T4 Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins

BlitzKrieg · 05-12-2008 10:52pm

I don't see what you have to base that opinion on, there are about 14 to 18 seconds of actual movie footage in the trailer trailer! Are you going to get off the bandwagon at this point so that you can say "I told you so" in 9 months time?

I'm getting off now for numerous reasons. I guess chief among them though are:

1. The Director gives no confidence to the film, his track record and how he has approached this has been both poor and offputting.

2. Its set in the future. Biggest mistake terminator 3 did (and there is a long line of mistakes) is actually commit to judgement day. Not only does it go against the prior 2 films, but it also takes a big chunk of what made the terminator films original out of the franchise. There is a small hint that they might keep a bit of the time travelling element in it. But my guess they will only going as far as commiting to the events of terminator 1.

3. You know a franchise is in trouble when the production start name dropping box office hits in the last 3 years to describe their own. Its Batman Begins meets transformers meets children of men etc etc.

4. Its written by the guys who wrote Catwoman, terminator 3 and Supernova. yeah f*ck this

5. The straw that broke the camels back...The bloody transformer terminator. Yeah I see where this is going right now and I want off NOW!

I normally dislike sounding elitest and saying films belong to certain people. Especially as I really really dislike George Lucas and thats what he's like around indiana jones and Star Wars. But christ the terminator franchise belongs to James Cameron, he wrote the first 2 films as well as directed them, very few directors can claim the same direct influence on a franchises success as that. You take him out of the process and we got terminator 3.

Personally, I think this movie will be a great continuation of the franchise, mask the bad memories of T3 and be let down by crap dialogue.

Fairplay to the Sarah Connor Chronicles...They had the balls just to take terminator 3 out of the franchise all together.

on the other hand, balls to them for using up the best idea to get the franchise on track.

also...same writers as terminator 3 so yeah the dialogue will probably still suck.

Handsome Bob · 06-12-2008 2:41pm

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I'm getting off now for numerous reasons. I guess chief among them though are:

1. The Director gives no confidence to the film, his track record and how he has approached this has been both poor and offputting.

Everyone has to start somewhere, James Cameron made nothing of note prior to T1 (that's putting it mildly too). McG has made all the right sounds for this film (excluding his Cameron blessing gaffe).

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

4. Its written by the guys who wrote Catwoman, terminator 3 and Supernova. yeah f*ck this

No it's not, check any article on T: Salvation since the Summer and you'll know that Jonah Nolan, writer of the genre splitting The Dark Knight, has basically rewritten the entire script.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

5. The straw that broke the camels back...The bloody transformer terminator. Yeah I see where this is going right now and I want off NOW!

Again, I'll direct you to any article since the Summer and you'll find that there is a very acceptable description of what the Harvester actually does.

Vokes · 06-12-2008 3:07pm

I think (open to correction on this) there's 2 or 3 persons from Catwoman, T3, Supernova who have done the orignal story / screenplay (and maybe gone over it a few times too) and that J. Nolan gave the screenplay its final treatment.

Bit of a mess really.

Tusky · 06-12-2008 3:14pm

I honestly dont understand how people are getting excited about this. I, along with everyone else, would love it to be good. I really would...and casting Christian Bale was a masterstroke...BUT...Its directed by McG and written by the dude who penned Catwoman!

McG directing credits:

We Are Marshall
The Offspring Complete Music Video Collection
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle
Charlie's Angels
Cypress Hill: Still Smokin
Korn: Who Then Now?

Draupnir · 06-12-2008 3:19pm

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I'm getting off now for numerous reasons. I guess chief among them though are:

1. The Director gives no confidence to the film, his track record and how he has approached this has been both poor and offputting.

2. Its set in the future. Biggest mistake terminator 3 did (and there is a long line of mistakes) is actually commit to judgement day. Not only does it go against the prior 2 films, but it also takes a big chunk of what made the terminator films original out of the franchise. There is a small hint that they might keep a bit of the time travelling element in it. But my guess they will only going as far as commiting to the events of terminator 1.

3. You know a franchise is in trouble when the production start name dropping box office hits in the last 3 years to describe their own. Its Batman Begins meets transformers meets children of men etc etc.

