Terminator Salvation

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?

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?

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.

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 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.

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 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.)

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'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.

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.

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.

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)

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...

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.

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.

+

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Terminator Salvation
(McG, 2009)



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.



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.



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.

-

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.