PDA

View Full Version : Movies and TV **** Official Terminator Salvation sucks but I am going to see it anyway ****


sd4chiefs
05-20-2009, 12:09 AM
Terminator Salvation is getting hammered on the Rotten Tomatoes site but I don't care.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/terminator_salvation/#

I am going to go see it and hate myself for waisting $10. :harumph:

Guru
05-20-2009, 12:18 AM
Ahhh, my instincts were correct.

Rudy lost the toss
05-20-2009, 12:21 AM
I didn't think Wolverine was as bad as the reviews. Ill still check this one out

Deberg_1990
05-20-2009, 07:49 AM
NOt sure why they are calling this a reboot?

What did they reboot??

Sure-Oz
05-20-2009, 08:09 AM
I will go see it anyway, it's sitting at 35% on RT right now, 4 straight positive reviews FTW

I am a big bale and terminator fan, hell i even liked the SCC, even if it doesnt make sense on the timeline or whatever

Deberg_1990
05-20-2009, 08:12 AM
I will go see it anyway, it's sitting at 35% on RT right now, 4 straight positive reviews FTW

I am a big bale and terminator fan, hell i even liked the SCC, even if it doesnt make sense on the timeline or whatever

Where does SCC fall in the timeline??

Sure-Oz
05-20-2009, 08:13 AM
Where does SCC fall in the timeline??

i can't remember, i believe tribal warfare knows, he mentioned it.

i dont pay attention to that shit tho lol...

not sure if its the timeline thing or goign back in time

now im confused

Baby Lee
05-20-2009, 08:14 AM
McG, all that needs to be said.

Deberg_1990
05-20-2009, 08:31 AM
I always get hung up on the whole Kyle Reese is John Conners dad conundrum.

JD10367
05-20-2009, 08:56 AM
I didn't think Wolverine was as bad as the reviews. Ill still check this one out

Agreed. I don't always agree with the Rotten Tomatoes score. Nor did I always agree with Siskel and Ebert. There are films I love that the general public hated, and films I hated that the general public loved.

The thing a lot of these reviews don't take into account is the mood of the moviegoer. Sometimes I want "War And Peace", other times I want to turn off my brain. When I want filet mignon, I don't go to McDonald's and get a hamburger and vice versa. "Wolverine" wasn't Shakespeare, but it was a mildly entertaining way to kill a couple of hours. :shrug: From what little I know of "T:S" it looks like a lot of stuff being blown up and a lot of robots killing humans and vice versa. Not every film can be as "deep" as "The Dark Knight" or "Watchmen". I'm sure they'll hammer "Night At The Museum 2" as well, but if you have kids, or just want to sit in a theater and laugh at monkeys and people slapping each other, I'm sure it's fine.

dirk digler
05-20-2009, 09:09 AM
I am definitely going and screw the reviews

Sure-Oz
05-20-2009, 09:12 AM
Heard that there isn't as much story telling or something to that degree...like you may or may not care that much about the characters and it basically is a big doomsday fest with no hope. I heard the effects and everything are superb, either way i think ill enjoy it! Lets hope anyway! I kinda figured people reviewing would either really hate it or love it

I use reviews and RT to give me an idea...i sure as hell thought a history of violence was dogshit and that got a 90%+

Everyone has different tastes

Sure-Oz
05-20-2009, 09:59 AM
It's up to 40% now on RT

TinyEvel
05-20-2009, 10:28 AM
If you go see it this weekend, look for our PlayStation INFAMOUS game ad before the trailers...

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2009/05/18/infamous-hitting-the-big-screen-this-friday/

Sure-Oz
05-20-2009, 10:32 AM
What cracks me up is T3 got a solid 70% from RT...

they must've not been that picky back then i assume.

I thought that movie was average at best and the whole feel was pretty crappy

This movie can't be as bad as T3 imo, not even close

Buck
05-20-2009, 03:49 PM
NOt sure why they are calling this a reboot?

What did they reboot??

I thought I heard that they sort of didn't follow a lot of stuff that happened in T3. I could be wrong though.

58kcfan89
05-20-2009, 04:01 PM
Supposedly they're going to have 2 movies after "T:S" with Bale, so maybe that plays into the whole "not much story" thing, maybe they're setting up something bigger for future movies.

I dunno, either way I'm going to see it tonight at midnight.

Deberg_1990
05-20-2009, 06:27 PM
Harry Knowles (who just about gives any genre film somewhat of a pass) just ripped it a new one. Ouch....

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41140

Miles
05-20-2009, 06:45 PM
I was hoping this would be a solid enough action flick that was entertaining despite mediocre reviews. Though it's starting to sound more and more like this will be a genuine POS train wreck.

Count Alex's Losses
05-20-2009, 07:19 PM
If it's as good as Alien Resurrection I don't mind seeing it. AR was FUN.

keg in kc
05-20-2009, 07:32 PM
Harry Knowles (who just about gives any genre film somewhat of a pass) just ripped it a new one. Ouch....

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41140Harry's reviews are all over the place. Half the time I love stuff he hates and hate stuff he loves. And he seems to always either have a personal stake of some kind in the movie (likes/hates someone involved, etc), and always has expectations going in, like he thinks a movie should be done the way he envisions it or it just doesn't work.

I'm going into this one like I did Star Trek. Expecting absolutely nothing.

Sure-Oz
05-20-2009, 09:00 PM
I just want to be entertained and being a fan of bale and terminator, im sure i will.


Hell i like the SCC

KCChiefsMan
05-20-2009, 09:26 PM
well I'm still gonna see it. I love the terminator series.

Deberg_1990
05-20-2009, 09:40 PM
Harry's reviews are all over the place. Half the time I love stuff he hates and hate stuff he loves. And he seems to always either have a personal stake of some kind in the movie (likes/hates someone involved, etc), and always has expectations going in, like he thinks a movie should be done the way he envisions it or it just doesn't work.

I'm going into this one like I did Star Trek. Expecting absolutely nothing.
I wont deny he has bias at times. I know he does.

But usually he usually goes somewhat easy on genre stuff.

IMO, he probably goes a little too harsh on this. Im no fan of McG, but it cant be that bad. At least the action scenes look cool.

Guru
05-20-2009, 11:04 PM
If it's as good as Alien Resurrection I don't mind seeing it. AR was FUN.Alien Resurrection? Isn't that the one with Winona Rider?

Man, I thought that was awful.

