Log in

View Full Version : Terminator Salvation


TheUsualSuspect
05-22-09, 12:40 AM
Terminator Salvation

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/terminator_salvation_bale_worthingt.jpg


"Sequel...Prequel...Reboot...Whatever"

The problem with this film is the same problem that the recent Wolverine film had, it just doesn't connect with the original material. Now, there could be many reasons for this, non of which the film acknowledges. In fact, the film doesn't seem to care about a lot of stuff other then blowing things up and making it look cool. This entry into the series is vastly different from the previous ones. This time around the story takes place in 'present time' I would say, since every film before that was about traveling back in time to save/kill whomever. So right off the bat the film feels like it doesn't belong.

Terminator Salvation is better then Rise of the Machines and weaker then the first two. There, I just told you something you probably already knew. Christian Bale is the 4th actor to portray John Conner (that's right 4th, look it up) and his performance consists of a lot of yelling and shooting. He doesn't have any scenes of emotional depth and the character loses that connectivity with the earlier films. He's a different John Connor, he's not the punk kid or the hiding from everything bum, he's finally becoming what his mother said he would be. Although, he is not the leader of the resistance yet, so this film is NOT the battles we've been preluded to in the original films, it's what happens before it. This film takes place in 2018, everything we've seen or been told came from 2029.

The rest of the cast, with the exception of the saving grace that is Sam Worthington, is pretty much useless. Common fades into the background and serves no purpose whatsoever, he could have been just another faceless soldier. Moon Bloodgood seems to have gotten all her scenes left on the cutting room floor. She has a romance with Worthington that comes out of nowhere because prior scenes were obviously deleted. This makes her actions seem unrealistic. Bryce Dallas Howard takes over the Claire Danes role and surprise surprise is giving nothing to do as well. Anton Yelchin surprised me as Kyle Reese, and seemed like a believable 'young' Biehn. The man who steals the show is Sam Worthington, who is actually given some emotions to play with. I found myself interested in his character and his scenes the most in this film.

McG has an eye for visuals, yet all his films lack substance. This is no different. Although I will say this is his best film, but when looking at his resume, that doesn't amount to much. Whatever substance this film has, it was given to by previous films. The script is basic go to point A to get plot point B. The only worthy addition to this story is the role of Marcus (Worthington) who actually brings a new dimension to this story, which in my opinion, we already know how it will turn out. I'm not totally sure on how this film stands on the whole timeline issue, but in my opinion, none of the key characters were ever at risk to me. Kyle Reese we know will go back in time, so he must live to do so. We know John Conner lives till 2029 to send Reese back in time, so we have no sense of danger in their scenes. Of course it could all be different and they could indeed die, I'm saying this based on the one line of him saying 'This is not the future my mother warned me about".

It will satisfy the action junkies, but leave those who want to see a continuance of the story empty. The barren wastelands are nice to see and gives them free roam for many neat things, such as car chases, motorcycle chases, air jet chases, etc. It had a bit more Mad Max then Terminator feel. You'll see a surprise cameo, which means only one thing when someone says that about this franchise, but when you see it you might laugh. We haven't perfected this yet and it looks fake and cheesy.

Terminator Salvation is a popcorn flick that takes the series in a new direction. No more time traveling to save people, now it's the fight to stay alive. This new direction might not sit well with some, but for those just looking to enjoy themselves for a solid action film, this delivers. The scenes are exciting and Worthington delivers what others should have. The ending is a bit ridiculous, but it's better then the rumoured ending with the skin swapping. On a final note, Connor mentions that he's never seen anything like Marcus before, a machine covered in human skin with organs. Yet, he HAS seen this before, maybe not the organs, but he acts like this is brand new to him. Just one plot hole in my mind, in a field of many.

3

damagedinc
05-22-09, 08:48 AM
You kind of contradicted yourself in that review,

you said:

"On a final note, Connor mentions that he's never seen anything like Marcus before, a machine covered in human skin with organs. Yet, he HAS seen this before, maybe not the organs, but he acts like this is brand new to him. Just one plot hole in my mind, in a field of many. "


now if your saying he has seen a terminator like Marcus before, but without the organs then surely he hasnt seen a terminator like marcus therefore making his statement valid.

Yes Arnie in T2 acted human but he was 100% machine apart from the living tissue.

there is a difference between plot hole and your thoughts thinking something to what is being shown on the screen.

Sedai
05-22-09, 02:28 PM
That's not how I read it at all, and you are misinterpreting. Suspect clearly says "a machine covered in skin with organs" in the quote you selected. Where are you getting this "without the organs" quote? Suspect didn't say that.

This film is about the path the machines take to get to the T-800 (McG says this during his spot on The Twenty, which plays before every film in Lowes Theaters), which is Arnold's model, so cleary Conner has seen that model before, during the entire T2 film, yes?

Regardless of how you perceived Arnold in [I]T2, they specifically state in The Terminator that the T-800 has organs, skin, sweat etc.

So, it's a plot hole. Of course, I don't know what sort of convoluted time travel hullabaloo gets injected into this new flick, so maybe there is a (hackneyed) explanation.

Sleezy
05-22-09, 02:56 PM
I haven't seen the film, but after reading Suspect's review, I went downstairs and mentioned it to a guy here at work who did see it, just to get his thoughts. He said his impression was that John Conner expressed surprise at seeing a machine who believed he was actually human, and wasn't aware that he was a machine. If that is true, then the writing holds up.

He also mentioned that, apparently...

...the guy isn't actually a complete machine, in the same way that the T-800 models are. He has a human brain and heart, but everything else is either mechanized or simulated flesh. If this is true, the writing would still hold up.

But like I said, I haven't seen the film, so I can't speak to the validity of my co-worker's comments. He may have misinterpreted my remarks, or the film, or both (and I may be misinterpreting the scene in question).

Pyro Tramp
05-22-09, 03:07 PM
I seem to be giving lots of the Hollywood flicks an easy ride this year; think still somewhat hyped to this one, even if it is just a trashy action film. After the write arounds made to make T3 i'm more than happy to see this 'future' come into play after long hearing about the proposal. Cheers for the review

Oh and...

Christian Bale is the 4th actor to portray John Conner (that's right 4th, look it up)

....I did ;) ......

Christian Bale is one of seven actors to play John Connor. In Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991), the adult John Connor was played by Michael Edwards, the teenage John Connor was played by Edward Furlong and the infant John Connor (who appeared during Sarah Connor's dream sequence of the nuclear attack) was played by Dalton Abbott. Nick Stahl played the fourth John Connor in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003). Thomas Dekker currently plays John Connor in the TV series, "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" (2008), with John DeVito playing a younger John in a flashback.

Sleezy
05-23-09, 08:32 PM
After seeing the film, I don't think John Conner's surprise at seeing that Marcus was mechanized is a plot hole:

Since Marcus has a human brain and heart, albeit modified, no other machine John Conner ever encountered had those organs or any other. So when he shows surprise at "a machine with organs," he's making the distinction between the machine-only Terminators he has encountered in the past, and Marcus. This is evidenced further when floaty-head Helena Bonham Carter tells Marcus that he's one-of-a-kind.

That said, I do have one question that may be a plot hole, but I want to get outside opinions because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it:

How do the machines in 2018 know that Kyle Reese will be sent back to the past by John Conner to protect his mother? And for that matter, at what point did John Conner ever know that Skynet was sending a Terminator back to kill his mother? This is starting to get very "chicken and the egg."

It seems to me that, unless all the machines operate under a hive mind (unlikely, since the film seems to suggest otherwise), Skynet would have had no way of knowing that Kyle Reese became John Conner's father... obviously, because the first T-800 was destroyed. Unless Kyle was always listed as John Conner's father in personal records, but that still doesn't explain how Skynet ever knew that Kyle was from the future, not Sarah's own time period. So how did they know to look for him in 2018, and that John Conner would send him back?

AGH!

The Prestige
05-24-09, 04:36 AM
I seem to be giving lots of the Hollywood flicks an easy ride this year; think still somewhat hyped to this one, even if it is just a trashy action film. After the write arounds made to make T3 i'm more than happy to see this 'future' come into play after long hearing about the proposal. Cheers for the review


Yeah, i'm starting to get the feeling that i've been a bit easy on some flicks in the past year. Needless to say, after reading your review, Usual, I don't have high hopes for this film. I think it's the right direction in terms of furthering the Terminator story, but from what you and others have said it's just action heavy. And it's not even good action, just basic action with pretty effects, apparently. That doesn't sit well with me. I might have to catch this on DVD or something..

John McClane
05-24-09, 01:06 PM
My biggest complaint was McG doesn't know how to present action. Like the film has tons of action, but there's no real hype to it. It's just there. As for the story itself and where they were going with it...I was actually impressed that it didn't blow. Not entirely well done, but a decent film nonetheless.

Yoda
05-24-09, 04:08 PM
Got some thoughts I'll try to expand on later, and I agree with a lot of the plot holes discussed here already, but for now, here's my review of Terminator Salvation:

Terminator Salvation (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/terminator_salvation.html)

http://www.movieforums.com/images/main/terminator_salvation_main.jpg (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/terminator_salvation.html)

Terminator Salvation is, ironically, the kind of sequel a machine would make. It knows that people must run from the machines and that things must, if at all possible, explode, but it does not know why. ...READ MORE

2.5

Harry Lime
05-24-09, 04:50 PM
"Terminator Salvation is, ironically, the kind of sequel a machine would make."


Great line Yoda.

Austruck
05-24-09, 06:41 PM
I said this elsewhere but a few things stood out and bugged me about this movie (aside from the stuff mentioned in Yoda's review, which I wholeheartedly agree with).

