You might want to rethink that one.
You think they financed an $102 million sequel...the most expensive movie ever made at the time...to an average, mostly forgettable film?
Terminator: Salvation Discuss/Grade <Spoilers>
- Thread starter nx1701g
- Start date
You might want to rethink that one.
You think they financed an $102 million sequel...the most expensive movie ever made at the time...to an average, mostly forgettable film?
They have a stealth mode?
I don't know what movie you saw. Seems to me someone giving up their life for you (Marcus for Connor; Marcus and Connor holding off attacking SkyNet to recue Reese and all the other humans) -- or your cause -- is in itself the ultimate act of "heart and soul" to me. A main character with a brutal past seeking some kind of redemption...seems like heart and soul to me.
Moon's character following her instinct regarding Marcus...very human and soulful in my opinion...she could have just said "he's a machine KILL HIM!!!". The whole way Marcus was written, it didn't seem very predictable to me...and it was certainly a twist for a Terminator film.
I don't know what you guys are talking about when you keep bringing this kind of stuff up. It really smells of someone who is trying hard to find something not to like about the film -- which makes sense considering some people here were hoping and heavily emotionally invested in Star Trek having another weekend at #1.
And Bale's Connor was acted perfectly given the circumstances. I think it's more realistic to be sort of "angst ridden" after you've just witnessed the destruction of civilization and you're in a radioactive environment and surrounded by machines that are trying to kill you relentlessly.
I don't recall seeing any scenes of soldiers guffawing or stopping to give lessons on humanity during any of the flashbacks to the future war in any of the previous films. So, I don't understand why this would be expected in a film entirely set in that setting.
I think some of you people are just way too used to these films that have way TOO MUCH humor and borderline camp in them.
I prefer 1970's sci-fi filmmaking where things are taken much more seriously. Campiness and too much humor just kills a film for me. I usually either like a fine balance or the mood and acting to fit the plot and circumstances -- which this one did. At no point did I feel this film was in Starship Troopers (the original film) territory -- that's a film that has no heart and soul.
Would you want comedy relief in a film about 9/11?
Last edited:
Which they decide to turn off right at the proper moment to reveal themselves? How does a walking machine that is presumably many thousands of tons step stealthily? I'm starting to chuckle imagining the Harvester tip-toeing up to the resistance.
Not necessarily.
He obviously was very ellusive and put up a very good and formidable resistance. The machines must -- at some point -- come to the realization that time travel (after it's already been discovered/invented) would be the fastest and easiest way to kill him by killing his mother before he is born.
An interesting way to tell the story about how time travel came about would be to NOT have it be the machines that come up with that, but say that it had ALREADY been invented by humans and they happen to discover that and take advantage of it.
Well, I saw it yesterday.
About the best thing I can say for it is that it was better than the third movie.
No--I can think of other good things to say. Visually, it was very stylish, and featured some interesting action sequences.
But overall, it was below average, and far below the level of the first two films. The acting was adequate at best, the story was thin, the script was poor, and the editing choppy. I agree with the reviewer who said it reminded him of a video game.
Typical mediocre Hollywood action spectacle: loud, flashy, stupid, empty, forgettable.
About the best thing I can say for it is that it was better than the third movie.
No--I can think of other good things to say. Visually, it was very stylish, and featured some interesting action sequences.
But overall, it was below average, and far below the level of the first two films. The acting was adequate at best, the story was thin, the script was poor, and the editing choppy. I agree with the reviewer who said it reminded him of a video game.
Typical mediocre Hollywood action spectacle: loud, flashy, stupid, empty, forgettable.
I admit, this is what I expected. I was (plesantly) surprised to learn this was not the case.
Maybe they use some sonic generator that cancels out the noise they're making...
But again, I don't frakkin' care!
Just like I'd never think about how the T-1000 got through the time-machine in T2.
I don't watch this stuff to be educated.
They sneak up on them, the action starts. That's all that matters.
But again, I don't frakkin' care!
Just like I'd never think about how the T-1000 got through the time-machine in T2.
I don't watch this stuff to be educated.
They sneak up on them, the action starts. That's all that matters.
Ayelbourne gets it.