Count Alex's Losses
05-20-2009, 11:04 PM
Alien Resurrection? Isn't that the one with Winona Rider?

Man, I thought that was awful.

Awfully good.

THERE'S A MONSTER INSIDE YOU

Sure-Oz
05-20-2009, 11:05 PM
Alien Resurrection? Isn't that the one with Winona Rider?

Man, I thought that was awful.

I think so and yes it sucked balls

Im sure the action alone in t4 wil be better than that movie combined

Guru
05-20-2009, 11:51 PM
I think so and yes it sucked balls

Im sure the action alone in t4 wil be better than that movie combinedI remember when that movie came out and my brother in law really wanted to see it. After it ended he went out of his way to apologize to us for making us watch it.

Kraus
05-21-2009, 02:17 AM
I just got back from it. I enjoyed it but thought the writing could be better. I'd give it a 3/5. Don't go in thinking it'll be Dark Knight, it isn't. It is a solid action movie.

chiefs1111
05-21-2009, 02:19 AM
I just got back from it. I enjoyed it but thought the writing could be better. I'd give it a 3/5. Don't go in thinking it'll be Dark Knight, it isn't. It is a solid action movie.

Is it better than T3???

58kcfan89
05-21-2009, 02:34 AM
I thought it was really well done, but I'm sure there's a lot of people who won't agree with me.

Silock
05-21-2009, 03:30 AM
Just saw it. People I went with said it was better than Star Trek. I said no way. It wasn't the abortion that T3 was, but it was not T1 nor T2.

To me, it was Saving Private Ryan. In the future. And with robots.

Guru
05-21-2009, 03:49 AM
Just saw it. People I went with said it was better than Star Trek. I said no way. It wasn't the abortion that T3 was, but it was not T1 nor T2.

To me, it was Saving Private Ryan. In the future. And with robots.Well, if I wanted to see Saving Private Ryan, I would just pop in my DVD. heh

pretty much what I expected of it though. I knew it wouldn't come close to 1 or 2 and would be somewhat better than 3.

Still sounds like a rental to me.

EDIT

I still don't buy into this robots that don't know they are robots crap.

Sure-Oz
05-21-2009, 07:35 AM
Well a few posts here are encouraging, and i didnt expect it to be like a dark knight or be this super blockbuster. I wanted entertainment considering how retarded T3 was cause it didn't seem serious at all. I probably will enjoy the flick for what it is and hope they improve with story/development in characters in T5. Heard the action is pretty stellar atleast, they may have gotten 1 part right. Still a 39% on RT...hope to see it and Star Trek this weekend.

Sure-Oz
05-21-2009, 07:36 AM
I remember when that movie came out and my brother in law really wanted to see it. After it ended he went out of his way to apologize to us for making us watch it.

ROFL

It was an abortion of a movie, should've known with wynona in it

Sure-Oz
05-21-2009, 02:38 PM
Sitting at 35% on RT

71% by the 'fans' of RT

seems like most of the positive reviews love the action and the negatives wanted more story and more development. Seems like this could be like a transformers type flick with tons of shit all over the screen but no humor.

Sure-Oz
05-22-2009, 08:03 AM
Has anyone gone to see this yet?

Chieficus
05-22-2009, 09:13 AM
Has anyone gone to see this yet?

Yeah. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't what it could have/should have been, either. It had some really good scenes mixed in among several that left me thinking, "Okay, this sucks."

Visuals were pretty good fro the most part.

I thought Bale did a good job as John Connor, but the story really wasn't about him, it was more focused on Marcus Wright (the Sam Worthington character), which, IMHO, was played well.

What hurt the movie was that outside of those two none of the characters/acting jobs were really memorable.

I'll probably watch it again someday, after it comes out on DVD, but it's not one that I'm going to rush out to buy, either.

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 11:20 AM
Well a few posts here are encouraging, and i didnt expect it to be like a dark knight or be this super blockbuster.
The Dark Knight was a good film in spite of Christian Bale. I've never been impressed with him as an actor. I've enjoyed one or two of his movies, usually because other actors made the movies (ala Heath Ledger), but I've yet to enjoy a single role he has played. Given the less than stellar reviews I've been hearing, and the fact that he's in the main role, I will probably wait for the DVD on this one.

What kind of shocked me was the Angels & Demons actually beat Star Trek for the #1 spot for the weekend it debuted (haven't heard how they compared, though, for their respective debuts, which were one week apart). I saw them both the same day, and enjoyed them both, but thought Star Trek was the better of the two.

keg in kc
05-22-2009, 12:24 PM
What kind of shocked me was the Angels & Demons actually beat Star Trek for the #1 spot for the weekend it debuted (haven't heard how they compared, though, for their respective debuts, which were one week apart). I saw them both the same day, and enjoyed them both, but thought Star Trek was the better of the two.I think you're maybe looking at it the wrong way. Trek has always been something for a niche audience, yet it opened around 75 million. Even the strongest films usually drop off anywhere from 50-60% from opening weekend to the next. And Trek's second week was going to be up against the opening of a Tom Hanks star vehicle, part of a series of very popular novels, and the most adult (i.e. not comic book or scifi) major release right now. And Star Trek still pulled in 43 million, way under a 50% dropoff. That's a hell of a successful second weekend, and the film seems likely to bring in more than 200 million domestic. Which is huge, huge money for a trek movie. Also lost in the shuffle is that it's the new record holder for opening weekends on IMAX (beating The Dark Knight) and in a head-to-head reboot comparison, it brought in nearly 40 million more on its opening weekend than Batman Begins. And it's going to be a huge seller on BluRay, you can bank on that.

Thing's a freaking cash cow, especially for a trek movie.

Mr. Plow
05-22-2009, 12:49 PM
My review.....

My background; I don't follow the timeline...or remember it....or remember all the facts of the series. I liked TSCC.

As far as the movie goes, I enjoyed it. I liked it from beginning to end, BUT there just seemed to be something missing from the movie - I don't know what it was missing, but something wasn't there. It didn't live up to what I thought it was going to, but it's worth seeing.

Sure-Oz
05-22-2009, 01:08 PM
My review.....

My background; I don't follow the timeline...or remember it....or remember all the facts of the series. I liked TSCC.

As far as the movie goes, I enjoyed it. I liked it from beginning to end, BUT there just seemed to be something missing from the movie - I don't know what it was missing, but something wasn't there. It didn't live up to what I thought it was going to, but it's worth seeing.