First, should we be sympathizing more with Marcus than we are with John Connor? Because I had no desire to root for John Connor at all. A totally unsympathetic character. I was rooting more for Marcus or Kyle or the little mute girl. I think the film gave us too many directions to put our sympathies, and therefore it tore us apart and gave us no focus on WHO to root for most. Little girl. Teen boy who has to live to not screw up the race of mankind. Savior of mankind (whom we otherwise don't really like much). New terminator who has more angst and heart than all of them. Pregnant wife who wears a lot of makeup and obviously colors her perfectly coiffed hair post-apocalypse.

TOO MANY PROTAGONISTS.

Beyond THAT, why did they put a pregnant woman in the movie if NOBODY WAS EVER GOING TO EVEN REFER TO IT? Nobody mentions her pregnancy. She doesn't give birth. We don't ever see a baby in a future shot. It's not even representative of "hope for the future." It's just a big belly that she rubs occasionally.

And if that weren't enough, I got tired of every time a character said the holy name of "John Connor" ... which is when we could almost hear the angels singing in the background. It was total name-recognition hype by the writers, and it just fizzled with me because of my first point -- I had NO feelings for this Connor at all.

And since we didn't really get any sort of ENDING to this franchise in this movie, we are left to think that John Connor's role of salvation in this movie had everything to do with him saving his own ass by making sure his future dad doesn't die and can later go back in time and shtupp his mother. Self-serving salvation, if you ask me.

It's like Back to the Future if you take out the jokes ... and the good parts ... and just about everything else that made that movie a good movie.

Harrumph. Franchise movie. Little more than that.

P.S. I did love the CGI "cameo," of course.

MovieMan8877445
05-24-09, 06:56 PM
All these reviews are having me become a little weary, but I'm still going to see it tomorrow instead of Night At The Museum.

Austruck
05-24-09, 08:17 PM
Also, perhaps I am the only person that is bugged by this little point (part of the Terminator mythos, really):

Most movies or shows that use the "machines rise up and overthrow humans" (or even animals rise up, in the case of the Planet of the Apes movies) always have the slave-race (machines or animals) getting more and more humanoid, closer to being like us, before they rebel. Which at least makes some sort of internal sense. They are then in a position to create an advanced culture of their own.

But the Terminator franchise seems to do this backwards: They heavily imply that machines AT THE BASIC MACHINES-AS-TOOLS STAGE became sentient, rebelled, overthrew humans, and then.... THEN started making more humanoid machines themselves? How did they do this? I mean, how does a machine in a box or a machine that's piloted or run by a human suddenly, errrr.... build its own factory, repair its own self when it breaks down, take itself in for a oil change, design and retool other machines to do totally new and different tasks?

HOW does this happen? Without hands, fingers, HUMANS to continue working and fixing these machines, how do they rise up and create their own "culture," so to speak? And assuming they can find a way to get the idea to make humanoid machines, how do they do this? I realize we saw the inside of a terminator factory in this movie, but I have worked in factories with real machines, and you just can't have totally still-machiney machines building their own terminator motorcycle creatures. I mean, who was making those rubber tires??

You get the idea.

That's the sort of thing I was thinking halfway through the movie ... mostly because my mind was wandering while Bryce Dallas Howard was offscreen putting on another layer of dark crimson lip liner.

TheUsualSuspect
05-24-09, 11:13 PM
Connor states that he's never seen any like this before BEFORE he looks into the eyes of Marcus and says his line about him believing he's a human. Sure he's different, but I got the impression of him saying nothing like this before a bit false. He has seen stuff like this before, machines made to look human, this one is just slightly different. It was that bit of dialogue that threw me for a loop.

and I don't count infants and tv shows, my bad Pyro. You just HAD to do that though eh?

Powdered Water
05-24-09, 11:35 PM
Well, I just saw it and I thought it was terrific. I'm not sure I'm interested in arguing with the entire board about it though. Needless to say I pretty much disagree with just about everything that has been said so far, starting with TUS's first sentence. Except for the part where he mentioned Wolverine, which in fact did stink and didn't even remotely follow the "source" material.

First off: What source material are we talking about here? There's been 3 films before this one and that's it right? Is there a book or a comic somewhere that I'm not aware of? The movie picks up several years after judgment day with Conner already a prominent member of the resistance, everything we need to know is stated quickly at the beginning of the movie in case you weren't into the first three or whatever.

I don't know what else to say. I'm surprised so many here seem to be bagging on it. It was good.

So, uh, yeah, you guys are all dead wrong. A kind of sequel a machine would make... I think the Jedi master may have been a little too busy thinking up clever lines rather than just enjoying the show. Oh, well. There's two more coming so I'm sure there will be plenty more for you folks to bag on.

TheUsualSuspect
05-25-09, 12:13 AM
You don't think a lot of the characters lacked....everything? Worthington was the only one worth giving a damn about.

Yoda
05-25-09, 03:05 AM
Hey, I'm fully capable of enjoying movies while I'm thinking of pithy things to say. :p

Anyway, I won't force an argument and I'm not bugged by anyone liking it, but the whole thing just felt so soulless to me. John Connor didn't have a shred of personality, the last part of the machines' plan was unbelievably inept (so much as to nearly constitute an actual plot hole), and it really didn't have anything to add to the philosophy of the earlier films.

Don't feel obligated, of course, but if you're willing to elaborate I'd be fairly interested in what you dug about it.

n3wt
05-25-09, 09:58 AM
I really cant wait to see this movie it looks awesome and I bet it will be.

Powdered Water
05-25-09, 01:00 PM
You don't think a lot of the characters lacked....everything? Worthington was the only one worth giving a damn about.

I really didn't. I guess maybe I'm not sure what you even mean by that. This is an action/sci-fi movie. How much depth do you need?

Hey, I'm fully capable of enjoying movies while I'm thinking of pithy things to say. :p

I know, I was taking a little shot is all. Which you know... :)




Anyway, I won't force an argument and I'm not bugged by anyone liking it, but the whole thing just felt so soulless to me. John Connor didn't have a shred of personality, the last part of the machines' plan was unbelievably inept (so much as to nearly constitute an actual plot hole), and it really didn't have anything to add to the philosophy of the earlier films.

Again, I guess I don't get you here. When has John Conner ever had a soul? Or even a remotely likable personality? I know that most folks think T2 is the best one and I'd agree with that but it certainly wasn't because of John Conner. Did you feel like there was a soul inside that whiny little kid? I didn't. But then again maybe he doesn't have a soul. This dude has been chosen since long before he was born to lead a group of people from the brink of extinction. Can anyone honestly say: "This is how I would act in this situation." To steal a little line from another great future Man Vs. Machines movie, The Matrix.

"I wanna tell you a little secret, being the one is just like being in love. No one needs to tell you you are in love, you just know it, through and through."

John Conner knows he's the chosen one. We saw it on his face at the end of Rise of the Machines. Now he's living out his days trying to preserve the ones around him that he knows need to survive in order to "win" the war. I think just about anyone who has seen these flicks more than once could agree that John Conner has never wanted to be the one and in facts hates his life, and yet he's still living it. Personally I really and truly don't believe that he is supposed to be a likable character. Most Hero's aren't. That's what makes them Hero's, they do what the others can't do and a lot of times they end up dying. You didn't think when he went to 'Skynet Central' all by himself to try and save all of the hostages that he was commiting a soulful act? That didn't cause you to like him a little? Or at least respect him? Better yet though, do we have to like him? Or believe he has a soul in order to believe in him? I don't. So, in effect, I suppose I'm agreeing with you somewhat, but, I don't think it hurts the story at all.

After we got home last night we watched the first one again and I gotta say, it really held up even more. About the only thing missed was Reese getting his laser bar code at the detention facility. I can live with that. Plus, Salvation begins in 2018 and the first Terminator is set in 2029 so obviously they plan on spending some time elaborating on the next 10 to 11 years before Reese goes through the portal.

We gotta remember too that this re-luanch was designed as a trilogy from the word go, so maybe you'll come to like Conner a little more after they're all said and done.

As far as the machines plan goes, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I didn't think there was anything wrong with it and actually I thought it kind of a cool tip of the cap to some of Asimov's stuff. Robots making choices and all that. I liked it. And honestly if that little plotline was too much of a stretch then how has anyone been able to get into these flicks since the first one? Reese says during the first Terminator that Skynets defense grid was smashed, sending a T-800 was a last ditch effort to kill off John Conner. So after Sarah kills it that should be it. There are some gaping storyline holes from The Terminator to T-2 but those get glossed over because it was such a good flick.

So, uh, lighten up everybody. ;)

Sleezy
05-25-09, 02:36 PM
I agree with a lot of the things that have been said, but I think I'm still somewhat siding somewhere between Yoda and Powdered Water on this one. It had significant problems, but I think it was still a few shakes better than Star Trek. I know it's cheap to critique one film by comparing it to another, but in this case, it doesn't seem inappropriate. They're both "jump starts" of popular but ailing sci-fi franchises. They're both thrill rides that are big on action, little on plot. And they're both looking to take the mythos of their stories into a new direction.

So, with that said...

Bale's John Connor, however, is especially mundane, suddenly devoid of all the personality he'd shown in the last two films.

I don't think anyone would disagree with this. He was just bad. And although I've never thought Bale was a particularly great actor, he's always had more success with characters of significant personality. His face might be cut out for stone-faced hero roles, but his craft isn't. He can't find the subtle ticks of a character; he's all intensity.

This is especially ironic because it was Bale the studio really wanted, and they had to make some concessions to get him on board. I do think the writers are partly to blame here. Just because your character has been, in some capacity, the focus of each prior Terminator film, that still doesn't mean that you don't have to imbue him with characterization and humanity. I can't help but remember a younger John Conner trying to imbue a machine with some sense of humanity, and yet the writers of Terminator Salvation failed to even try to do the same with Conner himself.

TOO MANY PROTAGONISTS.

