which was already starting when the original ending leaked) opted to 'fix' the element that least needed fixing.

http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/19577/1/EXCLUSIVE-WHAT-WENT-WRONG-WITH-TERMINATOR-SALVATION/Page1.html

MagicHef
05-26-2009, 12:57 PM
No, he wasn't. Marcus was the first infiltrator, and the only one of his kind. He had a human brain and heart, and as you saw, that was a weakness that was exploited at the end of the movie.

In T1, Kyle talks about how these new terminators are so much deadlier than the previous model because the previous model had rubber skin, and this model looked exactly like a human. That doesn't make sense if they had been able to make machines or human-machines that looked human for 11 years.

EDIT - Not to mention the T800/T101 that shows up 11 years early.
.

Hercules Rockefeller
05-26-2009, 01:01 PM
Again, Skynet said Marcus was the only one of his kind. Simply because they made Marcus does not mean that Skynet made others similar to him in the next 11 years. Marcus ripped his chip out and at no point did Skynet ever control him. He synced up the first time with Skynet after he'd given Reese's location to Connor. He was an unwilling pawn. Do you think a self-aware supercomputer is going to make something like that over and over again and just hope that fortuitously it can lead Connor somewhere to kill him?

MagicHef
05-26-2009, 01:18 PM
Again, Skynet said Marcus was the only one of his kind. Simply because they made Marcus does not mean that Skynet made others similar to him in the next 11 years. Marcus ripped his chip out and at no point did Skynet ever control him. He synced up the first time with Skynet after he'd given Reese's location to Connor. He was an unwilling pawn. Do you think a self-aware supercomputer is going to make something like that over and over again and just hope that fortuitously it can lead Connor somewhere to kill him?

I wasn't saying they would make a ton of them, but that the main drawback to the terminators that exist later, between 2018 and 2029, are that they are easy to differentiate from humans. If they are able to make a machine that looks exactly like a human in 2018, it makes little sense for them to go backwards to rubber skin. The T800 has real flesh too, why would they go to rubber skin after that?

Br0nc0Buster
05-26-2009, 01:40 PM
I saw it last night and I am not sure what all the criticism is about.
I enjoyed the movie and thought it was pretty good.

I prolly wont buy it, but I would say it is worth seeing.

Beantown Bronco
05-26-2009, 01:50 PM
It was a vehicle to keep the franchise alive and make some quick cash (hence the pg-13 rating), but it's unlikely the film will gross the 400 mill it cost.

I'd take that bet in a heartbeat. T3 grossed $418 mil, and that was 6 years ago, with significantly lower ticket prices. All three Matrix movies grossed that as well.

Lot's of average at best movies have made that much in the past year or two. There's no reason this one can't, especially given the lack of direct competition until Transformers 2 comes out in a month.

Flex Gunmetal
05-26-2009, 04:35 PM
I'd take that bet in a heartbeat. T3 grossed $418 mil, and that was 6 years ago, with significantly lower ticket prices. All three Matrix movies grossed that as well.

Lot's of average at best movies have made that much in the past year or two. There's no reason this one can't, especially given the lack of direct competition until Transformers 2 comes out in a month.

Possibly. At this point it's slightly behind T3's pace, and factoring the terrible reviews and dropping theater attendance who knows.

TheReverend
05-26-2009, 04:38 PM
Possibly. At this point it's slightly behind T3's pace, and factoring the terrible reviews and dropping theater attendance who knows.

Memorial day weekend. Probably not a good release date.

Most of target demographic out partying, while douches like me with a kid that stayed home had Night at the Museum 2... granted, I stuck her with her mom and saw Terminator one night, but you get the point.

Flex Gunmetal
05-26-2009, 04:44 PM
Goddamit rev im not an economist. But you are a douche, so your post is valid. :D

ak1971
05-26-2009, 04:46 PM
alt.nerd.obsessive

TheReverend
05-26-2009, 04:51 PM
Goddamit rev im not an economist. But you are a douche, so your post is valid. :D

Very little says cool better than "Flex" and "gunmetal"... put the two of them together...

Well, I stand by your assessments.

Flex Gunmetal
05-26-2009, 04:54 PM
Very little says cool better than "Flex" and "gunmetal"... put the two of them together...

Well, I stand by your assessments.

Hold me.

TheReverend
05-26-2009, 04:55 PM
Hold me.

fag

Flex Gunmetal
05-26-2009, 04:56 PM
I love it when you talk dirty.

Taco John
05-28-2009, 11:12 PM
I want someone to do some A.R. type script rewrites and tie robocop/OCP to skynet tie ins, and to be honest - IMO - the resistence is the beginning to the start of the matrix (which is where i want another A.R. link up too)



Oh hell yeah...

Gort
05-31-2009, 03:36 AM
here's a pretty good explanation for why the plot of Terminator: Salvation was so screwed up and muddled... turns out the original working script was going to be much more innovative and it explains why some of the things you see in Terminator: Salvation are there (e.g. why was Skynet collecting humans anyway?).

Warning - Spoilers

http://chud.com/articles/articles/19577/1/EXCLUSIVE-WHAT-WENT-WRONG-WITH-TERMINATOR-SALVATION/Page1.html