4. Its written by the guys who wrote Catwoman, terminator 3 and Supernova. yeah f*ck this

5. The straw that broke the camels back...The bloody transformer terminator. Yeah I see where this is going right now and I want off NOW!

I normally dislike sounding elitest and saying films belong to certain people. Especially as I really really dislike George Lucas and thats what he's like around indiana jones and Star Wars. But christ the terminator franchise belongs to James Cameron, he wrote the first 2 films as well as directed them, very few directors can claim the same direct influence on a franchises success as that. You take him out of the process and we got terminator 3.

Fairplay to the Sarah Connor Chronicles...They had the balls just to take terminator 3 out of the franchise all together.

on the other hand, balls to them for using up the best idea to get the franchise on track.

also...same writers as terminator 3 so yeah the dialogue will probably still suck.

In terms of a franchise "belonging to a director" I think that is completely ridiculous, personally speaking. We've seen Lucas destroy his own franchise in the name of merchandising with Star Wars and we've seen Indiana Jones ruined by Spielberg's obsession with Shia LeBeouf. The idea that a new director is that cause of the downfall of any franchise is absurd to me.

The writing for this movie seems a mess alright but realistically, I don't think that we can judge the screenplay of an unreleased movie based on the writers. Many unknown writers have created great movies from nothing and many crap writers have created great screenplays after their previous crap. The other side of the coin is that many great writers have destroyed their own careers by writing crap.

I don't agree that Sarah Connor Chronicles is any good, for me it is with Smallville in the bin of tv shows marked "Never Watch". I come from the Oscar Wilde school of cataloguing. T3 might well have been made for a younger audience than we or I might have liked but that is the modern era, we have to accept that in spite of the fact that we were able to watch 18 rated movies when we were kids because of laxer attitudes towards movie violence.

Also, the Sarah Connor Chronicles hardly fits in well with the idea's behind The Terminator or T2, it couldn't be further from The Terminator in fact, from my limited exposure.

Finally, The Harvester is quite interesting to see in the trailer and is in no way a "Transformer Terminator". We've know since 1985 that the Terminator was the culmination of the machines work towards exterminating the human race. If we suddenly jumped from computer AI and advanced weapons in T3 to Terminators with human exo skeletons, I personally would be pissed off.

I know that it is probably fashionable to assume the high ground here and say the movie will be crap at this point, but all too many times that has backfired on people. I personally feel this movie will be very, very good. Better than Transformers 2 in fact.

Draupnir · 06-12-2008 3:23pm

Tusky wrote: »

I honestly dont understand how people are getting excited about this. I, along with everyone else, would love it to be good. I really would...and casting Christian Bale was a masterstroke...BUT...Its directed by McG and written by the dude who penned Catwoman!

McG directing credits:

We Are Marshall
The Offspring Complete Music Video Collection
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle
Charlie's Angels
Cypress Hill: Still Smokin
Korn: Who Then Now?

Every director has done bad movies, We Are Marshall is actually a more than good movie in my opinion. The rest are essentially MTV movies aimed at a completely different type of movie goer to the IMDB, Boards Film Forum experts who decide they are crap. I also think that Charlies Angels is crap, but then again, I think Gone With the Wind is crap.

Today's posts are brought to you by the words "Target" and "Audience".

Tusky · 06-12-2008 3:44pm

Draupnir wrote: »

Every director has done bad movies, We Are Marshall is actually a more than good movie in my opinion. The rest are essentially MTV movies aimed at a completely different type of movie goer to the IMDB, Boards Film Forum experts who decide they are crap. I also think that Charlies Angels is crap, but then again, I think Gone With the Wind is crap.

Today's posts are brought to you by the words "Target" and "Audience".

My point was, he hasnt made a good movie yet so I shall remain skeptical about his work until he does. Should Terminator 4 be given to someone with no good movies on his CV or should it be be given to a talented director with a good track record ? I'm sure there are plenty of directors out there that would have loved to be involved.

