All i can say this, terminator salvation is a perfect example about bad bad film making....if that even says it all...
Terminator 3 vs. Terminator Salvation
Salvation for me. I can’t stand T3
__________________
~In the event of a Zombie Uprising, remember to sever the head or destroy the brain!~
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
If i was forced to pick one out of these two then it would be Salvation. It at least tried to do something different with the franchise.
__________________
Did you know that in the 1980s movie PREDATOR the titular character was not originally portrayed by Kevin Peter Hall. It was in fact Jean-Claude Van Damme donning a much more insect inspired full body suit before he left the production which then led to the recasting and redesigning of the famous hunter.
Did you know that in the 1980s movie PREDATOR the titular character was not originally portrayed by Kevin Peter Hall. It was in fact Jean-Claude Van Damme donning a much more insect inspired full body suit before he left the production which then led to the recasting and redesigning of the famous hunter.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I liked the idea in T3 that Judgment Day was actually inevitable and that the whole movie was about getting people to where they needed to be to fight the war. John Connor stumbled into an old command center and became a default communication node when the nukes launched, which explains how he was positioned into a leadership role in the crisis. T2 was rather insipid in its plucky message, "There's no fate, but what we make!" T3 gets the universe back on track a bit by establishing that the storm is, in fact, coming.
There should have never been a sequel to the original Terminator. The film was complete.
There should have never been a sequel to the original Terminator. The film was complete.
I liked the idea in T3 that Judgment Day was actually inevitable and that the whole movie was about getting people to where they needed to be to fight the war. John Connor stumbled into an old command center and became a default communication node when the nukes launched, which explains how he was positioned into a leadership role in the crisis. T2 was rather insipid in its plucky message, "There's no fate, but what we make!" T3 gets the universe back on track a bit by establishing that the storm is, in fact, coming.
There should have never been a sequel to the original Terminator. The film was complete.
There should have never been a sequel to the original Terminator. The film was complete.
This is what people say about The Matrix as well, that there should have never been a sequal, but that movie, and the first Terminator, both ended, with too be continued type endings though, intended for sequels, so how can people say that there shouldn't have been sequels to such movies, when they were set up that way?
The Terminator ends at just the right moment. It closes the loop of the circle. There's nothing about the first film that indicates that we don't know what happens next. We've seen what happens next in Reese's flashbacks and exposition. What happens next is that we start the movie over again. The film does not, by my lights, communicate any intention or need for more. On the contrary, the film has perfect closure.
Perhaps the intention of which you speak is not in the film but the filmmaker? I don't know that James Cameron made that film with any intention to do more at the time that he made it. And even if he did, I don't know that his private intention has any bearing on whether the film should've had more--at least, not in any artistic sense (e.g., if you own the property you have a legal right to make more, but that doesn't mean that the world needs it).
It seems a bit of a stretch to describe the ending of 2 as "plucky" simply for entertaining the slightest possibility of hope amidst a still-uncertain future (especially compared to the deleted original ending that unambiguously shows an older Sarah and John living happily ever after) and 3 doesn't become better simply by ending on such a fatalist downer note (especially since it's capping off a fairly weak arc for John, who spends much of the film being such a passive/reluctant hero that him stepping up to accept his destiny as a resistance leader comes across as too little, too late). That it and subsequent sequels never really figured out what to do with him as a character is very telling.
__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
X
Favorite Movies
People here know I unabashedly love Terminator 3, so that one.
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
It seems a bit of a stretch to describe the ending of 2 as "plucky" simply for entertaining the slightest possibility of hope
T2 play's Tony Stark to T1's Captain America
T2 would "just cut the wire" of causality. The film is plucky in that it defies the closed logic loop of T1, which is self-completing. T2, with it's open structure of causality, is much more obviously implicated in causal paradoxes (changing the future and the past) and if you think you can beat logic, you're definitely plucky. With T1, on the other hand, Sarah is galvanized, transformed, prepared to meet the oncoming storm.
Where T1 gives us, Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead. T2 gives us
3 doesn't become better simply by ending on such a fatalist downer note
T2 just may be the most boring well made, action packed film in the history of film.
Ive watched it three times, at different times in my life, and it always is just a lifeless bit of noise. Has none of the slick and gloomy dread of the original, which was that one's selling point.
As for the question, that was the end of Terminator movies for me
Ive watched it three times, at different times in my life, and it always is just a lifeless bit of noise. Has none of the slick and gloomy dread of the original, which was that one's selling point.
As for the question, that was the end of Terminator movies for me
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
T2 play's Tony Stark to T1's Captain America
WARNING: "Avengers: Endgame" spoilers below
This comparison is really funny considering that Tony Stark is the one who kills himself to save the day and Steve Rogers is the one who defies time travel logic to live happily ever after with Peggy Carter.
T2 would "just cut the wire" of causality. The film is plucky in that it defies the closed logic loop of T1, which is self-completing. T2, with it's open structure of causality, is much more obviously implicated in causal paradoxes (changing the future and the past) and if you think you can beat logic, you're definitely plucky. With T1, on the other hand, Sarah is galvanized, transformed, prepared to meet the oncoming storm.
X
Favorite Movies
There's a difference between the characters thinking they can change things and the reality of the film's world
I'd contend that T3 implicates itself by explicitly confirming that the events of T2 did ultimately disrupt the timeline enough to keep Judgment Day from happening in 1997.
Again, I would prefer for there to be only one Terminator film, so I am not lobbying for T3 to be put on some filmic Rushmore. All things considered, T2 > T3, but that's not the global comparison we're discussing here.