I can understand this being a concern, but I think this was also largely true of Star Trek. Throughout that film, there was a pervasive feeling that all of the Trek characters needed to have substantial screen time, and a bearing on the events of the film. As a result, much of the additional time that could have been spent characterizing other characters - most notably Nero - was systematically chewed up.

In Terminator Salvation, I don't think the character problem was ever that prescribed. There are a lot of friends, but I rather think it works better when you refrain from characterizing the enemies. They are machines, and like their Battlestar Galactica brethren, are far more alarming when they're portrayed as such: unthinking, uncaring, largely faceless, collective machines. And in a film like this, I'm not interested in getting both sides of the argument. I'm with the humans. I want to see them win. So I'd rather have a larger collection of "good guys" to follow, and in this film, I never felt like there was a crowd.

The only character I didn't like, in addition to Conner, was Blair (the ejected pilot). Her affection for Marcus came on too quickly, and had little foundry. You could say that a lifetime without love can make you motivated to protect it once you find it, but you could just as easily say that a lifetime of seeing your friends murdered by machines can make you just as ravenous when you find out your boyfriend is one. Party foul.

Beyond THAT, why did they put a pregnant woman in the movie if NOBODY WAS EVER GOING TO EVEN REFER TO IT? Nobody mentions her pregnancy. She doesn't give birth. We don't ever see a baby in a future shot. It's not even representative of "hope for the future." It's just a big belly that she rubs occasionally.

I disagree with this, too. A pregnancy is just one of the many typical Hollywood devices that is never simple or arbitrary. It has to be connected to the story. It has to be important. But sometimes, people are just pregnant.

In T3: Rise of the Machines, the T-800 tells John and Kate that their children will go on to be important, as well. Blech. That's reaching right there. It's enough to have John Conner as an unborn savior; why can't his kids just be regular people? Why can't they struggle with living up to his name? Why can't they reject his methods?

So yeah, I liked that they didn't prescribe a "hope for the future" feeling to the baby bump. It was a nice, subtle nod that these people are still human, and still desire to do human things... even in a nuclear wasteland. (And apparently, they still use Revlon.)

Terminator Salvation is, ironically, the kind of sequel a machine would make. It knows that people must run from the machines and that things must, if at all possible, explode, but it does not know why. It knows that it must touch on themes of humanity and causation, but it does not know where its questions lead. It knows to use the names, iconography, and famous lines of the previous films, but it does not know how to imbue them with a soul.

I think, pound for pound, this could also be said entirely of Star Trek. That film was a connect-the-dots venture from the get-go, and I never felt like the events of the film - or the characters themselves - mattered. Perhaps it's just that we're still too married to the original series, and these strange new faces (ha, did you get the pun?) aren't yet familiar enough. But instead of really trying to bring them together and make something new, the guys behind Star Trek were only concerned with fitting them into a prescribed formula, in which all the same philosophies are said, but ring hollow because they belong to someone else.

Terminator Salvation suffers from the same retrospective angle: instead of letting its characters make the answers, it tries to make them adhere to the questions and answers of previous films. And so, it's ironic to me when we're given the famous line "no future but what we make," because the writers are too afraid to stray far enough to let that become true. It's only out of fear that the result won't feel like Terminator, and audiences will steer clear. But I beg to differ. We want to see characters drive the story in a natural direction. We want a new path.

But any momentum the film has established comes to a screeching halt in the third act, with the discovery of Skynet's helpful Exposition Machine. This machine has apparently been programmed to bring everyone up to date and explain the film's Big Twist. It has no reason to say any of the things it does -- let alone to a character who still has the potential to interfere with their plans -- but it does it all the same.

This is the film's biggest pitfall. There's no reason why the "villain" needed to have a face, much less resort to the 'ole "explain everything to the hero at the end with a smug grin" routine. Machines can't be smug, and a villain telling us his/her/its evil plot isn't cool anymore. Or did the writers get that email?

So, like I said, I think the film has significant problems, but on the whole, it's a Terminator film, and the action can't go without saying. I'm surprised many have said that it was only marginally exciting. At times, it lacked the intimacy of, say, a small truck trading fire with an oil tanker. That's true. But McG's use of lingering camera shots really sucked me in, and some of those sequences were unbelievably good.

And for God's sakes, Terminator Salvation wasn't even remotely as smarmy as Star Trek. Thank Christ. :laugh:

Sleezy
05-25-09, 02:54 PM
But the Terminator franchise seems to do this backwards: They heavily imply that machines AT THE BASIC MACHINES-AS-TOOLS STAGE became sentient, rebelled, overthrew humans, and then.... THEN started making more humanoid machines themselves? How did they do this?

I'm with you in the sense that I hate when writers let important details go unexplained because there are thousands of possible explanations, and viewers need only fill the holes as they see fit. But at the same time, I don't think this one is as far-fetched, simply because many fabrication machines out there are operated by software, and T3 explains that software and the Internet were the primary carriers of Skynet during its takeover. So, it's feasible that a combination of machines - albeit slow - would be able to get started fashioning and refining worker machines for itself, and the ball rolls from there.

Now, I'm not saying there still isn't a little extending of disbelief that's required. For example, how do materials get loaded into machines for fabrication? How are resources transported without humans to vehicles or operate airplanes? Those machines aren't connected to a network. They're just engines.

But in this respect, you've also got to point fingers at films like The Matrix. In some ways, that film has a lot more explaining to do. But being sci-fi, it's just one of those things we let go. On a long enough timeline, anything is perhaps possible. That's certainly true of humans thus far.

I've been thinking this film, more than just in general subject matter, had a very Matrix feel to it. Did anybody else feel that way?

You don't think a lot of the characters lacked....everything? Worthington was the only one worth giving a damn about.

I wouldn't say they were all primary characters, though. Even John's wife was largely a secondary character. This is true in a lot of films, even venerable sci-fi like Aliens and Predator. Secondary characters are one-dimensional, and they serve a singular purpose. Beyond that, they're window dressing.

Yoda
05-25-09, 03:10 PM
I really didn't. I guess maybe I'm not sure what you even mean by that. This is an action/sci-fi movie. How much depth do you need?
There's just a fundamental difference of expectations here, then, because the Terminator franchise has never been about straight-up action/sci-fi. It's always been a lot smarter than that, and I think we'd all agree that Terminator Salvation is certainly aspiring to be, too.

Again, I guess I don't get you here. When has John Conner ever had a soul? Or even a remotely likable personality? I know that most folks think T2 is the best one and I'd agree with that but it certainly wasn't because of John Conner. Did you feel like there was a soul inside that whiny little kid? I didn't.
Well, let's not conflate the two. I thought he was whiny and annoying and not terribly likeable, but he had plenty of personality. He was a punk kid, and I think he had to be; the same things that made him annoying and frustrating were the same qualities that would make him a thorn in the machines' side. He had some growing up to do, but then again, by the end of the film he really wasn't annoying any more. He grew up a lot over the course of the film.

Anyway, I'll take annoying and oozing personality over vapid and emotionless. Or, better yet, Nick Stahl's Connor in T3, which I thought was simultaneously poor casting, but a good performance, as odd as that may sound.

But then again maybe he doesn't have a soul. This dude has been chosen since long before he was born to lead a group of people from the brink of extinction. Can anyone honestly say: "This is how I would act in this situation." To steal a little line from another great future Man Vs. Machines movie, The Matrix.

"I wanna tell you a little secret, being the one is just like being in love. No one needs to tell you you are in love, you just know it, through and through."

John Conner knows he's the chosen one. We saw it on his face at the end of Rise of the Machines. Now he's living out his days trying to preserve the ones around him that he knows need to survive in order to "win" the war. I think just about anyone who has seen these flicks more than once could agree that John Conner has never wanted to be the one and in facts hates his life, and yet he's still living it. Personally I really and truly don't believe that he is supposed to be a likable character.
I really think we are meant to like him, but even if we're not, surely we're supposed to care about him. Did you? Honest question.

You make great points about Connor not wanting to be mankind's savior (and Stahl portrayed this aspect of him far better than Furlong), but I don't recall even seeing that level of internal conflict here. I don't remember him wrestling with his fate in Terminator Salvation. I don't remember him expressing his hatred at his own life. I'd love if he were unlikable and frustrated and full of hate, as you're describing. That would've been personality, and it would've taken the character in some kind of direction.


Most Hero's aren't. That's what makes them Hero's, they do what the others can't do and a lot of times they end up dying. You didn't think when he went to 'Skynet Central' all by himself to try and save all of the hostages that he was commiting a soulful act? That didn't cause you to like him a little? Or at least respect him? Better yet though, do we have to like him? Or believe he has a soul in order to believe in him? I don't. So, in effect, I suppose I'm agreeing with you somewhat, but, I don't think it hurts the story at all.
I didn't think he was soulful there, really, because it involved saving his own skin, too. He really doesn't have to be a good guy -- if anything, I think it's more interesting if he's kind of a jerk sometimes -- but he needs to show us he's human from time to time, I think. We need to give a damn about what happens to him. Perhaps you did, in which case it would certainly follow that you'd like the film a lot more than I did.

After we got home last night we watched the first one again and I gotta say, it really held up even more. About the only thing missed was Reese getting his laser bar code at the detention facility. I can live with that. Plus, Salvation begins in 2018 and the first Terminator is set in 2029 so obviously they plan on spending some time elaborating on the next 10 to 11 years before Reese goes through the portal.

We gotta remember too that this re-luanch was designed as a trilogy from the word go, so maybe you'll come to like Conner a little more after they're all said and done.
Entirely possible, though I think we can still fault "McG" on the basis that this film definitely needs to standalone. I think there's been talk of a trilogy, and that some of the bigger arcs are mapped out, but like most films it's meant to stand alone on the chance that it might not merit sequels. I'm fairly certain nothing's been greenlit.