Alot of the knocks on the movie seem to be the lack of female's with dialogue and actually caring what happens to the characters almost...heard the action and scenes were sweet.

Deberg_1990
05-22-2009, 01:20 PM
I liked it from beginning to end, BUT there just seemed to be something missing from the movie - I don't know what it was missing, but something wasn't there.


Hmmmm.....James Cameron perhaps??

keg in kc
05-22-2009, 01:22 PM
I get the impression that Fox did a hatchet job on it, so it might not be all McG. Not that stirring drama is what I expect from him.

Deberg_1990
05-22-2009, 01:29 PM
I get the impression that Fox did a hatchet job on it, so it might not be all McG. Not that stirring drama is what I expect from him.

Heres the deal.

What i dont like is watering down franchises by dragging things out and basically adding nothing new.

Pretty much the same thing happened with Trek until the current reboot.

I understand every studio needs cash grabs.......

They know they can get away with hiring 2nd tier filmakers like McG because there will always be a certain audience that only requires "boom and bang" from a film with no substance.

Thats fine, but i just wish they wouldnt do it with established classics like the Terminator series.

keg in kc
05-22-2009, 01:41 PM
Mainstream hollywood is terrified of spending major money on anything original.

Hey, at least Avatar's only a few months away.

Sure-Oz
05-22-2009, 01:42 PM
T3 got a higher rating than this, RT is bunk sometimes

Mr. Plow
05-22-2009, 02:01 PM
Hey, at least Avatar's only a few months away.

I may get beat stupid for asking this, but what is Avatar?

keg in kc
05-22-2009, 02:09 PM
I may get beat stupid for asking this, but what is Avatar?You may indeed get beat stupid for asking that.

Avatar is Cameron's next magnum opus, due December 18th. Science fiction movie that's supposed to revolutionize...everything. We're going to wake up that morning and be different people. I think it's the end date of the mayan calendar or something.

Synopsis:In a distant future, humanity discovers the planet 'Alpha Centauri B-4', and for those scientists and astronauts who've traversed the gulf between neighboring suns and arrived on its alien soil know it as 'Pandora'. A world filled with an incredible diversity of beautiful and deadly ammonia-breathing lifeforms. It's also a world that harbors treasures and resources almost beyond price. But just as the original Pandora's Box wrought devastation on those who would use it for their own gain, so too this world may destroy not just the Pandorans' home, but ours as well.

Avatar is the story of a wounded ex-marine, thrust unwillingly into an effort to settle and exploit an exotic planet rich in bio-diversity, who eventually crosses over to lead the indigenous race in a battle for survival.

kc rush
05-22-2009, 02:13 PM
I get the impression that Fox did a hatchet job on it, so it might not be all McG. Not that stirring drama is what I expect from him.

I wonder if it was so they could get a PG-13 rating. PG-13 = $$$ compared to R films.

I'll wait until video for this one.

keg in kc
05-22-2009, 02:15 PM
I wonder if it was so they could get a PG-13 rating. PG-13 = $$$ compared to R films.

I'll wait until video for this one.I'm not sure if it's violence they cut or dramatic scenes. I've read that a lot of moon bloodgood's scenes ended up on the cutting room floor, and I think she was supposed to one of the dramatic pillars of the film (but I don't know for sure, I haven't seen it yet).

Sure-Oz
05-22-2009, 04:03 PM
I'm not sure if it's violence they cut or dramatic scenes. I've read that a lot of moon bloodgood's scenes ended up on the cutting room floor, and I think she was supposed to one of the dramatic pillars of the film (but I don't know for sure, I haven't seen it yet).
I heard she was supposed to show her rack, that probably explains it

keg in kc
05-22-2009, 04:23 PM
I heard she was supposed to show her rack, that probably explains itOh man, they cut THAT?!?!?!?

WTF

Miles
05-22-2009, 04:33 PM
Oh man, they cut THAT?!?!?!?

WTF

If anyone ever needed a reason to bitch about the whole "everything must be PG-13" thing, this should be it.

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 06:05 PM
You may indeed get beat stupid for asking that.

Avatar is Cameron's next magnum opus, due December 18th. Science fiction movie that's supposed to revolutionize...everything. We're going to wake up that morning and be different people. I think it's the end date of the mayan calendar or something.

Synopsis:In a distant future, humanity discovers the planet 'Alpha Centauri B-4', and for those scientists and astronauts who've traversed the gulf between neighboring suns and arrived on its alien soil know it as 'Pandora'. A world filled with an incredible diversity of beautiful and deadly ammonia-breathing lifeforms. It's also a world that harbors treasures and resources almost beyond price. But just as the original Pandora's Box wrought devastation on those who would use it for their own gain, so too this world may destroy not just the Pandorans' home, but ours as well.

Avatar is the story of a wounded ex-marine, thrust unwillingly into an effort to settle and exploit an exotic planet rich in bio-diversity, who eventually crosses over to lead the indigenous race in a battle for survival.
Is it in any way related to the Avatar anime series? Dear God, I hope not, as anime translated to big screen live action tends to result in major suckage (case in point: Dragonball Z: Evolution, which sucked in ways that very few movies have ever sucked before).

keg in kc
05-22-2009, 06:07 PM
Is it in any way related to the Avatar anime series? No, it's completely original.

(sidebar: M Night Shamalamadingdong is doing Avatar: The Last Airbender)

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 06:12 PM
No, it's completely original.
Good!

(sidebar: M Night Shamalamadingdong is doing Avatar: The Last Airbender)
Ouch! I thoroughly enjoyed The Sixth Sense (one of my favorite films of all time), and mostly enjoyed Unbreakable. Signs had its moments. The Village was tragic (not the story, the movie). The Lady in the Water was even worse than that. I didn't even bother to see The Happening. Every film has gotten progressively worse, and now he's resorting to adapting anime? Ugh!

keg in kc
05-22-2009, 06:22 PM
Just for some more information on Cameron's Avatar, it's being done in collaboration with Weta Digital, it'll be a fully digital 3D presentation, and IMAX has already set up their schedule so that those theaters will carry it for THREE months. They expect it to be that big...

People who've seen parts of it are already calling it 'revolutionary', and apparently it's nigh on impossible to tell what's real and what's not, completely seamless CGI...

I (intentionally) don't know a whole lot more, because I want to go into it as cold as possible.