Draupnir · 06-12-2008 3:59pm

Tusky wrote: »

My point was, he hasnt made a good movie yet so I shall remain skeptical about his work until he does. Should Terminator 4 be given to someone with no good movies on his CV or should it be be given to a talented director with a good track record ? I'm sure there are plenty of directors out there that would have loved to be involved.

We Are Marshall is a good movie, have you seen it?

Handsome Bob · 06-12-2008 4:02pm

Tusky wrote: »

I honestly dont understand how people are getting excited about this. I, along with everyone else, would love it to be good. I really would...and casting Christian Bale was a masterstroke...BUT...Its directed by McG and written by the dude who penned Catwoman!

McG directing credits:

We Are Marshall
The Offspring Complete Music Video Collection
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle
Charlie's Angels
Cypress Hill: Still Smokin
Korn: Who Then Now?

Again, Jonah Nolan basically re-wrote the entire script. So whatever the guys from Catwoman wrote, it has been entirely overhauled; including that horrible rumoured ending.

In regards to McG, he hasn't established himself yet. But as a pointed out earlier, James Cameron hardly set the world alight prior to T1. I can only judge McG on the footage that I've seen, and from the various articles that I have read: I have no reason so far to worry about his abilities in regards to this film.

BlitzKrieg · 06-12-2008 4:54pm

Draupnir wrote: »

In terms of a franchise "belonging to a director" I think that is completely ridiculous, personally speaking. We've seen Lucas destroy his own franchise in the name of merchandising with Star Wars and we've seen Indiana Jones ruined by Spielberg's obsession with Shia LeBeouf. The idea that a new director is that cause of the downfall of any franchise is absurd to me.

Reread my post, I said I normally do not subscribe to this notion. In fact I thought one of the greatest strengths of the alien franchise was that each entry had a new director. I subscribe to it in this very rare case because the change in quality dropped so much once its taken out of Cameron's hands that I felt there might be something to that Cameron boy that makes what is normally a rather ludicrous plot work really well.

The writing for this movie seems a mess alright but realistically, I don't think that we can judge the screenplay of an unreleased movie based on the writers. Many unknown writers have created great movies from nothing and many crap writers have created great screenplays after their previous crap. The other side of the coin is that many great writers have destroyed their own careers by writing crap.

Very true to an extent, but this isnt some work of love by some writer who's never been heard or something. Its a franchise, it was put into production without a script, the writers were hired already being given marching orders, course that all fell apart and they've hired in more writers to pick up pieces here and there and to scrabble a working plot together. Its as you said a mess, and I look at the list of writers and their works, and none of them scream out to me as someone who could grab the reigns and pull the project under control.

Yes IMDB doesnt have Johnathan Nolan credited while wikipedia does and he is one such writer that could be benefitial. And I would say its a plus mark for the production

BUT
it goes back to my earlier point that its a film that stinks of desperation, bringing in a writer of a recent *Mega hit* while the film was being filmed. This is huge because that means the film had gone into production before he was brought in. For you it might be good, because that means the main thing that will change is of course the quality of the dialogue (maybe) but the plot points will be something that wont be possible to change much, since sfx and construction would have started before Nolan was brought in.

I don't agree that Sarah Connor Chronicles is any good, for me it is with Smallville in the bin of tv shows marked "Never Watch". I come from the Oscar Wilde school of cataloguing. T3 might well have been made for a younger audience than we or I might have liked but that is the modern era, we have to accept that in spite of the fact that we were able to watch 18 rated movies when we were kids because of laxer attitudes towards movie violence.

Matter of Opnion, I think Sarah Connors is a very good series.

Also, the Sarah Connor Chronicles hardly fits in well with the idea's behind The Terminator or T2, it couldn't be further from The Terminator in fact, from my limited exposure.

Could you give some examples?

Finally, The Harvester is quite interesting to see in the trailer and is in no way a "Transformer Terminator". We've know since 1985 that the Terminator was the culmination of the machines work towards exterminating the human race. If we suddenly jumped from computer AI and advanced weapons in T3 to Terminators with human exo skeletons, I personally would be pissed off.