As far as the machines plan goes, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I didn't think there was anything wrong with it and actually I thought it kind of a cool tip of the cap to some of Asimov's stuff. Robots making choices and all that. I liked it.
Oh, I don't have a problem with that at all. I'm talking about the fact that...

...their entire plan is to lure John Connor to Skynet so they can kill him, and then they do what? Send one Terminator after him? Really? Given how he's the key to the entire war, how about sending fifty? How about having automatic wall-mounted guns in there? Why not blow up the whole damn room? It's suggested that one of the differences between the two sides is that the machines are willing to make cold, calculated sacrifices for the greater good of their cause, so I wouldn't think blowing one of their own rooms up (or hell, the entire facility there) would outweigh the benefits of achieving their primary objective.

But, back to the other stuff: why tell Marcus all that stuff? Why explain things to him? The villain needlessly explaining the plan before it's actually been carried out is the oldest action cliche in the book, no?

And since it appears Marcus could make his own choices all along, what's with him ripping that thing out of his head? It's not really explained whether or not it controls him, or sort of controls him, or what. Maybe I missed something there. Seems like it was largely symbolic...?

And honestly if that little plotline was too much of a stretch then how has anyone been able to get into these flicks since the first one? Reese says during the first Terminator that Skynets defense grid was smashed, sending a T-800 was a last ditch effort to kill off John Conner. So after Sarah kills it that should be it. There are some gaping storyline holes from The Terminator to T-2 but those get glossed over because it was such a good flick.
That was explained in T2, I believe; the Terminator from the first film is indeed killed, but they recover a part of the chip and the arm, which Dyson says was enough to get them "thinking in new ways" (might have been "thinking in new directions").

There are, of course, plenty of time-travel paradoxes wherein things go back to cause their own existence, but I assume we're all willing to give any film a pass on those if it makes a token effort at establishing its own internal logic for them.

Yoda
05-25-09, 03:37 PM
This is especially ironic because it was Bale the studio really wanted, and they had to make some concessions to get him on board. I do think the writers are partly to blame here. Just because your character has been, in some capacity, the focus of each prior Terminator film, that still doesn't mean that you don't have to imbue him with characterization and humanity. I can't help but remember a younger John Conner trying to imbue a machine with some sense of humanity, and yet the writers of Terminator Salvation failed to even try to do the same with Conner himself.
I've read a bit about the development process, and it sounds as if Marcus was originally meant to the be the main character, with Connor as a much more ancillary character, which really explains a lot.


I can understand this being a concern, but I think this was also largely true of Star Trek. Throughout that film, there was a pervasive feeling that all of the Trek characters needed to have substantial screen time, and a bearing on the events of the film. As a result, much of the additional time that could have been spent characterizing other characters - most notably Nero - was systematically chewed up.
But arguably, in Star Trek, it was necessary. The characters were already icons and the entire point was to show us how will they worked together. In Terminator Salvation, it's completely arbitrary, as a lot of the time is chewed up by completely new characters, some of which are simply not necessary (I'm thinking primarily of the little kid and Blair)

Unrelated rant...

...why on earth was Connor the one who didn't trust Marcus? He's the one person who has reason to! He's the one who's been protected by machines in the past! It makes far more sense that the higher-ups, and the others in the resistance, are reticent to make any exceptions, but that Connor, through his experience, knows that not all machines are evil. It could even explain why he's not the leader of the resistance, and why some people doubt him. Instead, he doesn't trust Marcus at all at first, so they introduce a new character for the sole purpose of taking the position that Connor should have taken himself. Ugh.

The only character I didn't like, in addition to Conner, was Blair (the ejected pilot). Her affection for Marcus came on too quickly, and had little foundry. You could say that a lifetime without love can make you motivated to protect it once you find it, but you could just as easily say that a lifetime of seeing your friends murdered by machines can make you just as ravenous when you find out your boyfriend is one. Party foul.
I agree completely. That entire subplot was forced and sudden. She just latches right onto Marcus and next thing you know she's basically committing treason and risking her life for him.

I disagree with this, too. A pregnancy is just one of the many typical Hollywood devices that is never simple or arbitrary. It has to be connected to the story. It has to be important. But sometimes, people are just pregnant.

In T3: Rise of the Machines, the T-800 tells John and Kate that their children will go on to be important, as well. Blech. That's reaching right there. It's enough to have John Conner as an unborn savior; why can't his kids just be regular people? Why can't they struggle with living up to his name? Why can't they reject his methods?

So yeah, I liked that they didn't prescribe a "hope for the future" feeling to the baby bump. It was a nice, subtle that these people are still human, and still desire to do human things... even in a nuclear wasteland. (And apparently, they still use Revlon.)
Gotta disagree here, but this is more subjective, I admit. Technically speaking you could write off any sort of lazy, pointless inclusion under the "well, real life is like that sometimes" blanket. For the most part, I don't want to see real life; I get plenty of that outside of the theater. I like movies that feel true to life, and dramatize things about real life, but there's a fine line between being realistic and just throwing red herrings around. They made a point to show it, and they made lots of references to how they simply had to survive, so the setup was all there. Would anyone be surprised if there isn't a deleted scene on the DVD that addresses the pregnancy?

I might feel differently in a different type of movie, but given that both Connor and his wife were so shallowly defined, the pregnancy is a perfect excuse to get them talking about things and develop them both. Perfect. They could have done a lot with the couple (John and Kate Plus the T-800?).

I'm also genuinely shocked that...

...they didn't have Connor turn to Marcus as they lay next to each other on their gurneys, and say "we're going to name him Marcus."

I can't tell if this is so obvious that it shouldn't happen, or so obvious that it must, but it seemed so telegraphed that I'm still amazed it didn't take place. It mentions the Big Conspicuous Pregnancy, helps humanize Connor, and it's an interesting extension of (and parallel with) Marcus' "second chance" theme.

Terminator Salvation suffers from the same retrospective angle: instead of letting its characters make the answers, it tries to make them adhere to the questions and answers of previous films. And so, it's ironic to me when we're given the famous line "no future but what we make," because the writers are too afraid to stray far enough to let that become true. It's only out of fear that the result won't feel like Terminator, and audiences will steer clear. But I beg to differ. We want to see characters drive the story in a natural direction. We want a new path.
I agree, and this is precisely why I loved T3 so much; it was gutsy and took the series in a new direction in a way that was consistent with what came before. I think I could live with "McG" (sorry, but I can't say his name without putting quotes around it...I just can't) messing around with the mythology if it had a bold new path to go in with it. At least it has a reason for existing. But as-is it's like one of those cover songs that sounds just like the original; pointless and identical, yet somehow worse. We've been over the "what does it mean to be human?" stuff a gazillion times, in this series and others.

Powdered Water
05-25-09, 04:32 PM
I'm with you in the sense that I hate when writers let important details go unexplained because there are thousands of possible explanations, and viewers need only fill the holes as they see fit. But at the same time, I don't think this one is as far-fetched, simply because many fabrication machines out there are operated by software, and T3 explains that software and the Internet were the primary carriers of Skynet during its takeover. So, it's feasible that a combination of machines - albeit slow - would be able to get started fashioning and refining worker machines for itself, and the ball rolls from there.



None of that stuff has ever entered my mind. From the very first movie its explained that humans are rounded up and used as workers and we know that Skynet started making machines that looked more human in order to better rid the world of humans. I basically disagree with Aus's whole statment though. I can't remember when it was ever implied that "AT THE BASIC MACHINES-AS-TOOLS STAGE" is when the machines just suddenly became "aware" and decided to take over the world and eradicate the population. Skynet became aware and as Reese said: "It decided our fate in a microsecond."



I've been thinking this film, more than just in general subject matter, had a very Matrix feel to it. Did anybody else feel that way?
Honestly I'm the opposite, I've always thought that The Matrix had a very Terminator like feel to it because The Terminator came first. Sure, The Matrix was perhaps flashier and maybe a better movie but The Terminator was around long before it.


I wouldn't say they were all primary characters, though. Even John's wife was largely a secondary character. This is true in a lot of films, even venerable sci-fi like Aliens and Predator. Secondary characters are one-dimensional, and they serve a singular purpose. Beyond that, they're window dressing.Completely agree, and again I'm wondering how much drama can you stand during a movie like this? To use another film as an example as to why this can backfire I'll mention Wolverine again. Weren't we all just totally engrossed by all the character development during that film? NO? Me either, and then when they throw the action into it as an after thought it just felt empty. To me, I guess.

There's just a fundamental difference of expectations here, then, because the Terminator franchise has never been about straight-up action/sci-fi. It's always been a lot smarter than that, and I think we'd all agree that Terminator Salvation is certainly aspiring to be, too.


Yeah, with that we're now seeing eye to eye. Because I totally disagree with that. From the very beginning of The Terminator I see almost non stop action until the conclusion of the third installment. Sure, there were some breaks in between the barrages but there were some during Salvation as well.


Well, let's not conflate the two. I thought he was whiny and annoying and not terribly likeable, but he had plenty of personality. He was a punk kid, and I think he had to be; the same things that made him annoying and frustrating were the same qualities that would make him a thorn in the machines' side. He had some growing up to do, but then again, by the end of the film he really wasn't annoying any more. He grew up a lot over the course of the film.:D You know when I was growing up I was a lot like that kid. I don't remember my parents or anyone else for that matter telling me I had "personality" :laugh: Hooligan, lawbreaking piece of crap was uttered a few times but not "personality". :D


Anyway, I'll take annoying and oozing personality over vapid and emotionless. Or, better yet, Nick Stahl's Connor in T3, which I thought was simultaneously poor casting, but a good performance, as odd as that may sound.
:rotfl: Agreed. I don't know why I cut the flick so much slack, I don't think much of Nick either and yet I just really dig the movie.