Sure-Oz
05-22-2009, 06:26 PM
So avatar is his own creation?

keg in kc
05-22-2009, 06:28 PM
Yep.

Rumor (I think) is the first trailer will arrive with Transformers 2. Which is perhaps incentive to see that movie in IMAX.

jiveturkey
05-22-2009, 06:51 PM
I liked Terminator but agree that it's missing something. The action was great. The Harvester is one of the coolest machines ever built (or animated).

I usually like Christian Bale but he overacted his way through this. Sam Worthington was great though.

Sure-Oz
05-22-2009, 06:53 PM
Keep hearing good things about Sam Worthington alot lately. I guess he is in Avatar and Clash of the Titans coming up as well. The new gerard butler?

keg in kc
05-22-2009, 06:53 PM
Sam Worthington was great though.He's the lead in Avatar, btw.

Zoe Saldana's in it as well (Uhura from the New Star Trek). Along with Michelle Rodriguez, Sigourney Weaver and Giovanni Ribisi.

jiveturkey
05-22-2009, 06:56 PM
He's the lead in Avatar, btw.

Zoe Saldana's in it as well (Uhura from the New Star Trek). Along with Michelle Rodriguez, Sigourney Weaver and Giovanni Ribisi.

I keep hearing about Avatar but never really looked into. You've sold it and I'm headin' to IMDB. ;)

Miles
05-22-2009, 07:09 PM
Keep hearing good things about Sam Worthington alot lately. I guess he is in Avatar and Clash of the Titans coming up as well. The new gerard butler?

I looked him up on IMDB and realized I had seen him before in an Australian flick a while back called Dirty Deeds.

Deberg_1990
05-22-2009, 07:20 PM
Just for some more information on Cameron's Avatar, it's being done in collaboration with Weta Digital, it'll be a fully digital 3D presentation, and IMAX has already set up their schedule so that those theaters will carry it for THREE months. They expect it to be that big...

People who've seen parts of it are already calling it 'revolutionary', and apparently it's nigh on impossible to tell what's real and what's not, completely seamless CGI...

I (intentionally) don't know a whole lot more, because I want to go into it as cold as possible.


Cameron has pretty much always been on the cutting edge of special effects. Heck, he practically invented the use of CGI effects in The Abyss and T2. (when he started filming he wasnt even 100% certain they could pull those off)

IMO what makes him great is his storytelling ability. Not only are his movies cutting edge, he always keeps everything grounded with great stories.

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 10:39 PM
I usually like Christian Bale but he overacted his way through this.
He either overacts or underacts in almost every role he plays in. As acting talent goes, he pretty much sucks.

Reaper16
05-22-2009, 10:55 PM
Is it in any way related to the Avatar anime series? Dear God, I hope not, as anime translated to big screen live action tends to result in major suckage (case in point: Dragonball Z: Evolution, which sucked in ways that very few movies have ever sucked before).

Avatar: the Last Airbender is certainly inspired by anime, but it being 100% U.S. made I wouldn't call it an anime show. While Cameron's Avatar is not at all related to the cartoon, M. Night Shyamalan is directing a live-action adaptation of that cartoon called The Last Airbender.

Also, while I'm nitpicking :) that terrible movie was Dragonball: Evolution, based off of later story arcs of the show Dragonball, not that show's sequel (Dragonball Z).

Reaper16
05-22-2009, 10:56 PM
He either overacts or underacts in almost every role he plays in. As acting talent goes, he pretty much sucks.
The Machinist? Empire of the Sun? Newsies?

Nightwish
05-22-2009, 11:58 PM
The Machinist? Empire of the Sun? Newsies?
I'm not saying none of his movies are impressive. Just that he isn't impressive in them. The movies of his that are good, are good in spite of Bale.

arrowheadnation
05-23-2009, 12:26 AM
Man....critics don't know $hit! They need to get over themselves. I thought this movie was great. I would think it's pretty obvious that the last installment will center around the creation of a teleportation device and of course, the eradication of skynet. Again, if you're a Terminator fan, you owe it to yourself to go see this. I give it 8 out of 10.

Tribal Warfare
05-23-2009, 02:12 AM
. Again, if you're a Terminator fan,

Right!!!!!!!!! Bastardizing the series with watered down content and storytelling, I'm passing on this and I'm one of the biggest Terminator fans on here.

Fire Me Boy!
05-23-2009, 08:12 AM
Man....critics don't know $hit! They need to get over themselves. I thought this movie was great. I would think it's pretty obvious that the last installment will center around the creation of a teleportation device and of course, the eradication of skynet. Again, if you're a Terminator fan, you owe it to yourself to go see this. I give it 8 out of 10.

Maybe it's the former critic in me that says this, but Bull. Shit.

The movie isn't bad, by any means. It's not as good as 1 or 2, but significantly better than 3.

It has it's problems - the story is meh, the dialogue is not particularly good, and the story isn't that engaging.

It may be worth seeing in the theater just to feel the seat rumble and get the action/effects on the big screen. Movies like this are always better on the big screen.

But 8/10... Bull. Shit. Not even close. Not up for discussion. Your and idiot.

Deberg_1990
05-23-2009, 08:24 AM
Maybe it's the former critic in me that says this, but Bull. Shit.

The movie isn't bad, by any means. It's not as good as 1 or 2, but significantly better than 3.

It has it's problems - the story is meh, the dialogue is not particularly good, and the story isn't that engaging.

It may be worth seeing in the theater just to feel the seat rumble and get the action/effects on the big screen. Movies like this are always better on the big screen.

But 8/10... Bull. Shit. Not even close. Not up for discussion. Your and idiot.

Well like i mentioned earlier, there will always be a certain segment out there that only craves the "Boom and Bang"

Nothing wrong with it, i just wish they wouldnt do it with established classics. Thats what movies like Transformers are for.

The Terminator series used to be more than just "Booms" and CGI.

Sure-Oz
05-23-2009, 09:41 AM
I am excited to see this with my mindset on 'transformers' type fun with the action..i hope the next one is more serious though and has a tone like t1 or t2 with the story

bango
05-23-2009, 09:53 AM
It was not bad. I agree with almost all of the commenst made by thsoe who have seen it.

the Talking Can
05-23-2009, 03:40 PM
well, it isn't bad in the sense of inept...but it is average, dull...the story just goes click click click along....

it just doesn't create any real excitement, i've already forgotten what happened

plus, for me, the driving/highway chase scenes made me think of Road Warrior, and how much better Road Warrior is than this movie..like 100000 x 100000 times better...

the Talking Can
05-23-2009, 03:47 PM
plus the robots are ridiculously stupid in this movie

there a a dozen wtf? moments....