Its the design that his me gritting teeth, not the role it plays, Its a giant walking robot, it looks like something that belongs in transformers then in terminator. Terminator's future design in prior films had this fantastic efficiant genocide on a massive scale feel to it, Much like how the atrocities of the holocaust but on a scale thats unbelievable. The harvester terminator looks like a glorified sfx sequence for the sake of it. It doesnt make sense logically (and if your meant to be a machine then logic should be pretty high up on the list) to have big lumbering robots marching across the wasteland picking up stragglers. The Gunships and Tanks and convoys of bulldozer trucks flattening the rubble and ferrying people to the camps is more efficiant and a more horrific sight. Big transformy robot just looks stupid.

I know that it is probably fashionable to assume the high ground here and say the movie will be crap at this point, but all too many times that has backfired on people. I personally feel this movie will be very, very good. Better than Transformers 2 in fact.

I am not trying to be fashionable, I am just weighing up the odds and making a call. In the end because I have killed all hope for this movie I could be pleasently surprised. But at the moment there is nothing in the film aside from Christian Bale giving me those flickers of hope. Its just my opinion. The sheer fact I am backing it up with what I feel is wrong with the production is enough I hope to show I am not just being negative for the sake of negativity,

Also if Transformers 2 follows the same process of transformers 1 then it would be very easy to be better then it.

Everyone has to start somewhere, James Cameron made nothing of note prior to T1 (that's putting it mildly too). McG has made all the right sounds for this film (excluding his Cameron blessing gaffe

THis is not someone starting, this is someone well into his career. Comparing it to Cameron with terminator 1 doesnt work. Cameron wasnt hired to make terminator 1, he proposed it, wrote it, directed it and got the funding for it, it some form of technicality terminator is an independent film. Terminator 4, isnt, MCG didnt have to fight and scrape and commit his future to get the project. Not saying it fell on his lap, just they are vastly different situations when you win studio approval to getting your own project off the ground.

Again, I'll direct you to any article since the Summer and you'll find that there is a very acceptable description of what the Harvester actually does.{/quote]

Is this the it sends out tiny terminators to drag resistance fighters back to the big daddy to be shredded process? Yeah still not clicking the whole need for a 20 foot robot design.

Handsome Bob · 06-12-2008 5:03pm

^Glad to see that you acknowledge that you were wrong about who actually wrote the final draft of the script.

pixelburp · 06-12-2008 5:23pm

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Again, I'll direct you to any article since the Summer and you'll find that there is a very acceptable description of what the Harvester actually does.

I don't give a damn what it does, it's a Transformer & nothing more than a grandstanding special effect. I don't know why, but that rocking back it does when it fires its weapon annoys the píss out of me for some reason. Maybe it's because it makes the robot look even more like something from Bay's Transformers & less like the efficient killing / harvesting machines Skynet controlled.

You'd think an AI would realise that a giant walking biped is not a good design decision! This movie though could go either way, and given the precedent of the previous cash-in sequel & the directing ... "talent", it's perfectly acceptable to feel that the movie is going to stink. Time will tell.

Handsome Bob · 06-12-2008 5:38pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't give a damn what it does, it's a Transformer & nothing more than a grandstanding special effect. I don't know why, but that rocking back it does when it fires its weapon annoys the píss out of me for some reason. Maybe it's because it makes the robot look even more like something from Bay's Transformers & less like the efficient killing / harvesting machines Skynet controlled.

You'd think an AI would realise that a giant walking biped is not a good design decision! This movie though could go either way, and given the precedent of the previous cash-in sequel & the directing ... "talent", it's perfectly acceptable to feel that the movie is going to stink. Time will tell.

For me, I trust that Bale and Worthington would have not signed up for this if it was going to stink. To paraphrase, in the words of McG, Bale demanded that the director present him a script that could be acted on a theathre stage; in other words, if it was an all non-sensical action popcorn flick, Bale would have told McG to "fuck off".

I agree that only time will tell. But to take a such a cynical stance that some are taking, especially since the primary reason for this cynicism is McG (ignoring Bale and Worthington are starring, and that Jonah Nolan has written the final draft) is to be blunt quite ridiculous.

pixelburp · 06-12-2008 7:15pm

LZ5by5 wrote: »

For me, I trust that Bale and Worthington would have not signed up for this if it was going to stink. To paraphrase, in the words of McG, Bale demanded that the director present him a script that could be acted on a theathre stage; in other words, if it was an all non-sensical action popcorn flick, Bale would have told McG to "fuck off".

