T4 Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins

SoupyNorman

monkeyfudge wrote: »

...keep expecting a advert for Harvey Norman or Right Price Tiles to come up right after it.

At least that would of kept some sort of momentum, all they served to do was knock out any wind that had gathered in the sails (little as it was).

Those fade to blacks reminded me of episodes of X-men where there is usually three movements, the 3rd being the convergence of the previous two...it is acceptable in such an instance as the feature is only 25mins approx in length, for a 115min movie you'd imagine writers were capable of leaving out such nonsense!

To analogise, using fade to blacks in movies is akin to using the inflatable buffers in the gutters of the bowling alley.

SoupyNorman

SoupyNorman wrote: »

Is it just me or do your words not seem back up your statement of thoroughly enjoying it?

It's not humor from Bale that was expected but some humor was expected somewhere. I think the flat out refusal to inject any humor whatsoever was a huge failing...the movie from beginning to end failed, the whole script seems unsure of itself and I do believe that there is 3 fade to blacks in the film!!! *perplexation*

If you read the rest of my post I agree the film had problems but overall I thought it was a solid 3 and a half star film. I don't see why people expected humour, the first Terminator is a fiarly humourless affair with part 2 and 3 having some funny moments but then again when part 3 came out people were complaining about the humour.

I never expected the film to be as good as the Cameron ones and it was'nt but I do think that McG did a fantastic job and all the abuse directed at him is unfair.

I will agree that the fade to black was a mistake, I assumed they were there to give the film an episodic quality but in reality it was like watching a TV show on DVD.

Mr Freeze

Deleted User wrote: »

I never expected the film to be as good as the Cameron ones and it was'nt but I do think that McG did a fantastic job and all the abuse directed at him is unfair.

I honestly dont think he is getting enough abuse. He should never have been let near a franchise as big as Terminator.

Terminator 3 was terrible, and the studio should have been looking to bring the franchise back from that disaster, but by giving the reigns to McG they managed to ruin it even more.

I wont be watching another film directed by him ever again, as far as i'm concerned T3 and TS never happened, they were never made, just like they never made Indy 4

SoupyNorman

Deleted User wrote: »

If you read the rest of my post I agree the film had problems but overall I thought it was a solid 3 and a half star film. I don't see why people expected humour, the first Terminator is a fiarly humourless affair with part 2 and 3 having some funny moments but then again when part 3 came out people were complaining about the humour.

I never expected the film to be as good as the Cameron ones and it was'nt but I do think that McG did a fantastic job and all the abuse directed at him is unfair.

I will agree that the fade to black was a mistake, I assumed they were there to give the film an episodic quality but in reality it was like watching a TV show on DVD.

I read your whole post of course, what I got were a few mixed messages is all, you begin with 'thoroughly enjoyed' and finish with 'enjoyable' (quite a gap between the too!).


I really think using the word fantastic is excessive for any scene in the movie. Defending a movie is ok if it's for the correct reasons, most defenders of it are going on about the direction and highlighting the spinny camera stuff in the Helicopter...none of which was groundbreaking.


Terminator2 layed the foundation story wise for Terminator sequels to be future classics in the making, it was in the hands of the producers/writers and directors to balls it up and my they have done that in fine style.

CKWPORT

CKWPORT wrote: »

I honestly dont think he is getting enough abuse. He should never have been let near a franchise as big as Terminator.

Terminator 3 was terrible, and the studio should have been looking to bring the franchise back from that disaster, but by giving the reigns to McG they managed to ruin it even more.

I wont be watching another film directed by him ever again, as far as i'm concerned T3 and TS never happened, they were never made, just like they never made Indy 4

What was wrong with McG's directing? He showed that he can stage a scene, shoot action aswell as characters. I think the thing I most enjoyed about the film was McG's directing. The script was the biggest problem with the film, the original leaked ending was terrible and the sad fact is that it would be preferable to the one we got.

Saying you won't watch a film by him ever again is a bit of a joke. Some of the most respected directors in history have been involved in more than their fair share of stinkers. Does this mean you won't be watching Coppola's Tetro because he made Jack and Finian's Rainbow?

McG did a great job with what he had. He made one of the Sumemrs best action blockbusters so far and one which bodes well for the next entry in the franchise.

SoupyNorman wrote: »

I read your whole post of course, what I got were a few mixed messages is all, you begin with 'thoroughly enjoyed' and finish with 'enjoyable' (quite a gap between the too!).