Any movie can be picked apart, so why bother? There's not ONE movie I can think of that doesn't have some kind of logic flaw in the plot. If that's all one goes to the movies for the why go at all?
Norrin Radd
Vice Admiral
I think the saddest thing is that it should've been easy to make a great Terminator 4 flick. There are so many possibilities to pursue with this storyline.
Can you actually explain that? Its an easy thing to say but does not mean anything. Other than "I should have been blown away!!!"
I think making a great Terminator 4 or any others is going to be very hard. We know too much about what is supposed to happen. There is always going to be a certain amount of - just filling in the blanks.
In checking...
T1 cost about $7m to make and it grossed $71m worldwide. So certainly a profitable film. But it did take them (Cameron, specificly) seven years to make the sequel.
And what I meant by that was is that it's a movie that without the sequels would blend in with all of the 80s "action noir" flicks which have someone fighting some unstoppable force. Other than obvious story differences, at its core is there any difference between "The Hidden", "The Thing" and "The Terminator"? Hell all of them have them same TITLE format!
Were it not for T2, T1 would just be another part of the crowd.
(Granted, T1 made a lot more money than any of those.)
T1's themes certainly are bit deeper and Cameron's talents obviously are greater, but T1 is really just another 80s "action noir" flick. The Cream of the Crop of them, but I dare say it owes it status in popular culture to T2. Hell, I didn't even watch T1 until AFTER I watched T2!
THANK YOU!!!!
I've been ripped apart on another board for stating exactly the same thing.
This movie had a REALLY weak- if non-existent script. Honestly, if it weren't for the "Terminator" name attached to it, this script could have been a Sci-Fi Pictures original project called "Robot Rebellion".
Also, the old adage of "show, don't tell" applies-- never once was John Connor SHOWN to be a great leader. We were told that he was but never once did he actually lead.
That's because he isn't this great leader yet.
In my Above Thread review I mention some of the odd editing moments in this movie. Anyone else notice them?
The one that stuck out most to me comes some-time after Marcus lets Moon (who has perfectly white teeth for someone living in a post-apocalyptic world) out of the wires. They settle down to camp for the night and it's raining. Marcus walks off to... take a leak or something, and Moon is standing there and she takes her jacket off, she's massaging her shoulder and then there's like an odd cut or something and suddenly she's calling for Marcus, it has stopped raining and she's surrounded by men who want to... be mildly rude to her.
It was very jarring to me. There were one or two other scenes where it seemed like there was an odd editing choice that sort of made the scene disjointed. Another one, that wasn't as bad, was when Kyle Reese is in his cell with the gas pumping in and then the next time we see him, suddenly he's strapped to some table.
I really think this movie was edited with a monkey wielding a machete.
And what happened to the image of Helena Carter (lovely woman who was oddly very hot in a balded sickly state in the begining of the movie. She made think of something like the "Newcomers" from Alien Nation or something like that) with half her skull burned off? Was an entire plot line removed?
The one that stuck out most to me comes some-time after Marcus lets Moon (who has perfectly white teeth for someone living in a post-apocalyptic world) out of the wires. They settle down to camp for the night and it's raining. Marcus walks off to... take a leak or something, and Moon is standing there and she takes her jacket off, she's massaging her shoulder and then there's like an odd cut or something and suddenly she's calling for Marcus, it has stopped raining and she's surrounded by men who want to... be mildly rude to her.
It was very jarring to me. There were one or two other scenes where it seemed like there was an odd editing choice that sort of made the scene disjointed. Another one, that wasn't as bad, was when Kyle Reese is in his cell with the gas pumping in and then the next time we see him, suddenly he's strapped to some table.
I really think this movie was edited with a monkey wielding a machete.
And what happened to the image of Helena Carter (lovely woman who was oddly very hot in a balded sickly state in the begining of the movie. She made think of something like the "Newcomers" from Alien Nation or something like that) with half her skull burned off? Was an entire plot line removed?
Yes, but if Skynet knows that Kyle Reese is John Connor's father, then time travel is the only logical conclusion (or else Reese looks VERY young for his age). Therefore, rather than sending robots into the past to kill Sarah Connor, they could much more easily prevent John Connor's existence by simply never inventing the means that allowed Kyle Reese to impregnate Sarah Connor in the first place.