I really think we are meant to like him, but even if we're not, surely we're supposed to care about him. Did you? Honest question.Well, I did. But first I have to tell you that I'm not looking at this franchise as each movie standing on their own which is how I think you are, if I'm reading you correctly. See, to me this movie just added another chapter to the story. And as I already said I don't really "like" John Conner. I don't need to like him to enjoy the movies. And if we are in fact meant to like him then they have a long way to go because he hasn't been likable since he was in the womb. ;)


You make great points about Connor not wanting to be mankind's savior (and Stahl portrayed this aspect of him far better than Furlong), but I don't recall even seeing that level of internal conflict here. I don't remember him wrestling with his fate in Terminator Salvation. I don't remember him expressing his hatred at his own life. I'd love if he were unlikable and frustrated and full of hate, as you're describing. That would've been personality, and it would've taken the character in some kind of direction.
Why would he be wrestling with his fate after 15 years though? Perhaps that's something they could have added in there was the sense of just how much time is going by. At the end of T3 it's only 2004 so about 15 years has passed of John struggling to survive and fighting and running for his life. Maybe this was a large oversight for the hardcore fans, I don't think so but I can understand why some would want a little more story line. So anyway, as I said. I think he comes firmly to grips with his actual "Fate" on the new judgement day in 2004 and from them on until 15 years later we see him living it. Do you really need to see him emotionally break down or something? He did spend a lot of time listening to his mother's tapes. Didn't that do anything for you?


I didn't think he was soulful there, really, because it involved saving his own skin, too. He really doesn't have to be a good guy -- if anything, I think it's more interesting if he's kind of a jerk sometimes -- but he needs to show us he's human from time to time, I think. We need to give a damn about what happens to him. Perhaps you did, in which case it would certainly follow that you'd like the film a lot more than I did.Ah, see, here's the rub though. Sure, he was saving his own skin to a certain extent but he also inherently "knows" when he is supposed to die. So what it really came down to was just what he said to his superiors. He was really trying to save Reese and everyone else not only because he had to but because he knew he could.


Entirely possible, though I think we can still fault "McG" on the basis that this film definitely needs to standalone. I think there's been talk of a trilogy, and that some of the bigger arcs are mapped out, but like most films it's meant to stand alone on the chance that it might not merit sequels. I'm fairly certain nothing's been greenlit.Fair enough, from what I read when they originally got the green light to do this it was always going to be three films. So far the numbers are decent so I truly hope they continue making them.


Oh, I don't have a problem with that at all. I'm talking about the fact that...

...their entire plan is to lure John Connor to Skynet so they can kill him, and then they do what? Send one Terminator after him? Really? Given how he's the key to the entire war, how about sending fifty? How about having automatic wall-mounted guns in there? Why not blow up the whole damn room? It's suggested that one of the differences between the two sides is that the machines are willing to make cold, calculated sacrifices for the greater good of their cause, so I wouldn't think blowing one of their own rooms up (or hell, the entire facility there) would outweigh the benefits of achieving their primary objective.

But, back to the other stuff: why tell Marcus all that stuff? Why explain things to him? The villain needlessly explaining the plan before it's actually been carried out is the oldest action cliche in the book, no?

And since it appears Marcus could make his own choices all along, what's with him ripping that thing out of his head? It's not really explained whether or not it controls him, or sort of controls him, or what. Maybe I missed something there. Seems like it was largely symbolic...?

"He starts monologueing!!! Alright fine, you win, that part was pretty unecessary, I still didn't mind it though. Think on this a little, we know John Conner is the key to winning the war. In the year 2018 do the machines know this? How would they? All of their Terminators that were sent back in time were destroyed so how would Skynet know how important it was to kill John Conner? It obviously knew something but I don't recall it being fleshed out just how important Conner was to the machines. Anyway, after a re-watch I may feel a little different because the machines were trying to target Reese so maybe at some point during the next one it will be explained how the machines know how important Conner is. It could just be as simple as The Terminatrix down loaded all the info into the Skynet Mainframe before she was destroyed. A small detail that could tie up a few loose ends in this newest story. And would only take a quick flash back to explain.


That was explained in T2, I believe; the Terminator from the first film is indeed killed, but they recover a part of the chip and the arm, which Dyson says was enough to get them "thinking in new ways" (might have been "thinking in new directions").

There are, of course, plenty of time-travel paradoxes wherein things go back to cause their own existence, but I assume we're all willing to give any film a pass on those if it makes a token effort at establishing its own internal logic for them.Right, but it can still be argued that its a rather large loophole yeah?

Sleezy
05-25-09, 07:30 PM
I've read a bit about the development process, and it sounds as if Marcus was originally meant to the be the main character, with Connor as a much more ancillary character, which really explains a lot.

Yeah, it seemed clear to me that Marcus was always the focus, and I'm starting to wonder if the studio got cold feet about that. The marketing fell heavily on Conner, not least of which the inclusion of Bale. It seems they thought he could come in and make the character memorable. Turns out he was miscast. :laugh:

But arguably, in Star Trek, it was necessary. The characters were already icons and the entire point was to show us how will they worked together. In Terminator Salvation, it's completely arbitrary, as a lot of the time is chewed up by completely new characters, some of which are simply not necessary (I'm thinking primarily of the little kid and Blair)

I'm not disputing that it was necessary in Star Trek. That's just one more example of how that film was marred by a prescribed itinerary. And you're right, Terminator Salvation didn't have those requirements. But other than Blair, I never felt that any of the protagonists were unnecessary. She was the only secondary character to get something resembling the story arc. The kid, I think, worked well because (a) her inclusion always made the stakes a little higher during action sequences, and (b) her hidden resourcefulness was a nice touch, and I was starting to see a relationship blossoming between her and Marcus, similar to John's relationship with the T-800 in T2. (And come on, she didn't even talk!)

As unnecessary characters go, I don't think any were even remotely egregious as the chief antagonist, floaty-head Helena Bonham Carter. Her inclusion was flat out unnecessary. Even her flashback bit at the end. It could have been Johnny Whoever. That's gotta be the easiest paycheck she's ever cashed.

Unrelated rant...

...why on earth was Connor the one who didn't trust Marcus? He's the one person who has reason to! He's the one who's been protected by machines in the past! It makes far more sense that the higher-ups, and the others in the resistance, are reticent to make any exceptions, but that Connor, through his experience, knows that not all machines are evil. It could even explain why he's not the leader of the resistance, and why some people doubt him. Instead, he doesn't trust Marcus at all at first, so they introduce a new character for the sole purpose of taking the position that Connor should have taken himself. Ugh.

I agree. That was a misstep. The writers just never had a handle on the character. It seemed they wanted to increase tension whenever possible, but just because you can in one area doesn't mean it fits.

Gotta disagree here, but this is more subjective, I admit. Technically speaking you could write off any sort of lazy, pointless inclusion under the "well, real life is like that sometimes" blanket. For the most part, I don't want to see real life; I get plenty of that outside of the theater. I like movies that feel true to life, and dramatize things about real life, but there's a fine line between being realistic and just throwing red herrings around. They made a point to show it, and they made lots of references to how they simply had to survive, so the setup was all there. Would anyone be surprised if there isn't a deleted scene on the DVD that addresses the pregnancy?

A friend of mine often says that he wants to see one movie in which the phone rings, and the call isn't pertinent to the plot. He's always asks, "Why can't it be the wrong number? People get wrong number calls often enough."

This is an example of when I think it's going too far. There's far too little time in a film to indulge those slivers of real life too deeply. But in the case of Terminator Salvation, Bryce Dallas Howard was pregnant anyway. They really had no choice but to show it, and with something as visible as a pregnant woman, I think the connection is easily made with viewers without calling attention to it. And you know if they did, it would have been like every other expecting couple, with the future father in danger of being killed in an upcoming mission. I've seen all that before. It was nice not to be hit over the head with it for a change.

I might feel differently in a different type of movie, but given that both Connor and his wife were so shallowly defined, the pregnancy is a perfect excuse to get them talking about things and develop them both. Perfect. They could have done a lot with the couple (John and Kate Plus the T-800?).

I kinda-sorta agree with this. Obviously, I would have liked more depth to this couple, and you're right, talking about their unborn child could have been the vehicle for that. But at the same time, she was quite far along, and anything they might have said to each other about the child (and the difficulties ahead) would have been said well before now.

I'm also genuinely shocked that...

...they didn't have Connor turn to Marcus as they lay next to each other on their gurneys, and say "we're going to name him Marcus."

I can't tell if this is so obvious that it shouldn't happen, or so obvious that it must, but it seemed so telegraphed that I'm still amazed it didn't take place. It mentions the Big Conspicuous Pregnancy, helps humanize Connor, and it's an interesting extension of (and parallel with) Marcus' "second chance" theme.

Eh, maybe. I'm worried that level of symbolism would have been too hokey. And it's probable that they would have already chosen a name for the baby.

I agree, and this is precisely why I loved T3 so much; it was gutsy and took the series in a new direction in a way that was consistent with what came before. I think I could live with "McG" (sorry, but I can't say his name without putting quotes around it...I just can't) messing around with the mythology if it had a bold new path to go in with it. At least it has a reason for existing. But as-is it's like one of those cover songs that sounds just like the original; pointless and identical, yet somehow worse. We've been over the "what does it mean to be human?" stuff a gazillion times, in this series and others.

Hmm. I differ with you on T3. I thought it was really nothing more than a paint-by-numbers attempt to reclaim popularity established by T2. It was largely the same plot, but thinner. The dialogue was laughable and mostly ignorant, compared to its predecessors. And while the resolution was the one intended all along, the way in which we reach it is painfully hurried and unrealistic. The whole production just felt like an expensive fan film made to make a buck off previous successes.

As far as being over the "what does it mean to be human angle?," I thought T2 capped that off pretty well, and this angle in Terminator Salvation - though not at all perfect - still retained the spirit of that, if in a different way.

