Terminator: Salvation Discuss/Grade <Spoilers>

I assume that means with modern day quality FX and not 1984 quality FX?

 

Apparently Terminator Salvation took a 62% plunge in its second weekend with a little over $16 million, bringing its domestic total to $90 million.

I have a bad feeling about this.

 

I don't. It doesn't deserve success.

 

Apparently this franchise won't be back.

 

Below average; it felt too much like marking time, with Connor not developed much and Yelchin's Reese being so naive. I didn't like Marcus because I knew he would be an infiltrator and I was disappointed that he was able to be good at the end so easily. Liked the appearance of the T-800, though.

 

Above average.

What did people expect? The fucking Shawshank Redemption? The real story ended in T2, anyway. Everything since has been attempts to cash in on good memories (similar to say, STAR TREK and Wolverine).

The worst aspect is probably the PG-13 level violence.

 

Yes, if they built the animatronic T-800 model and updated it enough that it wasn't a guy holding it as it moved (and eliminated the stop motion).

 

Agreed. I enjoyed it for what it was. I'd like to see an extended cut, because it felt like a lot of the (potential) heart was cut out of the movie.

 

I expected a better movie. I didn't get it. Didn't get one with Wolverine, either, though I DID get a better, MUCH better movie with Star Trek.

 

Ditto.

 

The way I see it, some people wanted to dislike Terminator Salvation. Not that everyone disappointed wanted to, but it was like this was the year for critics and bandwagon jumpers to forgive Star Trek and to dump on Terminator. Arnold and Cameron's devotees contributed a lot, with Bale's blow-up and Sarah Connor Chronicle's failure as bad karma. The fact that sequels get more shit directed towards them doesn't help. Remember how The Matrix was the greatest movie ever...then the sequels came and it was tepid reception for Reloaded and then sheer utter hatred towards Revolutions. Watch whatever the next Batman movie is called will get scathing reviews (Bale's now on a shit list). And Spiderman 4 will be hated more than Spiderman 3, cuz fourth movies can do no right, except maybe Harry Potter (?).

That and JJ Abrams' contract with Satan.

Of course that all seems ridiculous.

Or so the Germans would have us believe.

 

Someone's been watching too much Star Wars

*I was going to post the same phrase

 

Reminds me. Last year was the year to hate on Star Wars. OMG, IT"S JUST A BAD CARTOON NOW!*

*Which wound up being the introduction a fairly watchable animated series

 

Actually I have high hopes for Spider-Man 4. After DRAG ME TO HELL, I think Raimi is on a creative high. With promised more creative control and less studio intervention, I think it stands a good chance at breaking the "fourth movie curse", then again I thought Spider-Man 3 would break the "third movie curse" and we all know how that turned out...

I also think if Nolan does do a third Batman movie, it won't see a drop in quality that other franchises have, simply because I believe Christopher Nolan is a more intelligent, wiser filmmaker and he's done no harm so far. I can't think of a bad movie of his. Then again he's only made like six. Inception sounds really awesome.

I think bottomline is that Terminator Salvation just wasn't a good movie. That is its biggest hindrance. The absence of Arnold might have also been a bigger contributing factor than Warner Bros or the filmmakers realized. Even James Cameron said the studio would have to be "idiots" to make a Terminator movie without Arnold.

I guess he was right.

 

^ Cameron did say that actually more than once. Arnold said that to him when he was asked to be in Terminator 3 (and he also told Arnold to ask for a shitload of money too).

 

I didn't miss Arnold at all. His CGI cameo was a nice nod but I didn't miss him.
Star Trek didn't suffer without Shatner.
Bond succeeds without Connery.
Why does Terminator have to have Arnold? I don't buy that line.

 

The notion that an entertainment franchise can't survive without a key actor would, to me, suggest that the actor is as important if not more important than the substance of the franchise itself, ergo the franchise doesn't have a lot to offer on it's own and needs a "name" draw.

Is that the suggestion with "Terminator?" Because if it is, I have to disagree. No offense to Ahnold, but almost anyone could have played the Terminator and maybe done a better job.

 

^ But would they have been as iconic is the question (and we'll never have that answer).

I bet Lance Henriksen is pissed that Jim Cameron met Arnold before they started filming and didn't just go with the casting director's suggestions...

 

As much as I love Arnold I agree. You don't need to have Arnold in every Terminator film. Trying to do so after a time would become more unbelievable because of the age issue. Plus, if they keep throwing more and more sophisticated Terminators at John Connor or whoever, why keep using an outdated T-800 to defend them? It stretches credulity.

Even with Arnold, T3 was seen as a disappointment. I think what hurt T4 was not Arnold's absence, and really he wasn't completely absent due to the CGI cameo. What hurt it was the storyline and the wooden acting. The casting was mostly good (errr Common), but the characters were poorly written and/or not engaging. Bale didn't give you a hero you could root for. And his cell were even bigger ciphers. T4's action was good, but even Wolverine and definitely Star Trek delivered on action and engaging characters. T4 only gave us half the goods.

The world of Terminator is big enough and interesting enough to be successful without Arnold. That being said, so far no one has proven to do so. Even though I think T4 and TSCC were not as bad as some claim.

 

Oh come on! Common had an awesome part! His character had to deal with the death of his brother and... huh.... hmm... well, I guess he never did deal with it. That was the extent we knew about his emotionless, one-note, stock character.