Yes I open by saying that I found it thoroughbly enjoyable which I did and close with enjoyable. My opinion of the film did'nt change between the two just that I felt it unnecessary to simply copy and paste the same sentiments. Yes the film has it's problems, the various plots holes for one but compared to T3 Salvation is a far superior film.

SoupyNorman wrote: »

I really think using the word fantastic is excessive for any scene in the movie. Defending a movie is ok if it's for the correct reasons, most defenders of it are going on about the direction and highlighting the spinny camera stuff in the Helicopter...none of which was groundbreaking.

The direction was top notch and McG has proven himself as a more than capeable director. The action scenes were for the most part extremely well done. As I said the only action scene I thought was anything less than brilliant was the final scene which lacked a sense of danger as everyone just seemed to waltz out with no trouble.

SoupyNorman wrote: »

Terminator2 layed the foundation story wise for Terminator sequels to be future classics in the making, it was in the hands of the producers/writers and directors to balls it up and my they have done that in fine style.

Yes T2 laid the foundations for a truly great franchise but was anyone seriously expecting anything on apr with T1 anad T2 once Cameron was'nt invovled in the writing or directing process?

Mr Freeze

Deleted User wrote: »

What was wrong with McG's directing? He showed that he can stage a scene, shoot action aswell as characters.

Deleted User wrote: »

Saying you won't watch a film by him ever again is a bit of a joke.

I wasn't joking, it was just my opinion.

I wasn't one bit excited or drawn into the film, especially the action sequences, they were very dull IMO. And there was absolutely no depth to any of the characters either I thought, I didnt care one bit about any of them. It is the directors job to make me care about the characters fighting for the their lives on the screen. It didnt happen.

And I definitely wouldnt race out to watch another film directed by him.

Now, thats just my opinion, I'm not asking you to agree with me.

faceman

This was easily one of the worst films I have seen, and definitely one of the worst action films.

In the modern era of sci fi film making, it offers absolutely nothing.

And the biggest flaw of all, and it is a MASSIVE flaw, there are only about 2 real terminators in the film. Just because something has red eyes, does not make it cool or in any way threatening. Hydros? Give me a break. They look like Scorponok's tail from Transformers!

This pretty much sums it up. If you

infiltrate Skynet

, you expect there to be more than just 1 active Terminator

and for him to have guns. There wasnt even one HK to try stop the helicopter from taking off???

Utter utter muck.

As for Bale's outburst recently during an intense emotional scene? WTF? Where was that scene?

Avoid this film like you would avoid an AIDS ridden monkey in your basement.

SoupyNorman

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes T2 laid the foundations for a truly great franchise but was anyone seriously expecting anything on apr with T1 anad T2 once Cameron was'nt invovled in the writing or directing process?

Everything you said is based on your opinion, I've shared mine and thats fair enough but the above is a pretty stark statement.

So basically you're saying no matter who directed it it was never going to be as good as T2!! I'd say, why make the movie at all if you know it's going to be inferior even before you start.

I watched T2 last night and it just leaves me speechless, 1991 and even then they can keep out continuity errors. One that stood out for me was when the T1000 was chasing all the gang in the Helicopter, blasting at them with a sub-machine gun and when the van turned over the roof was bullet hole ridden.

TS was just hole ridden.

lostexpectation

just watching the TS tv special


mcg says he wanted the show the future war, that was teased of in the first movies, he didn't just want to make t4, just another story flogging a dead horse, well you didn't make the future war we seen, you did just do another movie.

SoupyNorman

SoupyNorman wrote: »

Everything you said is based on your opinion, I've shared mine and thats fair enough but the above is a pretty stark statement.

So basically you're saying no matter who directed it it was never going to be as good as T2!! I'd say, why make the movie at all if you know it's going to be inferior even before you start.

What I actually said that the only way to make a film anywhere near as good as T1 or T2 would be to bring back Cameron as both writer and director.There is no other director working today with Cameron's vision, he's one of a kind a true cinematic God if ever there was one. He made Terminator for a few million dollars and created on of the most famous and loved films in the history of cinema.

He then waited a number of years while legal issues were ironed out to make a sequel only doig so because he believed that technology had advanced enough to match his vision. There is no other director that dedicated to his craft, look at Cameron post Titanic. He has spent the time developing technology so that he can make Avatar, while he could have made it back in 2000 he did'nt believe that the technology was there to create his vision in the way he wanted.