MovieMan8877445
05-25-09, 10:09 PM
Just got back from seeing it. Here's my review from my review thread:

http://i44.tinypic.com/2uxz3ph.jpg http://i40.tinypic.com/mt5iqs.jpg http://i43.tinypic.com/33ae80l.jpg

Terminator: Salvation (McG, 2009)

I have been waiting to see this movie for awhile for a couple of months now, and this past week has had me a little weary because I started seeing a bunch of negative reviews for it. Something I’ve learned, though, is to not listen to other people’s negative reviews, because I ended up being happy with this. Yeah, it wasn’t great or anything, but it’s still a good movie nonetheless. It was a big step up from Wolverine and just a little bit of a step down from Star Trek. I’ve never really been a big fan of the Terminator series actually, I really only liked Judgment Day. The first and third were alright, but I never really liked them all that much. I would probably say that this is my second favorite of the series, it’s definitely better than the first and third, but it doesn’t even come close to Judgment Day. This was such a great movie to see in theaters, though, because the action is extremely well done.

That’s actually the best thing about the movie; the action was very well done. Some of the action scenes looked fake due to the CGI, but even though it didn’t look, it still had something to do it that was visually appealing. It sure as hell looked miles better than Wolverine’s crappy effects, which is actually probably the worst use of CGI that I’ve ever seen. The plot wasn’t half bad either; it followed the Terminator series storyline pretty well. I heard a lot of people complaining about the plot, but it flowed just right, if you ask me. There wasn’t a moment where it got slow enough to bore me, but the entire movie didn’t focus just on the action scenes. The scenery is pure art, though, which may be reason why I thought the somewhat fake looking effects looked visually appealing. It’s what I’ve wanted to see in a Terminator movie since I ever saw the first one. I do wish they could’ve followed the original Terminator’s storyline some more, though, like using the dogs to detect the Terminators. Or Kyle Reese getting his barcode on his arm while he’s trapped at Skynet.

I have to agree with what I’ve been hearing about Connor’s character, though. I got really sick of him being so vain throughout the movie; at least he did get a little better towards the end. Whenever he came on screen, it was just me, me, me with him. It got a little annoying after awhile. I don’t know why they went that way his character either, because he wasn’t like that in Judgment Day or Rise Of The Machines. I also couldn’t help but to laugh whenever I heard him scream on screen, most people should probably know why. At least if you’ve heard his freak-out on the set you would. Sam Worthington was surprisingly pretty great in this, if you ask me. For an unknown actor to me, he really surprised me, because he was the best actor in the movie. I wish that Kate could’ve gotten some more screen-time, though, because she was one of the main things about Rise Of The Machines, and she was severely underplayed in this. Anton Yelchin did a pretty great job, though. I’ve always thought that he was a pretty underrated actor.

If you’re putting off watching this because of the negative reviews, I’d say that you should still give it a try. I think fans of the Terminator series will appreciate it. If you do see it, I’d strongly advise seeing it in theaters, because action movies are always meant to be seen in theaters. Something I’ve noticed is that 2009 has been a pretty crappy year for movies, at least compared to 2008. I sure hope that it’ll improve during the second half of the year. That’s usually when we get the better movies of the year, anyway. I’d probably say that this is my second favorite movie of the summer so far, but I hope that’ll change before the summers end.

3.5+


I didn't find it as bad as some people were making it out to be.

Austruck
05-26-09, 12:35 PM
Going back to my question about how the machines actually took over: I've seen the original movie a gazillion times. If they really come out and say that they used humans as slaves to do the "human" work of factories, then that at least would explain it sufficiently to me.

But how did I miss that statement in my many viewings of that movie? Where in the movie do they toss that in? Apologies all around for my post, then, if they explained it clearly in a previous installment.

As for not having too many main characters: I'm sticking by my opinion on this one. This didn't feel like an ensemble cast movie at all, mostly because we go into it assuming the Big Main Character is Connor.

And yet we're shown Marcus first, empathetically, then other people and also Connor. And all at different levels of sympathy. And as others have pointed out, in something like Star Trek (which I haven't seen yet), we already know and empathize with this entire cast of characters because we have known them for years.

In Terminator Salvation, though, I felt as if a LOT of things were thrown into the movie simply for the emotional impact they would have, even if they were not used properly: a pregnant woman, a child, a scrappy teenager, everyone saying the name "John Connor" at every opportunity.... When you can take these elements out of the movie and not have to change the plot, then you know they are extraneous and are there only because the writer knows that pregnant women and children elicit automatic empathy.

Why not throw in bunnies and kittens and baby seals too?

And, you can say that there are a bunch of reasons why they didn't need to address the pregnancy, but they did need to. There are tons of writer no-nos that this element alone engaged in. You know, like the rule about using a gun in act three that you showed us in act one.

If a film like this is totally devoid of "daily life" elements, then tossing in something as normal as a pregnancy and not having the parents even talk about it (not even a little affection between them with belly rubs or comments like, "How are you feeling? Tired, honey?" SOMETHING. ANYTHING.

And, for late pregnancy, she sure was spry. No swollen ankles. No peeing every two minutes. She's still running around during battles, for cryin' out loud.

If you're going to throw in a pregnancy, and your reason seems to be to throw in some element of "normal human life," then at least make the pregnancy symptoms normal. To totally, absolutely, and completely ignore it seemed confusing, at least.

So there. ;)

Pyro Tramp
05-26-09, 12:39 PM
I thought there was some point in the first were Kyle says something about the machines keeping some humans alive as workers.

Austruck
05-26-09, 12:41 PM
I guess what I've been trying to say is this:

Throwing in a pregnant woman (rather than simply a woman) is a cheap shortcut to sympathy. A good writer will find ways to elicit fondness for the character and situation without having to resort to things that bring sympathy and connection automatically. We want to protect Kate because she is pregnant, not because of her personality or because we like her otherwise. Heck, we don't even KNOW her otherwise.

Same with the child (who at least had more personality than Kate or Connor). Another shortcut to sympathy.

A good writer does not use stereotypical or cliched shortcuts *in place of interesting plot development and dialogue* to garner emotional connections with the readers/viewers.

Sleezy
05-26-09, 02:38 PM
Going back to my question about how the machines actually took over: I've seen the original movie a gazillion times. If they really come out and say that they used humans as slaves to do the "human" work of factories, then that at least would explain it sufficiently to me. But how did I miss that statement in my many viewings of that movie? Where in the movie do they toss that in? Apologies all around for my post, then, if they explained it clearly in a previous installment.

I think he said something like their job was to "move the bodies." It's feasible that humans would have been used for other jobs, like assembly, but I don't like having to fill in gaps myself. Either way, that dialogue is now a plothole, because Terminator Salvation didn't adhere to it. So there's no telling.

As for not having too many main characters: I'm sticking by my opinion on this one. This didn't feel like an ensemble cast movie at all, mostly because we go into it assuming the Big Main Character is Connor.

That was my assumption going in as well, given the heavy marketing emphasis on him. But I recognized in the film that the real intent was to focus on "the human condition," and so I resigned myself to accept that it was supposed to be more of a loose ensemble. I wasn't bothered.

And yet we're shown Marcus first, empathetically, then other people and also Connor. And all at different levels of sympathy. And as others have pointed out, in something like Star Trek (which I haven't seen yet), we already know and empathize with this entire cast of characters because we have known them for years.

My point about that, though, is that they're not the cast of characters we know and love. At this point, they're only actors playing the roles, and we haven't had the chance to fall in love with them yet. So, there's this looming necessity to touch on each character so that they're all introduced. And in addition to the seven main protagonists, characters like Spock Prime, Pike, and Spock's parents also eat time. At least in Terminator Salvation, although the characters are many, they're not used in such a pointed fashion. They're allowed to be both somebodies and nobodies in a world where the same three or four people don't do all the talking.

In Terminator Salvation, though, I felt as if a LOT of things were thrown into the movie simply for the emotional impact they would have, even if they were not used properly: a pregnant woman, a child, a scrappy teenager, everyone saying the name "John Connor" at every opportunity.... When you can take these elements out of the movie and not have to change the plot, then you know they are extraneous and are there only because the writer knows that pregnant women and children elicit automatic empathy.

Well, aside from the fact that Kyle Reese had to be a scrappy teenager in 2018 for continuity reasons, I'm glad they included characters that weren't just burly military types. This matches depictions of the future in previous Terminator films, in which frail adults and starved children are seen huddled underground. So if you're going to pick on one film, pick on them all. ;)

I think they seemed tacked on because there was little dialogue between characters to elicit empathy more believably. I'd have certainly preferred that as well, but I'd rather not penalize the inclusion of a variety of characterize for the script's shortcomings.

And, you can say that there are a bunch of reasons why they didn't need to address the pregnancy, but they did need to. There are tons of writer no-nos that this element alone engaged in. You know, like the rule about using a gun in act three that you showed us in act one.

If a film like this is totally devoid of "daily life" elements, then tossing in something as normal as a pregnancy and not having the parents even talk about it (not even a little affection between them with belly rubs or comments like, "How are you feeling? Tired, honey?" SOMETHING. ANYTHING.

I'm in agreement there. That would have been nice. I'm just saying I don't think including a pregnant woman necessarily dictates the need to point it out, except when it's a focus of the film. If you're making a film about Mary and Joseph trying to find a place to birth baby Jesus, then yeah, definitely. But the Conners' unborn child wasn't the focus of Terminator Salvation, and although could have benefitted from exposition, didn't necessarily require it.

I think this is just a stylistic issue on which we differ.

And, for late pregnancy, she sure was spry. No swollen ankles. No peeing every two minutes. She's still running around during battles, for cryin' out loud.

If you're going to throw in a pregnancy, and your reason seems to be to throw in some element of "normal human life," then at least make the pregnancy symptoms normal. To totally, absolutely, and completely ignore it seemed confusing, at least.