I agree that only time will tell. But to take a such a cynical stance that some are taking, especially since the primary reason for this cynicism is McG (ignoring Bale and Worthington are starring, and that Jonah Nolan has written the final draft) is to be blunt quite ridiculous.

Yeah, but in fairness, it's not entirely beyond the realms of thinking that its just a smokescreen for "they offered me a big cheque & the script wasn't a total car-crash". It wouldn't exactly be the first time a big "proper" actor appears in a blockbuster movie for the purposes of a big payday.

It's easier to assume the movie will be crap and then be pleasantly surprised, than it is to assume the movie might be good & be let down.

BlitzKrieg · 06-12-2008 7:49pm

LZ5by5 wrote: »

^Glad to see that you acknowledge that you were wrong about who actually wrote the final draft of the script.

well like I said IMDB doesnt have him listed at all, I had to check wikipedia.

But even wikipedia says he came in very late in the production. Which is something I'd be worried about personnally.

Handsome Bob · 09-12-2008 7:26pm

OFFICIAL TRAILER (Japanese Version)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qUG9D_-NSc

Get in!:D Bale looks on top form and there are no signs of cheesey dialogue. A bit short but hey, they've left me wanting more so I can't complain.

pixelburp · 09-12-2008 8:17pm

A resounding "Meh". It's looking more and more like a "style but no substance" vehicle. Sure it has that grimey, saturated look which is terribly in for movies trying to be "realistic", but I sense a certain hollowness to it all. Those motorbike Terminators look daft to be honest, and Bale's growlings beginning to do my head in.

I take it from him comments that the future is different somehow, which ties in with some of the themes and insinuations from the TV series (that the future can indeed be changed and be different).

Edit: Also, did I spot Jesse from the TV series in that trailer?

Handsome Bob · 09-12-2008 8:35pm

pixelburp wrote: »

A resounding "Meh". It's looking more and more like a "style but no substance" vehicle. Sure it has that grimey, saturated look which is terribly in for movies trying to be "realistic", but I sense a certain hollowness to it all. Those motorbike Terminators look daft to be honest, and Bale's growlings beginning to do my head in.

I take it from him comments that the future is different somehow, which ties in with some of the themes and insinuations from the TV series (that the future can indeed be changed and be different).

Edit: Also, did I spot Jesse from the TV series in that trailer?

Nope, that's Moon Bloodgood in the trailer.

The future is different because (don't read spoiler if you don't want to know a major plotline)

Skynet is ten years a head of schedule in the creation of the T-800.

PeakOutput · 09-12-2008 8:41pm

its got christian bale, chris nolan, an over 18s rating apparently and most importantly terminators involved.

its going to be at least 8.5/10

it is probably going to lose 1.5 marks for copying transformers 'look' i think

Handsome Bob · 09-12-2008 8:47pm

PeakOutput wrote: »

its got christian bale, chris nolan, an over 18s rating apparently and most importantly terminators involved.

its going to be at least 8.5/10

it is probably going to lose 1.5 marks for copying transformers 'look' i think

Close, it's Jonathon Nolan (he wrote The Dark Knight).:)

But I agree, I'm pumped for this movie.:D

pixelburp · 09-12-2008 8:48pm

AvP2 had an over 18s cert on it, and look where it got us.

Handsome Bob · 09-12-2008 8:53pm

pixelburp wrote: »

AvP2 had an over 18s cert on it, and look where it got us.

It doesn't matter what the rating is, The Dark Knight more than got away with its' fair share, was an awesome film and was was rated 12's.

Vokes · 09-12-2008 9:10pm

Looks so-so. Still not pumped for this one despite Bales involvement.

Star Trek trailer did a better job of leaving me wanting more.

Still, it's more sc-fi so can't complain really.