Halfcan
05-23-2009, 03:48 PM
I think I will wait til DVD on this one.

jiveturkey
05-23-2009, 03:56 PM
My wife asked a good question after the movie.

What would the robots do after they eradicated all humans? Would they shut themselves down?

bowener
05-23-2009, 04:09 PM
I didnt think it was that bad at all. Talked to 5 other people who were certain it would be awful, but they all thought it was pretty good.

I think part of the writing could be better, but I have to keep in mind that when they wrote this they were/are planning on making at least 2 more movies I believe, so it kind of has to leave some gaps here and there and leave a lot to be desired at times.

bowener
05-23-2009, 04:13 PM
My wife asked a good question after the movie.

What would the robots do after they eradicated all humans? Would they shut themselves down?

Most of them, yes.
It is a defense system built by humans that has gone awry. It doesnt have to have a future purpose that changes or anything. It was built to protect (the US apparently and for the most part) and once the AI was turned on it deemed us the biggest threat and logically destroyed, or attempted to destroy all humans, thus reaching its primary and only objective which is to protect (the US?).

Just think of it as one big computer with a whole lot of functionable and cool looking peripheries... only instead of a cool new laser mouse, this computer gets a cool new cyborg that shoots lasers at mice.

edit:

You can also think of it similar to the worries during the cold war. If the USA's nuclear missiles accidentally launched then Russia would launch all of theirs in a mechanical response, killing everything automatically. Only in this movie universe the Russian missiles have been replaced by crazy awesome looking metal humanoid skeleton killers and awesome giant robots and airplanes, and the USA's missiles have been replaced with human beings as a whole... us bastards!

Tribal Warfare
05-23-2009, 04:33 PM
thus reaching its primary and only objective which is to protect (the US?).



Final conclusion to save humanity from itself humanity must be destroyed.

Sure-Oz
05-23-2009, 06:05 PM
Well, lets hope mcg keeps the cool looking robots/action and gets someone who can build up more story, still havent seen it but i hope i like it.

Hopefully he learns from the reviews...and negativity towards this.

Delano
05-23-2009, 06:53 PM
This was lots of fun, but I was LMAO at the ending.

the Talking Can
05-23-2009, 08:25 PM
This was lots of fun, but I was LMAO at the ending.

the same heart that a terminator had destroyed and was dead for hours...now used as a transplant? and a heart transplant done in 30 kinutes outside in a desert? wtf?

Fire Me Boy!
05-23-2009, 08:26 PM
Hey BWillie007... 4321.

I'll call the guy an idiot if I want. I've been around long enough that people that know me know that I pretty open minded toward people and their views, and this guy has every right to love the movie.

Frankly, I'm glad he did enjoy it. I hope he loves it so much he sees it twice, because there's nothing better than genuinely being entertained.

People call others idiots around here all the time, and it doesn't mean shit. It certainly doesn't mean I actually think he's an idiot. Calling someone an idiot around here is nothing more than a way of saying you disagree.

I think his take on the film being 8/10 is dead wrong, but that's my prerogative, just like it's his prerogative to say I'm an idiot for liking Dick freakin' Tracy or thinking Eyes Wide Shut is one of Kubrick's best films and thinking that Jada Pinkett Smith is not only flat out unattractive, but a piss poor actress.

He could say that. And I wouldn't take it personally.

This entire place is juvenile, and you being around as long as you've been around should have figured that out by now.

So get the **** over it. Your and idiot too.

And so am I. And so is Claythan. And so is Guru. And so is Buckin Kaeding.

I took the time to come up with a comprehensive list of all Chiefsplanet idiots (I promise - it's a real link, no Rick Roll; if it is, neg rep me into oblivion): http://tinyurl.com/cp-idiots

And I bloody well reserve the right to call every last one of them on it. And everyone: You all have my permission to call me on it. It's OK.

Count Alex's Losses
05-23-2009, 08:28 PM
Dick Tracy rules.

Fire Me Boy!
05-23-2009, 08:30 PM
Dick Tracy rules.

Yeah it does!

Gravedigger
05-23-2009, 08:34 PM
I remember when that movie came out and my brother in law really wanted to see it. After it ended he went out of his way to apologize to us for making us watch it.


Alien Resurrection was good until the end, with that Alien Human hybrid child thing was just retarded. Think of a new ending and it automatically becomes a decent Aliens flick.

Fire Me Boy!
05-23-2009, 08:37 PM
Alien Resurrection was good until the end, with that Alien Human hybrid child thing was just retarded. Think of a new ending and it automatically becomes a decent Aliens flick.

:Lin:

Those movies went downhill from the start. Alien was amazing, Aliens was great, Alien 3 was meh, and Alien Resurrection blows. A new ending wouldn't come close to fixing that movie (IMO, for BWillie, so he doesn't think I think you're an idiot).

keg in kc
05-23-2009, 08:37 PM
Anybody that thinks Dick Tracy was good should be castrated immediately for the sake of humanity's future.

Fire Me Boy!
05-23-2009, 08:38 PM
Anybody that thinks Dick Tracy was good should be castrated immediately for the sake of humanity's future.

ROFL

I never said it was a good film.

I just love it.

Sure-Oz
05-23-2009, 08:39 PM
Hey BWillie007... 4321.

I'll call the guy an idiot if I want. I've been around long enough that people that know me know that I pretty open minded toward people and their views, and this guy has every right to love the movie.

Frankly, I'm glad he did enjoy it. I hope he loves it so much he sees it twice, because there's nothing better than genuinely being entertained.

People call others idiots around here all the time, and it doesn't mean shit. It certainly doesn't mean I actually think he's an idiot. Calling someone an idiot around here is nothing more than a way of saying you disagree.

I think his take on the film being 8/10 is dead wrong, but that's my prerogative, just like it's his prerogative to say I'm an idiot for liking Dick freakin' Tracy or thinking Eyes Wide Shut is one of Kubrick's best films and thinking that Jada Pinkett Smith is not only flat out unattractive, but a piss poor actress.

He could say that. And I wouldn't take it personally.

This entire place is juvenile, and you being around as long as you've been around should have figured that out by now.

