Terminator: Salvation Discuss/Grade <Spoilers>

[3D Master]

No, it was destroyed in T1, and it was destroyed in T2. Whether or not later films show Skynet somehow survived, is besides the point.

Not really because, as said, Skynet wasn't destroyed if it comes back.

Which doesn't matter, because that wasn't what was said. What was said that no movie showed us, or told us it was destroyed. Movies did. Whether a following movie changes it, is besides the point.

Yes I'm certain that a rag tag group of survivors will be capable of reaching the ocean floor and taking out the factories and all the real estate in plenty of time to prevent Skynet from making a counter attack using nuclear bombs it has in reserve or some other doomsday weapon. I guess that, if the rumors are true, about the next film with Skynet being able to transport inorganic material through time that the war may truly never end. Skynet will just move itself to a new time. Personally I don't like the idea of metal itself being transportable, but if they go ahead with it I guess it's true.

What factories? You said there was computer core. But it doesn't matter; they don't need to reach the ocean floor. All that needs to reach the ocean floor and the computer core is a torpedo.

And if the resistance purged Skynet from the surface of the planet, getting to the ocean floor will be easy. Once the industrial capacity of Skynet has been changed to serve the resistance, they'll be able to build whatever Skynet could build - and use it to fight Skynet.

There is absolutely no reason to pay attention to the Terminator novels and comics. If the movie can't tell a coherent story without reading all supplemental stories, they wrote and filmed a bad movie that isn't worth watching anyway.

Then you're really, really, really going to hate the new franchise if they are going to continue to reference events from the novels, comics, and game media.

What references? You talked about all this movie having all kinds of references. You know what? Those references you mentioned are nothing but name droppings that barely have anything to do with the novels, if it all. On top of that, I did not need to read a single page of all those novels to understand this movie perfectly. If future movies are the same, I couldn't care less about any name drops from the novels. I won't notice them, I won't know they're there, and that's just fine with me.

As long as McG dropps the idiotic "Let's go back in time again, but this time the entire Skynet army," - I wonder how Skynet plans to defeat fully functional world's armies, if it couldn't defeat the bombed out, resource-limited resistance.

AngryJoe said it best: We've done the time travel, been there, done that. We're now in the future war, time to move forward, and continue the war.

 

[nx1701g]

Which doesn't matter, because that wasn't what was said. What was said that no movie showed us, or told us it was destroyed. Movies did. Whether a following movie changes it, is besides the point.

No it doesn't because if the next movie says that Skynet is operational then Skynet is operational.

What factories? You said there was computer core. But it doesn't matter; they don't need to reach the ocean floor. All that needs to reach the ocean floor and the computer core is a torpedo.

And if the resistance purged Skynet from the surface of the planet, getting to the ocean floor will be easy. Once the industrial capacity of Skynet has been changed to serve the resistance, they'll be able to build whatever Skynet could build - and use it to fight Skynet.

If they're blowing up the factories - as you suggested above - how exactly will they use Skynet's production abilities to do anything if they're blown up?

As long as McG dropps the idiotic "Let's go back in time again, but this time the entire Skynet army," - I wonder how Skynet plans to defeat fully functional world's armies, if it couldn't defeat the bombed out, resource-limited resistance.

I have a sincere feeling that time travel to 2011 will still happen.

AngryJoe said it best: We've done the time travel, been there, done that. We're now in the future war, time to move forward, and continue the war.

Time travel is an integral part of the series so it probably isn't going anywhere. As for this little debate between you and I it's pretty much going to go on and on in circles because you're not going to accept what I say, and I'm not going to accept what you say. So pretty much we're wasting our time.

I also apologize to the person who posted the part of the thread that started this stupid little debate (partially because I was wrong about a date). The latest we have seen in the Terminator Franchise (I'm going to spell this out in caps so that 3D Master understands I'm not mentioning an event in a film INCLUDING THE NOVELS, GAMES, FILMS, COMICS) is in the T3 tie in video game Redemption. It shows 2055 where Skynet has destroyed the Resistance - except for a reprogrammed terminator - and has begun to terraform Earth. The terminator reactivates the temporal transporter and goes back.

 

[NX74205]

While interesting, i personally fear that this discussion may be moot in a little bit as TS is not really pulling in enough loot to possibly even warrant a sequel.

One question for NX1701g, do any of the books/comics in the Terminator EU directly reference each other, i.e is there an over arching connected universe akin to the Star Wars EU? Say what you want about the SW EU but everything in that series from the books to the games are connected and what happens in one book affects another book. I for one have never really seen that in the Terminator novels as the series that I have read thus far have really been set in their own universes. The inflitrator novels had nothing to do with the New John Connor Chronicles, which had nothing to do with the Aaron Allston books, which had nothing to do with the new T4 novels that have already come out. Granted I haven't read enough of the universe outside of the books to warrant a definative take on this subject.