PeakOutput · 09-12-2008 10:09pm

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Close, it's Jonathon Nolan (he wrote The Dark Knight).:)

But I agree, I'm pumped for this movie.:D

ye but whatever his name is (:o) its going to be good

constitutionus · 09-12-2008 11:35pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't give a damn what it does, it's a Transformer & nothing more than a grandstanding special effect. I don't know why, but that rocking back it does when it fires its weapon annoys the píss out of me for some reason. Maybe it's because it makes the robot look even more like something from Bay's Transformers & less like the efficient killing / harvesting machines Skynet controlled.

You'd think an AI would realise that a giant walking biped is not a good design decision! This movie though could go either way, and given the precedent of the previous cash-in sequel & the directing ... "talent", it's perfectly acceptable to feel that the movie is going to stink. Time will tell.

in fairness man what are you basing that on?

it thought rubber skinned terminators would fool humans according to the original !

just because is a high tech AI doenst mean it knows squat about real world physics.SKYNET is only starting out here. its not quite a child but its not at the cyborg creation level yet either. it stands to reason it'd experiment with its designs. particularly now it rules the world and doesnt have to worry about resources.

im willing to give this the element of the doubt. particularly as its set up as a trilogy

and hey if this was transformers humanity wouldnt have a chance period

pixelburp · 10-12-2008 12:10am

constitutionus wrote: »

in fairness man what are you basing that on?

I'm basing it on the fair guess that the makers went "hey, you know what would be cool? A giant terminator with rockets! Oh and terminator-bikes! And and and ... ". It gives of a big vibe of set-piece cinema, where the characters & scenarios are just there to serve up a succession of visual roller-coaster rides (all in glorious monochrome & brown) and explosions. Yawn.

I am more than willing to be proven wrong, but just because you sign a lot of blank cheques to nab some apparently good assets (Christian Bale, an adult certificate, Jonathan Nolan writing; we have little evidence of what this guy is like outside of his brother's influence) doesn't mean you'll come up roses. It's still being helmed by McG, and even if Cameron was a rookie during Terminator 1, at least his resumé wasn't the Charlies Angels movies & MTV "documentaries". I don't believe that man is anywhere even close to competent enough to helm a major production

I'm not drinking the hatorade just for the sake of it, I just believe it's better to maintain a healthy cynicism on this & let yourself be pleasantly surprised, than to get all optimistic, be potentially served a cock sandwich and feel worse.

speedboatchase · 10-12-2008 10:42am

Are we sure its rated R? First ive read of that

Handsome Bob · 11-12-2008 1:31pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm basing it on the fair guess that the makers went "hey, you know what would be cool? A giant terminator with rockets! Oh and terminator-bikes! And and and ... ". It gives of a big vibe of set-piece cinema, where the characters & scenarios are just there to serve up a succession of visual roller-coaster rides (all in glorious monochrome & brown) and explosions. Yawn.

They are in a position where they cannot present us with an evolved model of the Terminator. We had a near indestructable model in T-2 that was so advanced that even Skynet was unsure of its' full capabilities. Its' only restriction in terms of doing its' job was that it couldn't extend itself as an firearm. In T-3, we were presented with a Terminator that could morph parts of its' body into firearms.

However this is the start of the war where McG cannot "one-up" the previous Models in terms of its' advancement. So he's come up with a few new ideas such as the motorcycles, the hydro-bot and the harvester (which has a specific reason for its' existence, it is not there just for the sake of set piece cinema).

The "vibe" you are getting is from 3 minutes, 4 max, of footage without an insight into the actual plot as well.

pixelburp wrote: »

I am more than willing to be proven wrong, but just because you sign a lot of blank cheques to nab some apparently good assets (Christian Bale, an adult certificate, Jonathan Nolan writing; we have little evidence of what this guy is like outside of his brother's influence) doesn't mean you'll come up roses.

They are nonetheless all encouraging signs. I can only base my cynicism on what is presented to me, and so far in terms of the cast and the writer I have no reason to be overly concerned.

pixelburp wrote: »

It's still being helmed by McG, and even if Cameron was a rookie during Terminator 1, at least his resumé wasn't the Charlies Angels movies & MTV "documentaries". I don't believe that man is anywhere even close to competent enough to helm a major production.