I'll give ya that one. The writers were men who have probably never been pregnant. ;)

I guess what I've been trying to say is this:

Throwing in a pregnant woman (rather than simply a woman) is a cheap shortcut to sympathy. A good writer will find ways to elicit fondness for the character and situation without having to resort to things that bring sympathy and connection automatically. We want to protect Kate because she is pregnant, not because of her personality or because we like her otherwise. Heck, we don't even KNOW her otherwise.

See, I never felt like I was supposed to feel sympathy for her for being pregnant, simply because they never forced me to pay attention to it. She seemed active and involved throughout; never a liability. I got the impression that she was meant to come off as a hardy, frontier kind of character... pregnancy isn't going to stop her from doing her part. If the writers had deliberately made her a defenseless liability, and made her the damsel-in-distress in the finale, I would have been rolling my eyes at the forced manipulation. They could very well have had her get nabbed by a Hunter-Killer, and then start going into labor in the process line. But we already know she'd be saved. We've been through that before.

Austruck
05-26-09, 02:51 PM
Ehh, I might buy the hardy, frontier image -- if she HAD that image. But honestly, the makeup and colored hair (COLORED HAIR?) on a 40-foot screen was SO noticeable as to be almost ridiculous. So, the pilot-woman gets to look a bit dirty and mussed-up, but Kate is somehow always perfectly coiffed and made up, right down to the lipstick and eyeliner?

Sorry, it totally ruined any idea of her being hardy or frontier-like. Minor details like that are suddenly not minor when they are our only connections with the character: She's pregnant, and she always looks fresh and clean. Not buying either one, really.

Just to hammer the point to death, though: I guess I question why they had the pregnancy in there at all if it wasn't for built-in sympathy. Because they never mention it, and no character draws attention to it, and nobody even implies or says anything roundabout about the future of mankind while showing her tummy or anything. Nada. So, if your character is otherwise going to act, run, jump, coiff, and fuss as if she is not pregnant, and no one else is going to factor in her pregnancy in any way, then what is the point?

Instant sympathy and knee-jerk reactions of protectiveness by the viewers.

That felt forced to me. If she HAD been a defenseless liability at some point due to her pregnancy, at least it would have felt like real life! Trust me -- being THAT pregnant, you can barely walk at a normal pace. You can't breathe deeply. You have to pee constantly. You get heartburn. You get pains and contractions all through the last month. You can't sit or stand quickly. You can't do anything quickly.

Can you tell it bugged me? :) It's just the *bad* attention to detail that irks me. They throw in a detail and then do it all wrong. I couldn't help buy notice it *far* more than they wished me to because of their boneheaded way of bringing it off.

AAAAaaanyway..... let me say this: I thought the Markus and the Kyle characters carried the movie and saved it for me. I found the side story of Markus as a lone terminator of that type was fascinating and almost more so than the save-Kyle-at-all-costs storyline. I hope we get more glimpses of that storyline in subsequent movies....

Sleezy
05-26-09, 04:12 PM
Ehh, I might buy the hardy, frontier image -- if she HAD that image. But honestly, the makeup and colored hair (COLORED HAIR?) on a 40-foot screen was SO noticeable as to be almost ridiculous. So, the pilot-woman gets to look a bit dirty and mussed-up, but Kate is somehow always perfectly coiffed and made up, right down to the lipstick and eyeliner?

Sorry, it totally ruined any idea of her being hardy or frontier-like. Minor details like that are suddenly not minor when they are our only connections with the character: She's pregnant, and she always looks fresh and clean. Not buying either one, really.

I'll give you that one. I still think her character felt hardy, even if her image didn't. But you're right, the makeup and hairstyle were gaffes. I even remember thinking that Blair's hair looked too voluptuous to have come out of a pilot's helmet, much less be on the head of someone living in a nuclear wasteland.

Just to hammer the point to death, though: I guess I question why they had the pregnancy in there at all if it wasn't for built-in sympathy. Because they never mention it, and no character draws attention to it, and nobody even implies or says anything roundabout about the future of mankind while showing her tummy or anything. Nada. So, if your character is otherwise going to act, run, jump, coiff, and fuss as if she is not pregnant, and no one else is going to factor in her pregnancy in any way, then what is the point?

Well, I guess the easy answer is that Bryce Dallas Howard really was pregnant. It's not like they had a choice. That's not entirely true, of course, and I'm sure they saw her pregnancy as an aesthetic asset, at least, for casting her into the film. But she was also a last-minute replacement for Charlotte Gainsbourg, who was not pregnant at the time she was supposed to film. So we'll never know if Howard was considered early on, when she was far less pregnant, or if the pickings were slim when it came time to fill the role at the last minute. I'd like to think she was cast because she's a decent actress, and that her pregnancy was simply accommodated. But who knows...

Instant sympathy and knee-jerk reactions of protectiveness by the viewers.

This seems like a generalized assumption about how viewers would react. I don't see any evidence that McG and company went out of their way to make viewers aware of the pregnancy so that they would be stricken with fear over her safety (she was rarely in danger anyway). Regardless, I'd be hesitant to pin blame on the writers because the script was finished well before a pregnant woman was even cast in the role.

That felt forced to me. If she HAD been a defenseless liability at some point due to her pregnancy, at least it would have felt like real life! Trust me -- being THAT pregnant, you can barely walk at a normal pace. You can't breathe deeply. You have to pee constantly. You get heartburn. You get pains and contractions all through the last month. You can't sit or stand quickly. You can't do anything quickly.

This is certainly an issue, no doubt. All I can say is that the woman really was pregnant, and they didn't depict her moving around or doing anything too strenuous anyway. If she had been a bigger character, I'd certainly agree that some of this stuff should have been addressed, and probably still should have been at least in one or two short scenes.

Either way, I think it's more egregious that her medical experience stems entirely from being a veterinarian assistant before the war, and somehow she performs the successful transplant of a cybernetically-enhanced heart under an open canopy in the desert with (we can assume) only post apocalyptic resources at her disposal. While pregnant. :laugh:

yellowjacket1
05-28-09, 01:21 AM
Believe the critics on this one. What a dumb mess of a movie. (Writing: piss poor) (Special effects: average) (Acting: Disappointing) (Fights: nonexistent really) (Potential: makes me wish the director had actually waited until 2018 to make this thing) The words "cheesy" and "unexciting" should find its way on to the dvd cover if there’s any justice in the world.

:down:

Deathbyreel
06-01-09, 03:59 AM
Hey guys, I had a question about Marcus' story: did the machines exercise any control over him at all?
He acted out his human side the entire movie, even though he was cybernetic. Skynet knew that he would infiltrate the human resistance (Which I thought was a bit of a gambit that a computer wouldn't really count on working, but whatever), but was he ultimately under Skynet's control? Because at one point, I remember them scanning him after the mine snafu and mentioning that he has a heart and a brain that was human, but I think they said that there was a skynet chip on him. I wanted to know two things, if you guys remember the movie well; One: where was the chip located on his body (I think they said brain, but then he ripped it out at the end, which makes no sense if it was in his brain) and Two: what was the purpose of the chip. My friend and I had an argument over this issue. My friend thinks the chip was for tracking purposes, which actually makes no sense because had it been for tracking purposes, Skynet would have bombed the base that Conor was in, whereas I believe that the chip was a sort of switch which controled him, but I can't back up my argument very well, I can only defeat my friend's argument.

Sleezy
06-01-09, 11:08 AM
Hey guys, I had a question about Marcus' story: did the machines exercise any control over him at all?
He acted out his human side the entire movie, even though he was cybernetic. Skynet knew that he would infiltrate the human resistance (Which I thought was a bit of a gambit that a computer wouldn't really count on working, but whatever), but was he ultimately under Skynet's control?

I don't think he was ever directly under the control of Skynet. At the end of the film, it's pretty clear that Marcus was allowed to seek out the resistance, because he still thought he was human, and Skynet assumed he would join his ilk. That's why the reveal was supposed to be so shocking to Marcus: that even though he acted on his own free will, he still inadvertantly betrayed the resistance.

Because at one point, I remember them scanning him after the mine snafu and mentioning that he has a heart and a brain that was human, but I think they said that there was a skynet chip on him. I wanted to know two things, if you guys remember the movie well; One: where was the chip located on his body (I think they said brain, but then he ripped it out at the end, which makes no sense if it was in his brain)

Yeah, I think the "chip" is the thing he rips out of the back of his skull. Of course, how he knew it was there, if he had previously thought he was a flesh-and-blood human, is beyond me. I guess you could say that connecting to the Skynet mainframe gave him clear understanding and access to all his systems, but that wasn't indicated.

and Two: what was the purpose of the chip. My friend and I had an argument over this issue. My friend thinks the chip was for tracking purposes, which actually makes no sense because had it been for tracking purposes, Skynet would have bombed the base that Conor was in, whereas I believe that the chip was a sort of switch which controled him, but I can't back up my argument very well, I can only defeat my friend's argument.

I think Yoda is right: the whole scene was largely symbolic of "throwing down one's master." The chip personified Skynet's foothold on Marcus' identity, and by tearing it out, he removed a major connector piece to the machines. This whole aspect was poorly executed, I thought, but it seems that was the writers' intent nonetheless.

Deathbyreel
06-02-09, 03:41 AM
I think Yoda is right: the whole scene was largely symbolic of "throwing down one's master." The chip personified Skynet's foothold on Marcus' identity, and by tearing it out, he removed a major connector piece to the machines. This whole aspect was poorly executed, I thought, but it seems that was the writers' intent nonetheless.[/quote]

Can you dwell on this part a bit more? I know you aren't one of the writers, haha, but you seem to know your ****.
What do you mean by, "foothold on Marcus' identity?" Also, I agree that the process was not explained properly, and let me wondering.
But, from your explanation, I gather that Marcus was always a human, only with a mechanic body, and Skynet did not have any direct control over him.
I liked the movie, over all, aside from my confusion.