So get the **** over it. Your and idiot too.

And so am I. And so is Claythan. And so is Guru. And so is Buckin Kaeding.

I took the time to come up with a comprehensive list of all Chiefsplanet idiots (I promise - it's a real link, no Rick Roll; if it is, neg rep me into oblivion): http://tinyurl.com/cp-idiots

And I bloody well reserve the right to call every last one of them on it. And everyone: You all have my permission to call me on it. It's OK.

I don't you've ever called me an idiot, im offended!;)

Count Alex's Losses
05-23-2009, 08:40 PM
Dude it IS a good film.

Vastly entertaining.

EVERY MAN wants to marry Tess Trueheart.

keg in kc
05-23-2009, 08:42 PM
Anybody who refers to Dick Tracy as a "film" should be castrated for the sake of humanity's future.

Sure-Oz
05-23-2009, 08:42 PM
Dude it IS a good film.

Vastly entertaining.

EVERY MAN wants to marry Tess Trueheart.

Did you see Terminator yet?

Fire Me Boy!
05-23-2009, 08:45 PM
Dude it IS a good film.

Vastly entertaining.

EVERY MAN wants to marry Tess Trueheart.

I even wanted to bone her in The Amateurs. Have you seen that? Really a fun movie. About a divorcee (Jeff Bridges) who figures to help himself he and his buddies need to make an amateur porn. Quality humor, really. Good cast.

Fire Me Boy!
05-23-2009, 08:46 PM
I don't you've ever called me an idiot, im offended!;)

Your and idiot. You and your little dog, your stupid beret, and those dumbass shoes.

Count Alex's Losses
05-23-2009, 08:50 PM
Did you see Terminator yet?

No I WAS WITH A WOMAN AND SHE PREFERRED ANOTHER MOVIE.

But, no. Maybe this week.

Fire Me Boy!
05-23-2009, 08:52 PM
No I WAS WITH A WOMAN AND SHE PREFERRED ANOTHER MOVIE.

But, no. Maybe this week.

Yeah, I haven't seen Lars and the Real Girl yet either.

Count Alex's Losses
05-23-2009, 08:53 PM
Yeah, I haven't seen Lars and the Real Girl yet either.

ROFL

Sure-Oz
05-23-2009, 09:03 PM
Your and idiot. You and your little dog, your stupid beret, and those dumbass shoes.

ROFL

Fire Me Boy!
05-23-2009, 09:06 PM
ROFL

I have no idea where any of that came from.

Delano
05-23-2009, 09:14 PM
the same heart that a terminator had destroyed and was dead for hours...now used as a transplant? and a heart transplant done in 30 kinutes outside in a desert? wtf?

ROFL

i like how they knew it was a perfect match without doing any blood tests too.

the Talking Can
05-23-2009, 09:32 PM
ROFL

i like how they knew it was a perfect match without doing any blood tests too.

holy crap, i totally missed that....they should have just left the bit out, that's when "guy with 3 letter name" shows his limits...we didn't need any more symbolism at that point...

JuicesFlowing
05-23-2009, 09:53 PM
Every movie critic is a douchebag. No matter what their ratings are, they are still douchebags who get paid to watch movies. They think that their opinion is the only opinion. Fuck them. I'll watch whatever movie that I want to watch based on my own judgment.

keg in kc
05-23-2009, 09:55 PM
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach are critics. Those who can't be critics, are on bulletin boards. Like me.

Fire Me Boy!
05-23-2009, 09:57 PM
I'm a "recovering" critic.

That said, those six years were the best job I ever had, and I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

JuicesFlowing
05-23-2009, 09:59 PM
Every movie critic is a douchebag. No matter what their ratings are, they are still douchebags who get paid to watch movies. They think that their opinion is the only opinion. **** them. I'll watch whatever movie that I want to watch based on my own judgment.

Um, having said that, I'd give anything to get paid to watch movies and tell people my opinion. Heh.

dirk digler
05-23-2009, 10:47 PM
I went to see the movie at the new AMC on Mainstreet in KC. Great venue btw and it was loud as fuck and the seats vibrate which is cool.

Anyway I thought the movie was pretty good and I enjoyed it. I wish they would have developed the characters more and Sam Worthington stole the show IMHO. Overall 3 out of 5 stars.

FAX
05-23-2009, 10:55 PM
I say screw the tomato peeps and the vine they rode in on.

I really, really liked the new Terminator movie. In fact, it was one of the best so far. It's a tough franchise to keep going since the whole killer robot deal has been done and done. Nevertheless, I thought they did a damn good job with it and I enjoyed it.

As for Wolverine, I liked it, too. I swear, some people act like they want a friggin' mountaintop experience when they go to the movies.

FAX

Guru
05-24-2009, 12:43 AM
Hey BWillie007... 4321.

I'll call the guy an idiot if I want. I've been around long enough that people that know me know that I pretty open minded toward people and their views, and this guy has every right to love the movie.

Frankly, I'm glad he did enjoy it. I hope he loves it so much he sees it twice, because there's nothing better than genuinely being entertained.

People call others idiots around here all the time, and it doesn't mean shit. It certainly doesn't mean I actually think he's an idiot. Calling someone an idiot around here is nothing more than a way of saying you disagree.

I think his take on the film being 8/10 is dead wrong, but that's my prerogative, just like it's his prerogative to say I'm an idiot for liking Dick freakin' Tracy or thinking Eyes Wide Shut is one of Kubrick's best films and thinking that Jada Pinkett Smith is not only flat out unattractive, but a piss poor actress.

He could say that. And I wouldn't take it personally.

This entire place is juvenile, and you being around as long as you've been around should have figured that out by now.

So get the **** over it. Your and idiot too.

And so am I. And so is Claythan. And so is Guru. And so is Buckin Kaeding.

I took the time to come up with a comprehensive list of all Chiefsplanet idiots (I promise - it's a real link, no Rick Roll; if it is, neg rep me into oblivion): http://tinyurl.com/cp-idiots

And I bloody well reserve the right to call every last one of them on it. And everyone: You all have my permission to call me on it. It's OK.Listen here you damn IDIOT. ;):D

Huffman83
05-24-2009, 01:23 AM
Saw it this afternoon. It wasn't that bad! It is pretty sad that the guy playing a robot was more dramatic and human than Bale was.

Sure-Oz
05-24-2009, 10:04 AM
I say screw the tomato peeps and the vine they rode in on.