Of course, I don't think any fan was thrilled when it initially came to light that McG was directing. However, I am willing to give him a chance (not jumping on the bandwagon- didn't do it when Ledger was initially cast as the Joker and I won't do it here either).

I've had my ears open to any articles or interview related to this film since it was announced. I've followed this film from the start; the issues in regard to the title of it, interviews with the cast, interviews with the director, the San Diego CC, and the trailers. And in all of this I have scrutinised every detail and I haven't come up with anything that has me concerned. Am I expecting a top class film? Not right now I'm not, but so far, I've been given no reason to be pessimistic.

pixelburp · 11-12-2008 2:00pm

LZ5by5 wrote: »

However this is the start of the war where McG cannot "one-up" the previous Models in terms of its' advancement. So he's come up with a few new ideas such as the motorcycles, the hydro-bot and the harvester (which has a specific reason for its' existence, it is not there just for the sake of set piece cinema).

The "vibe" you are getting is from 3 minutes, 4 max, of footage without an insight into the actual plot as well.

Of course, I appreciate all that, and certainly understand why we can't just have another evolution of the Terminators we have seen. And yes, our judgements are based on trailers & no more so that's the biggest caveat in any debate. Yet why are the Terminators suddenly looking like Transformers? Let's be honest here, they totally do; the bike looks like it just scooted out of Bay's film & the "harvester" also does. Just because we're talking a devolution doesn't mean anything goes. Those terminators don't match the context (of the world) in my view, nor do they match the ruthless efficient designs we saw in previous movies (I'm thinking of those Hunter-Killers we saw) which looked not too dissimilar to the kind of designs we see in real unmanned military vehicles. So it seems Skynet then dabbled briefly in OTT design before realising those humans had a good idea in the first place with "treads"

LZ5by5 wrote: »

They are nonetheless all encouraging signs. I can only base my cynicism on what is presented to me, and so far in terms of the cast and the writer I have no reason to be overly concerned.

Well I guess that's where we disagree, and mostly on the terms I mention; I don't think this strikes me as being a Terminator movie, it looks like it might be more like "Transformers go Bad" & the makers have gone nuts making set-piece robots. Oh and I'm not all negative btw; I should add that the big grabby tentacles are a nice (and logical) idea.

I am happy to be disappointed, but I can't help purse my lips and go "hmmm" at the sight of those designs.

Handsome Bob · 11-12-2008 2:23pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Yet why are the Terminators suddenly looking like Transformers? Let's be honest here, they totally do; the bike looks like it just scooted out of Bay's film & the "harvester" also does. Just because we're talking a devolution doesn't mean anything goes. Those terminators don't match the context (of the world) in my view, nor do they match the ruthless efficient designs we saw in previous movies (I'm thinking of those Hunter-Killers we saw) which looked not too dissimilar to the kind of designs we see in real unmanned military vehicles.

Stan Winston was the visual effects supervisor at the time of his death, so I trust that the guy who had the same position for T1 and T2 would not stay quiet if he thought McG and Martin laing were going overboard.

Efficient designs suggest to me that it is something that needs to be worked towards; indeed the whole point of the film is

Skynet working towards that ruthless efficient design, the T-800 and beyond.

Why are the Terminators looking like transformers? For me that's a generalisation as you seem to be focusing on the Harvester and the motorcycle. What about the hydrobot and the T-600? I don't think there is anything transformer like in regards to those two designs.

The Harvester has a specific role;

*don't read if you don't want to know about the plot*

it is simply a machine that catches humans and brings them back to the prison camps where they can be tested in order to design the living skin tissue required for the T-800 (stem cell research is involved, all very interesting).

Does the Harvester have an element of the "popcorn spectacle" about it? Yes it does, but at least it has a plausable role that fits into the bigger plot. In regards to the motorcycles, I think Skynet is creating as many machines as it can to keep the resistance busy until the more advanced, efficient killing machines are ready to go onto the field i.e. the T-800 and beyond. After all, if the resistance just had to battle T-600s that they could spot coming a mile away, it would be a pretty boring film!:pac:

T4 Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins

Comments