Everyone blames McG for Salvation's shortcomings when in fact pretty much all the problems lay with the script. TS is a brain dead action film based on set pieces whereas T1 and T2 are intelligent weel written films which just happen to have jaw dropping set pieces.

Edit: Why make the movie? well the only reason any producer makes a film, cold hard cash.

SoupyNorman wrote: »

I watched T2 last night and it just leaves me speechless, 1991 and even then they can keep out continuity errors. One that stood out for me was when the T1000 was chasing all the gang in the Helicopter, blasting at them with a sub-machine gun and when the van turned over the roof was bullet hole ridden.

TS was just hole ridden.

True dat, watched it the afternoon I went to see Salvation and even after watching it a hundred times it still manages to impress me. It's quite simply put the perfect blockbuster. I'm not afraid to say that often when I watch it I'll have a tear in my eye as Arnie gives the thumbs up at the end.

lostexpectation

ah, mcg said that the next film will be present day, with john connor coming back to warn the military and then everyone thinkings he's crazy, was he joking, we will ever get to see the film we want to see.

lostexpectation

lostexpectation wrote: »

ah, mcg said that the next film will be present day, with john connor coming back to warn the military and then everyone thinkings he's crazy, was he joking, we will ever get to see the film we want to see.

I'm fairly certain he was serious. I can well see it being nothing more than a Transforminators film.

Magic Eight Ball

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not afraid to say that often when I watch it I'll have a tear in my eye as Arnie gives the thumbs up at the end.

“Getting the audience to cry for the Terminator at the end of T2, for me that was the whole purpose of making that film. If you can get the audience to feel emotion for a character that in the previous film you despised utterly and were terrified by, then that's a cinematic arc.”

From the man himself..

Dublin_Andy

i enjoyed the film. have seen it twice in the cinema..

its been getting crap reviews...

it held my attention. there was no boring parts at all. it was fast moving..

the CGI Shwarzenegger was suprisingly great... very realistic

the plot was interesting..

but i was really expecting more of open battles with a load of terminators fighting the resistance fighters, like in the scenes in T1, 2 and 3.

im not a fan of CGI in the movies of today, but this movie showed that you dont have to overuse it, like in many other movies where it is blatantly obvious.

anyways, they dont make them like they used to thats for sure. you cant beat the oldies

SoupyNorman

Deleted User wrote: »

Everyone blames McG for Salvation's shortcomings when in fact pretty much all the problems lay with the script. TS is a brain dead action film based on set pieces whereas T1 and T2 are intelligent weel written films which just happen to have jaw dropping set pieces.

Its been a a few days since watching TS, Ive digested it now and although I still think it's terrible on all fronts the script is where the main blame lies but any movie is a concerted effort between writers/directors and producers and once they put their name to something and release it then they are equally responsible, McG should have gone with his gut instinct and started from the beginning but Im sure Hollywood big wigs would not allow it.

Im not sure where I'd separate what McG did good V's bad...yes the Set Pieces are good but they are not groundbreaking as I have said before, many of the scenes felt like 3rd rate scenes from Transformers and the editing....oH THE HUMANITY!

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not afraid to say that often when I watch it I'll have a tear in my eye as Arnie gives the thumbs up at the end.

I am afraid to say it..but I'll say it anyway..me too!


Although rewatching it really makes you wonder how that little snot nosed pansy Ed Furlong was cast.

Mackman

I really enjoyed it,it was never gonna be up there with T1 and T2,but i hoped it was gonna be better than T3, and i was delighted it was.
The script was poor in parts, and the whole

take my heart

ending was pretty crap and just came accross as a last minute thought. But i thought the overall story was good, action was brilliant, and Sam Worthington and Anton Yelchin were great.
Overall i walked out like this and im looking forward to the next one

jackdaw

Watched the blu ray of T2 the other night before going to see T4 ...

(T3 doesn't exist in my mind)

An enjoyable flick ... but dissapointed with a lot ...

Terminators seem a lot weaker in this film, i mean humans _Physically_ fighting them ?? in older films they would just rip the heart out..

Allready mentioned, the molten metal ? this killed the T-1000 in T2 ffs ...

such a CRAP ending .. although a lot better then the planned ... john connor dies but the resistance make a terminator of him .. for a symbol ....

The best part for me was the

Arnie bit ... but after waiting for it it wasn't long enough ... should have been more and a tougher opponent ..

faceman

lostexpectation wrote: »

just watching the TS tv special


mcg says he wanted the show the future war, that was teased of in the first movies, he didn't just want to make t4, just another story flogging a dead horse, well you didn't make the future war we seen, you did just do another movie.