I really, really liked the new Terminator movie. In fact, it was one of the best so far. It's a tough franchise to keep going since the whole killer robot deal has been done and done. Nevertheless, I thought they did a damn good job with it and I enjoyed it.

As for Wolverine, I liked it, too. I swear, some people act like they want a friggin' mountaintop experience when they go to the movies.

FAX
Thanks for the review fax...

I am the type that likes to go enjoy and not nitpick as much, that said i have my 'favorites' and hope they do well and its something i like. I hated t3 and wanted to like it so bad. For the most part im in between when it comes to movies. Hopefully ill see it today

Sure-Oz
05-24-2009, 10:05 AM
Saw it this afternoon. It wasn't that bad! It is pretty sad that the guy playing a robot was more dramatic and human than Bale was.

Blame that on the script likely...he's just a super hardass apparently that has the burden of the world on him, so he probably would be a robot at that point, right?

keg in kc
05-24-2009, 10:37 AM
I say screw the tomato peeps and the vine they rode in on.It's not the tomato peeps that have rated the film low, it's mainstream critics. They have the film at 34% fresh (157 reviews, 54 fresh/103 rotten). Whereas the actual tomato peeps, that being the rottentomatoes community itself, have the movie at 73% fresh, out of 900+ total reviews.

Fire Me Boy!
05-24-2009, 10:59 AM
It's not the tomato peeps that have rated the film low, it's mainstream critics. They have the film at 34% fresh (157 reviews, 54 fresh/103 rotten). Whereas the actual tomato peeps, that being the rottentomatoes community itself, have the movie at 73% fresh, out of 900+ total reviews.

The non-descriminating masses cannot be trusted. :harumph:

Tribal Warfare
05-24-2009, 12:41 PM
It's not the tomato peeps that have rated the film low, it's mainstream critics. They have the film at 34% fresh (157 reviews, 54 fresh/103 rotten). Whereas the actual tomato peeps, that being the rottentomatoes community itself, have the movie at 73% fresh, out of 900+ total reviews.

the RT peeps also gave T3 a 70% approval rating too

Sure-Oz
05-24-2009, 12:52 PM
the RT peeps also gave T3 a 70% approval rating too

The pros gave it like a 70 something percent too:shake:

keg in kc
05-24-2009, 02:11 PM
The non-descriminating masses cannot be trusted. :harumph:They buy the tickets, they're the only ones that really matter.

FYI, I just saw it. It's not some achievement in filmmaking, but I think it is a good start to a new trilogy. We'll see where they go from here.

FAX
05-24-2009, 02:46 PM
Thanks for the review fax...

I am the type that likes to go enjoy and not nitpick as much, that said i have my 'favorites' and hope they do well and its something i like. I hated t3 and wanted to like it so bad. For the most part im in between when it comes to movies. Hopefully ill see it today

This post sort of got my brain working a little and I had a thought ...

Basically, I realized that I sometimes go to a movie (depending upon the director, usually) with the intent and expectation to analyze the film both from a technical and creative point of view. Movies like "No Country For Old Men" fall into that category, for example.

But so far as other movies are concerned, I just want to sit back with some popcorn and a coke and be entertained without thinking about it too much. I approach practically all the SCI-FI, Superhero, Fantasy flicks that way. I have very low expectations and I just want to be transported for a couple of hours and not worry about how well they execute the film. Occasionally, though, a movie in that genre comes along that provides both compelling storytelling and good fun - the latest Batman and IronMan accomplished that for me. When that happens, it's a bonus.

Generally, if I have high expectations for a film, I'm almost always disappointed. So, I have two rules if I'm looking forward to seeing a movie; 1) Know as little as possible about the film and 2) Don't expect much.

It's just like blind dates or hamburgers. When I stick to those rules, I almost always feel as though I got my money's worth.

FAX

Rausch
05-24-2009, 03:11 PM
Blame that on the script likely...he's just a super hardass apparently that has the burden of the world on him, so he probably would be a robot at that point, right?

This is what bothered me about the movie.

The Human-ator got as much or more screen time than John Connor.

Why?

The scenes with him should have been cut in half and more of John's character should have been explored.

keg in kc
05-24-2009, 04:53 PM
Interesting:EXCLUSIVE: WHAT WENT WRONG WITH TERMINATOR SALVATION? (http://chud.com/articles/articles/19577/1/EXCLUSIVE-WHAT-WENT-WRONG-WITH-TERMINATOR-SALVATION/Page1.html)

* By Devin Faraci
* Published Today

This article, while about an alternate version of Terminator Salvation, does contain spoilers for the version in theaters now.

The Terminator Salvation you saw on movie screens this weekend was not always the Terminator Salvation that was meant to be. Like in the franchise itself, history has been changed, and the original script for Terminator Salvation ended up getting gutted. You can still see the outlines of that script in the current film (a form of deja vu, as similar vestigial script elements can be seen in this summer's blockbuster hit Star Trek), but the specifics that might have made Terminator Salvation if not better at least more interesting are gone.

What caused these massive changes? And what were they? The biggest change came when McG flew to the UK to talk to Christian Bale about starring in the fourth Terminator movie. The director wanted the Batman star to play Marcus Wright, the cyborg protagonist of the script. But Bale focused on another part: John Connor. The only problem is that John Connor had about three minutes of screen time in the entire film; most of Connor's moments were played offscreen. In the original script John Connor was the secretive leader of the Resistance. He lived on the HQ sub, and almost no one saw his face, so as to keep him hidden from the robots. Connor made radio addresses and existed as a legend for the fighting men and women of the Resistance, but in the original script Connor didn't show up onscreen until the last minutes of the movie.

You may remember in late 2007 when the rumor that Bale was signing on to Terminator 4 surfaced there were two competing reports: while Aint It Cool had Bale tipped to play Connor, we had him tipped to play a Terminator. As you can see both are correct; for a little while people involved in the film were assuming that Bale was going to let go of the Connor idea and move over to the Marcus role, but he had something else up his sleeve: massive rewrites to beef up the John Connor role.

Watching Terminator Salvation as it exists in theaters it's easy to see that this was a bad idea. The script that ended up getting shot never quite finds anything for John Connor to do. If you were to remove Connor from the film, relegating him once again to radio voice over, almost none of the film's plot would be changed. It's likely that the new Connor scenes were the work of Jonathan Nolan, who did do a lot of writing on the film, but who was denied credit by the WGA. The reason would be that all of the work Nolan did was cosmetic - adding Connor scenes that had no bearing on the film's structure or plot.