TheDOMINATOR
06-02-09, 09:34 PM
Better a little late than never. :cool:

Terminator Salvation
(McG, 2009)

http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/7156/terminatorsalvationpost.png

Judgment Day, the dreaded end of life as all people know it, has come to pass, and now unyielding machines intent on the destruction of the human race threaten to exterminate all of humanity. The “Resistance” is all that is left, its members, in all actuality, comprising of the entire remaining human population. Its leader is a man of legendary status who the machines themselves recognize as the most dangerous man in the world—this man is John Connor, and he’s the human race’s last hope at winning the war against Skynet and its metallic host. He’s mankind’s only hope at salvation.

Christian Bale plays this gritty hero, bringing an entirely new persona to the role. John Connor, having been played by several actors in the Terminator saga’s past, including Edward Furlong (T2) and Nick Stahl (Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines), has never been so dark, visceral, and, to put it bluntly, purely bad-ass. Although he seemed rather shallow and placid, monotone even, in Terminator Salvation, that’s only to be expected under the circumstances in the film: in T4, Connor and his people are in the middle of a world-wide war against adversaries bent on his destruction; his emotions and outward depth and spirit has likely long left his being. In that light, what we see in the movie is a great portrayal by Christian Bale of this battle-hardened warrior.

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2760/2009terminatorsalvation.jpg

Despite Bale’s viscerally unique performance as the great John Connor, the performer and character that really shines in Terminator Salvation is Sam Worthington as Marcus Wright, a man on a journey to discover who he really is—or, rather, what he has become—and to find redemption through acts of loyalty and friendship. This character is an interesting study which may cause some to look at their own lives and where they are in their own life’s journey, making T4 stand out as a film with a heart and soul rather than a mindless action flick. Moon Bloodgood as Blair, Marcus’s romantic interest in the film (if you can call it that, per-se) and Bryce Dallas Howard as John Connor’s perhaps forebodingly pregnant wife also deliver solid performances, providing interesting and relatable characters.

Above all else, however, standing out as the film’s greatest component, is the action. The name “Terminator” is synonymous with words like “explosion,” “action,” and “cyborgs.” Terminator Salvation has it all, and it’s all top-notch; the movie contains battles with Terminators both human-sized and immense, stimulating vehicular chases, and all-out war scenes of epic proportions. It’s all likely to leave you on the edge of your seat while you’re enduring its grand splendor.

http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/9595/terminatorsalvation71.jpg

When it comes down to it, Terminator Salvation is an excellent addition to the Terminator saga. While its themes and characters were never explored considerably deeply, its action is a spectacle to behold and the new Terminators it presents and storyline of post-Judgment Day it explores are brought to the screen very well. On a personal level, I enjoyed it very much, and while it certainly doesn’t touch T2 or the original Terminator, Terminator Salvation is up there among science fiction/action movies that I really, really like.

4-

Sci-Fi-Guy
06-03-09, 12:34 AM
Well, I heard a lot of bad things about this movie before seeing it so I went in with lower expectations.
I gotta say though, I really enjoyed it.

I did have some problems with some of the plot though...
- Marcus leading John and Kyle to it was all part of it's grand plan? Give me a break. Both were chance meetings.
- Skynet adopting the personality of a Bond villain and revealing all it's secrets while holding it's #1 prey alive in a cell after learning who he was. What...? Really? Killing him would, according to this future's laws of space-time, reset the timeline to favor Skynet and so they keep him alive so he can escape? Bleh.
- The whole fear of resetting the timeline thing made no sense to me either. They're obviously already living in an alternate timeline from the original anyway. Each movie changed the date of Judgement Day so the original timeline is already gone forever. Killing Kyle Reese shouldn't affect John in any way whatsoever.

As for the whole thing about John never encountering a Terminator like Marcus before, I figured it was because the regular T-models were machines patched together with human parts while Marcus was a human patched together with machine parts.

Despite it's flaws I still liked the movie and enjoyed it for what it was.
A great popcorn flick.
I'm hoping the next movie will be leading up to some time travelling.:cool:

Sleezy
06-03-09, 01:08 AM
Can you dwell on this part a bit more? I know you aren't one of the writers, haha, but you seem to know your ****.
What do you mean by, "foothold on Marcus' identity?" Also, I agree that the process was not explained properly, and let me wondering.
But, from your explanation, I gather that Marcus was always a human, only with a mechanic body, and Skynet did not have any direct control over him.
I liked the movie, over all, aside from my confusion.

Yeah, the movie comes right out and says that Marcus still retains a human brain and heart, though both have been cybernetically altered. But for all intents and purposes, Marcus is still the same man with the same memories, experiences, and emotions. This probably explains why the Skynet chip resides close to the surface of his skull, rather than inside the skull (as shown in T2 when Arnold's CPU chip is accessed).

Again, regarding the chip's actual function, I can't remember it ever being explained, leading me to believe Yoda is right: the existence of the chip symbolizes Skynet's literal clamp on Marcus as a person. As long as the chip is there, regardless of what it does, he's still a product of Skynet. The entire end reveal indicates that, despite his best efforts to reject Skynet and help John Conner's resistance, he was only ever doing Skynet's bidding (suggesting that Skynet had some kind of clandestine understanding of the actions Marcus would take, rather than programming him to do their work).

Anyway, long story short, the chip is sort of like the mark of the bad guy in Westerns - a red sash, a black hat, whatever - that the misled-but-good-hearted hero casts down to show defiance toward his former masters, as well as a newfound personal individuality. It's a standard Hollywood device, and it comes in many forms.

spoiler
06-04-09, 01:56 AM
Is it me, or do the new (T3 + T4) movies seem to be watered down versions of T1 and T2? It is a shame really.

damagedinc
06-05-09, 10:26 AM
Is it me, or do the new (T3 + T4) movies seem to be watered down versions of T1 and T2? It is a shame really.

Wouldnt say watered down but since James Cameron's lack of involvement quality has droped significantly,

does anyone know why he turned his back on the franchise?

http://palmerfilmspiel.blogspot.com/2009/06/well-i-think-we-can-all-agree-on-one.html

my terminator review

Sleezy
06-05-09, 11:15 AM
Wouldnt say watered down but since James Cameron's lack of involvement quality has droped significantly,

does anyone know why he turned his back on the franchise?

James Cameron wanted to do a third installment later in the 1990s, but could never get anything started. Mario Kassar, who was a producer on T2, eventually purchased the rights to the franchise. By the time Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines actually got the green light in 2003, Cameron was too busy to get involved. (Presumably, he was out exploring the Titanic wreckage with Bill Paxton for that IMAX film they produced.)

I seem to remember reading that Arnold Schwarzenegger almost didn't commit because he knew Cameron wasn't involved, but Cameron assured him that he didn't mind someone else carrying on the franchise.

zedlen
06-09-09, 12:34 PM
This was rubbish, I'm not going to sugar coat it. There are so many flaws I wouldn't know where to begin.

Sam Worthington gave the only solid performance and his character was the only one with any significance on screen. He dies at the end apparently. It can't be true, where would it be without him.

Brother Blue
06-09-09, 12:52 PM
The movie had an acomplished cast, really great visual effects and a story already written for them (T1, T2 etc etc). How can you mess that up? McG did!

The only way I can describe this movie is weak, with maybe the exception of Sam Worthington who gave a pretty assured performance. Bale's character is totally underwritten which is extremely strange when you come to think about it - the entire series is about John Connors rise to prominence. Where did that go? There is a mention of it but there was no follow through. Thats the story! Thats what the fans of the original 2 were hoping to see!! But no, intercut a story of a human/cyborg with some more explosions to keep all the Transformers fans happy until that comes out. The movies is just completely drained of intelligence, which is a shame.

Overall its a story about the enduring power of the human heart and how that human spririt can overcome the souless machines. Which is quite laughable actually. You just have to go back into our recent history to get a perfect examples of how the enduring power of the human heart is non-existant.

Yes, it's better than the 3rd. But that isnt saying much. 2/5.

doubledenim
11-01-17, 02:21 PM
"Wake-up, wake-up, wake-uuup. It's the first of the month."

This means the HBO roster got turned over and I see Salvation appear. Been wanting to re-watch this for a while. I remember enjoying it, but it seems to catch a lot of flack.

And why is T2 the only film they never show anywhere?

Saunch
11-01-17, 02:45 PM
I remember being excited for this in ‘09.

What’s Jake Sully up to this days?

doubledenim
11-01-17, 02:53 PM
He was getting the push there for a while. I remember proclaiming him the next big action hero.
:goof:


Had to look up the name. My first instinct was that he was the guy that inspired this classic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xaw1bx1GqWo
you know what this is right?
NSFW

doubledenim
11-02-17, 10:14 PM
I guess this wasn't quite like I remember. More like a Transformers movie than anything I can think of. Anton Yelchin always seemed so genuine in his roles, but I don't get casting him as Kyle Reese.

Iroquois
11-02-17, 10:22 PM
Why not? Casting him as a younger Reese was one of the better things that Salvation did (especially in comparison to using Jai Courtney in Genisys).

doubledenim
11-02-17, 10:55 PM
Michael Biehn is so iconic for his scifi roles that I just don't see the transformation happening. I get that he woulda been though some stuff by then, but I just don't see him becoming the character from the Terminator. I don't know how one could really justify an answer, but Yelchin just had a kindness to him.

Powdered Water
11-03-17, 01:22 AM
I just watched this the other day. I still like it quite a bit. I wonder what the sixth one is gonna be about? Maybe have every Terminator from every movie before it in one film? Wait... dammit. Well whatever, they can do it again I guess. I'm a sucker for robuts.