Agree completely. He failed if he wanted to show a future war.

Magic Eight Ball

lostexpectation wrote: »

ah, mcg said that the next film will be present day, with john connor coming back to warn the military and then everyone thinkings he's crazy

Oh sweet jesus!

Mark Hamill

jackdaw wrote: »

Allready mentioned, the molten metal ? this killed the T-1000 in T2 ffs ...

The only argument I can think for this is that

in T2, the T1000 was dropped into the molten metal and couldn't get out (as was Arnies T-800) and it took a bit of time for it to be destroyed completely (not to mention, it was already pretty messed up). The molten metal pouring over the T800 in T4 would have started cooling immediately as it flew out of its container (it did solidify pretty quickly), and the T800, as a solid machine with its electronics encased in its frame, would probably be better able to resist high temperatures than the liquid T1000 anyway

. I realise that this may be a bit weak, and the writers probably weren't thinking of this (

when the T800 broke out, it was still shiny and clean looking

), but I dont think its that big of a jump.

MooseJam

Different metals are molten at different temperatures

Paleface

To me the whole molten metal thing is just one of many weak nods to the other movies that probably would have been better left out entirely.

They should just have just come up with a more original scenario. Unfortunately originality seemingly wasn't high on the agenda for the guys who wrote it.

"OK we're coming to the big showdown. What will we do to immobilise the terminator?"

"Well before they just put him in molten metal"

"Give that man a pay rise!"

davej

I thought the movie was ok as a popcorn flick but it was not a "serious" movie, the way T1 and T2 were.
The Terminators seem specifically designed *not* to kill humans. The first thing they seem to do is punch their targets sending them flying 20 metres away. Then they have to catch them again, before giving them another 20 metre punch...Why don't they just grab their targets and crush them to death?

The huge Terminators were kind of cool but served no real purpose other than to look good on the screen.

Skynet in reality would have Satellites scanning every inch of the globe and an army of tiny robots / nanobots that could infiltrate any stronghold and eat the humans alive.

davej

monkeyfudge

The Terminator is on Sky Movies at the moment. Christ it's good... great for getting the bad taste of Salvation out of my head.

Oh... and Arnie pulls a guys heart out of his chest in the opening scene.

SoupyNorman

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Oh... and Arnie pulls a guys heart out of his chest in the opening scene.

Thats another glaring problem with TS, the complete and utter lack of any gore...God damn 12a. Grrrrrrrrrr :mad:


T3 has some gore at least, I watched T3 the other night and there is no question that it's better then TS. The Special FX are piss poor and the acting is all over the shop but at least the story is continuous and coherent, it's cheesy but the difference between T3 and TS is that T3 knows it's cheesy and does not try take itself as seriously TS.

SoupyNorman

SoupyNorman wrote: »

Thats another glaring problem with TS, the complete and utter lack of any gore...God damn 12a. Grrrrrrrrrr :mad:


T3 has some gore at least, I watched T3 the other night and there is no question that it's better then TS. The Special FX are piss poor and the acting is all over the shop but at least the story is continuous and coherent, it's cheesy but the difference between T3 and TS is that T3 knows it's cheesy and does not try take itself as seriously TS.

Plus T3 had an R rating something Salvation could have done without. I'm expecting a special unrated directors sons former roommate blu ray release of Salvation in a few years.

Johnny Bitte

Thought the CGI on

Arnie

was brilliant.

The film itself was pointless in regards the story the Terminator story line in my opinion. The only things to come out of it were

some cool new terminators

SirLemonhead

In fairness, Matt in Terminator 1, when fighting Arnie didn't instantly get his heart/head crushed. He got thrown about the place an awful lot. It makes better cinema :pac:

SirLemonhead

SoupyNorman wrote: »

Although rewatching it really makes you wonder how that little snot nosed pansy Ed Furlong was cast.

Really? I thought he was pretty good in it. I thought he showed a lot more maturity and balls than the character did in T3 and the awful tv series. He had the vibe of someone who could easily grow up to be a "great military leader"

monkeyfudge

SirLemonhead wrote: »

In fairness, Matt in Terminator 1, when fighting Arnie didn't instantly get his heart/head crushed. He got thrown about the place an awful lot. It makes better cinema :pac:

Is Matt he flat mates boyfriend? I noticed that... he gets thrown all over the place instead of being killed... looks a bit silly really in retrospect as the terminator had about 3 guns on him and he clearly wasn't Sarah Conner.