Also, the T3 redemption story that you mentioned (can't believe that you played that game...it was awful, you must really love your terminator!) is that stoy which takes place in 2055 with Skynet being supreme the result of John Connor being assasinated in the past before the resistance could ever get going?

 

[nx1701g]

While interesting, i personally fear that this discussion may be moot in a little bit as TS is not really pulling in enough loot to possibly even warrant a sequel.

In the US I'm sorry to say that's true. Overseas its doing better (so much so that MGM does appear to be starting efforts to get the rights to T5 from Halcyon).

One question for NX1701g, do any of the books/comics in the Terminator EU directly reference each other, i.e is there an over arching connected universe akin to the Star Wars EU? Say what you want about the SW EU but everything in that series from the books to the games are connected and what happens in one book affects another book. I for one have never really seen that in the Terminator novels as the series that I have read thus far have really been set in their own universes. The inflitrator novels had nothing to do with the New John Connor Chronicles, which had nothing to do with the Aaron Allston books, which had nothing to do with the new T4 novels that have already come out. Granted I haven't read enough of the universe outside of the books to warrant a definative take on this subject.

Actually the comics and several of the novels do tie in with one another with events from the first impacting the second; however, there are some that have no impact on each other. The team that the I-950 is working with in the Infiltrator novels (where Serena is involved with the female team commander - sorry her name escapes me at the moment I'll have to review - Graber I believe) were introduced in the comics as a support team for a Colonel named Randall. The comics all interconnect in some manner - including with the ones from way back when NOW had the Terminator rights. The only comic that doesn't tie in with the others ended with John Connor being born Jane Connor (where Skynet actually is destroyed under her leadership).

Also, the T3 redemption story that you mentioned (can't believe that you played that game...it was awful, you must really love your terminator!)

It wasn't as bad as the direct Terminator 3 tie in. T3: Redemption was a lot better and expanded upon the story. They also had access to the deleted scenes and were able to expand upon events

...is that story which takes place in 2055 with Skynet being supreme the result of John Connor being assasinated in the past before the resistance could ever get going?

John Connor is killed early in the war. As I explained though I was answering the furthest we've seen in the Terminator franchise asked I think a page ago.

Movies: 2032 (furthest mentioned date); 2029 (furthest seen)
Television: 2027
Comics: 2041
Games: 2055

 

[Ryan8bit]

If Skynet survived past Kyle Reese being sent back, then why did it send back a terminator to kill Sarah? Why the need to kill John if you haven't even lost the war? Terminator only makes sense when the terminators are sent as a last ditch effort, otherwise it becomes dumb like SCC and T3.

 

[nx1701g]

^ It is probable that Skynet thought it could increase its strength by sending back equipment to the past. As we have seen in T4 it does appear that Skynet has been strengthened because of the information reverse engineered from T-800. In T3 we did see a T-900 being worked on in the CRS lab and a T-800 endoskeleton in the one room while the T-1s were attacking.

 

[Ryan8bit]

^ It is probable that Skynet thought it could increase its strength by sending back equipment to the past.

Why all the pretense around the motive then? Why do things in such a roundabout way? If you ask me, they are just retconning for the sake of continuing on the story/franchise, without a need to be creative. T1 was best as a standalone, and T2 was sort of a nice hypothetical. Everything else just doesn't make sense and is very loose on the science and logic. I'd rather ignore all the latest productions.

 

[nx1701g]

^ I'm not disputing because most of what happens with the series is retcon. I actually agree with you.

 

[3D Master]

What factories? You said there was computer core. But it doesn't matter; they don't need to reach the ocean floor. All that needs to reach the ocean floor and the computer core is a torpedo.

And if the resistance purged Skynet from the surface of the planet, getting to the ocean floor will be easy. Once the industrial capacity of Skynet has been changed to serve the resistance, they'll be able to build whatever Skynet could build - and use it to fight Skynet.

If they're blowing up the factories - as you suggested above - how exactly will they use Skynet's production abilities to do anything if they're blown up?

No, I said "take out" the factories, which does not equal completely destroying them. It means removing them from Skynets assets. This can be achieved by completely destroying them, it can also be achieved by a more subtle way to shut them down - and then later reactivate them for your purposes. Of course, once you've taken the surface of the planet and the air, you can also build your own factories if it is necessary.

AngryJoe said it best: We've done the time travel, been there, done that. We're now in the future war, time to move forward, and continue the war.

Time travel is an integral part of the series so it probably isn't going anywhere. As for this little debate between you and I it's pretty much going to go on and on in circles because you're not going to accept what I say, and I'm not going to accept what you say. So pretty much we're wasting our time.

The time travel was only useful in the first movies to get the story moving. It's really just a macguffin as far as I'm concerned. It's the excuse for the fighters from the future to arrive in the past, and have their explosion filled fight in our time. It's nothing more. I find the struggle between humanity (and John Connor in particular) and machines far more important and central than time travel. The latter was just a means to an end.

I also apologize to the person who posted the part of the thread that started this stupid little debate (partially because I was wrong about a date). The latest we have seen in the Terminator Franchise (I'm going to spell this out in caps so that 3D Master understands I'm not mentioning an event in a film INCLUDING THE NOVELS, GAMES, FILMS, COMICS) is in the T3 tie in video game Redemption. It shows 2055 where Skynet has destroyed the Resistance - except for a reprogrammed terminator - and has begun to terraform Earth. The terminator reactivates the temporal transporter and goes back.

Again; I don't care one wit that you for yourself include the novels. I know you include the novels. The novels JUST DON'T MATTER. The movies alone matter.

 

[nx1701g]

^ Nor do your opinions matter nor do my own. Like I have said I am done with this pointless debate we are having. Let's get back on the topic of Terminator: Salvation and not the pointless "What matters?" discussion.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I am aware of what Reese says in the first film. It was retconned for the following film (T2).

Actually in the first film when Reese is being interrogated he says he served under Perry up to 2027 and then spent the next 2 years under Conner, so that would come up to 2029.

 

[NX74205]

While interesting, i personally fear that this discussion may be moot in a little bit as TS is not really pulling in enough loot to possibly even warrant a sequel.

In the US I'm sorry to say that's true. Overseas its doing better (so much so that MGM does appear to be starting efforts to get the rights to T5 from Halcyon).

Are you stating that there will now no longer be a T5 based on the domestic take?

 

[nx1701g]

^ No, I'm not saying that because - from what I've been told - they've begun the pre-production work. Terminator 5 was greenlit prior to Salvation even hitting theatre's though.

 

[NX74205]

^^ok thats good news. I just hope that T5 is better received than TS. The good news is that with TS's so-so to slightly disappointing take, maybe they will place even more emphasis on getting the plot just right. This probably served as a wakeup call that you cannot just slap the name Terminator on something and it will sell hotcakes. The only series that can do that regardless of quality is arguably Star Wars.

 

[Captain Craig]

^^^
I don't think the story is "as lacking" as many seem to claim. Could things have been fleshed out more, sure. Wait, apparently it was. Studio made McG cut about 30min.
People are being too harsh, too critical and frankly judgemental and a lot of it, yes a lot, is due to bias of having a negative opinion of McG's name.

 

[NX74205]

All I can comment on is the actual story that is presented on screen and that product is what I have passed judgment on. Everything else, is suspect and may or may not help the movie, since none of us have seen it. All, I can say is that product that is onscreen now is not performing up to snuff and may in fact kill one of my favorite franchises.

I wanted to like this movie, in fact I am a terminator geek and love all this is terminator. To insinuate that I am being to harsh, ciritical or biased because of McG's name, is a little off. Quite frankly I just looked at the movie as a missed opportunity.

 

[Captain Craig]

I said 'people', that is a generality term. I didn't say NX74205 don't be so eager to be insulted. Check the first 10pgs or so of this thread and you'll see what I mean.

The story in TS is easily 'as deep' and 'as fleshed' out as Star Trek which everyone seems to(biasly?) love. Dismiss the need for deep explanations about "Red Matter" but critcize how Skynet knows of Kyle Reese. Simply buy that Nero sat around in space for 25 years waiting on Spock and bash why Marcus doesn't seem more upset at the surroundings he has awoke to. By and large accept the discrepancies in ship designs for George Kirks era ships(which is before any deviation should occur) and question every mechanical aspect of Salvation.

PEOPLE who praise Trek are hounding Salvation...unfairly. Lack of consistency by thes types makes my stomach turn.

 

[Harvey]

As I said before, both movies have their share of weak plot points, but Star Trek is successful with its characterization, and Terminator: Salvation isn't. If interviews are to be believed, neither the director nor the screenwriters (credited and uncredited) are really to blame, since the studio cut out 30 minutes of what was presumably material that actually developed the characters. That's why I thought Star Trek was above average, but Terminator: Salvation was merely average. No lack of consistency there.

 

[3D Master]

Star Trek is a pile of shit with plot holes and idiocies in just about every scene, while Terminator Salvation is just about a masterpiece.

TS pacing was just about perfect, the characters were spot on, there was lots of good action. It doesn't have any real flaws as far as I'm concerned.

 

[ThunderAeroI]

Star Trek is a pile of shit with plot holes and idiocies in just about every scene, while Terminator Salvation is just about a masterpiece.

TS pacing was just about perfect, the characters were spot on, there was lots of good action. It doesn't have any real flaws as far as I'm concerned.

Odd I would say the reverse is true.