Bale's desire to star as John Connor was probably the most fatal blow to the film; it completely distorted the shape of the story as it existed. But the other fatal blow came from the internet. When the original ending of the script leaked - John Connor is killed by a Terminator and has his skin grafted onto Marcus Wright, who takes up the shadowy leader's place as the leader of the Resistance - many people went crazy. On the surface it seemed like a major slap in the face of the franchise, and doubly so on paper: John Connor, the guy who the entire franchise is ostensibly about, shows up for two and a half pages, gets killed and has his face transplanted onto a robot (in the original script it's actually just the face that gets slapped on Marcus).

There are differing reports as to how far that ending made it. McG has gone on the record again and again saying that was never the ending he wanted (he came on to the project after the script we're talking about here was written), but there's a lot of contrary evidence, including on-set reports that have 'Connor becomes robot' written on production calendars. The entire finished film itself feels like evidence that the original ending was always the intended ending. The movie seems to be inexorably building towards the 'Connor dies' finale, including elements like endless scenes featuring Sarah Connor's tapes, obviously intended to give Marcus/Connor a primer on John Connor's life and destiny. In fact, when John Connor got a pole through the chest I was excited - had McG been lying to us all along and kept the original ending?

Of course he wasn't. The film's biggest weakness comes in the final minutes, which feel almost completely slapped on, as the character we've been following makes a sudden and boring sacrifice. The air just explodes out of the movie as John Connor's rescue feels utterly unearned, and the ending of the movie is so final that you walk out of the theater not caring whether or not the future war is ever again revisited.

So what might have been? Before the Bale rewrites and before the internet kiboshed the original ending?

With John Connor relegated to the shadows for most of the film, the original Terminator Salvation focused more on the relationship between Kyle and Marcus. Star was always there, and was essentially always just as useless, but without the constant cutaways to pointless Connor scenes the film was able to delve more into Kyle/Marcus. The script spent time examining what it was like living in a post-apocalyptic world, and was more definitively R-rated. At the gas station Marcus saves Kyle and Star from a group of cannibals, throwing one of them into an open fire (intended as a callback to the biker on the stove in T2. It's important to note that the original script by extraordinary hacks Brancato and Ferris - the guys who wrote The Net, Catwoman and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines - is not some discarded gem. It's got plenty of problems of its own).

But again, with Connor out of the script the relationship between Kyle and Marcus gets to grow, which gives Marcus' later quest to rescue Kyle more weight. And the early scenes where Kyle can't drive are paid off in this script, first with a sequence where Marcus teaches him to drive and later, in the third act, where Kyle gets the final heroic beat he's missing in the finished film.

As in the final film Kyle and Star are captured by Skynet and transported to Skynet City, but with one major change: Skynet has no idea who Kyle Reese is. This is a point that bothers many viewers of the final film; I'm not radically concerned, as Kyle Reese's time traveling shenanigans are public record enough that it's believable Skynet would have found out about him while taking over the world's computer networks. But by having Skynet not know who Kyle is the original script removes the machines' idiotic plan to bring John Connor to Skynet City instead of simply killing his dad. This feels like the kind of change that was made to give John Connor more to do, since the whole sequence where Connor convinces the Resistance forces to step down doesn't occur in this script (and why would it? He's Michael Ironsides in this movie).

Marcus' adventures with Blair are slightly different. In the original script he saves Blair from a pack of rabid wolves as opposed to horny rapists. This scene was important because it gives Marcus his first awareness that he's much faster and stronger than he used to be, something he couldn't quite prove against humans in a PG-13 movie (although could you wreck a group of wolves in a PG-13 movie?). In the finished film Blair and Marcus have a tender moment; the original script takes things very, very differently: Blair offers Marcus a STAF. That's Sit Tight And ****, a phrase in common use in the Resistance. See, it's a horrible, miserable future and the humans of the time have gotten over their petty prudery. If the only joy they can get is ****ing, why not take it? Life is cheap and they may not live to see the next night, so tap whatever ass you can.

The next big change comes when Marcus is captured by the Resistance. John Connor remains offscreen and he interrogates Marcus via com-link. But Connor is thinking like the John Connor who has become used to temporal assassination attempts, and he believes that Marcus has been sent from an even more advanced future to kill him. Meanwhile, we have more cutaways to Kyle Reese being transported to Skynet City; this script really forwards Reese in a way that the finished movie fails to do.

Marcus escapes the Resistance more or less as seen in the finished and heads to Skynet City. And it's here that the major changes really come into play.

In the original script the title Terminator Salvation actually meant something. Watching the finished film it's hard to figure out why it has that name - is it because Marcus saves Connor's life in the last minute? In the original script Serena has a bigger role than a quick cameo, and she explains the salvation element.

Marcus comes to Skynet City and finds... a seaside resort populated with humans. He sees Terminator landscapers! It turns out that Skynet hasn't been trying to wipe out humanity. It's been trying to save us.

This is perhaps the most bizarre idea in the whole script, and the one that most obviously doesn't work. It seems as though Brancato and Ferris thought people liked the Matrix sequels, as this all feels like it could be in those films. See, Serena heads Project ANGEL, which is making Hybrids (ie, Cyborgs). The reason? Skynet did a calculation and realized that humanity was going to be extinct in 200 years; the machines decided to save a few by turning them into Hybrids and wipe the rest out. It makes no sense, and is the kind of thing that makes you wonder if these guys ever even watched the previous Terminator films.

What's fascinating is that the Project ANGEL stuff lasted well into production. While I was on set I was given a security badge that gave me access to all the stages; it had Project ANGEL's logo on it. While being given a tour of pre-production artwork we were told more about Project ANGEL and the role it would have in the movie, a role that's completely removed from the final film. At the time I visited the set it seemed like Serena was going to show up in person at the end of the movie, just as she does in the script, and I saw artwork depicting that.

It's here that you can really understand where Terminator Salvation fell to pieces. The film was being rewritten, piecemeal, on the set. Instead of re-engineering the whole picture it seems like McG and company were just tackling each segment, figuring out how to get John Connor more involved without fixing the underlying structure at which they were picking away.

Serena, a cyborg herself, meets Marcus and explains Project ANGEL and the seaside resort to him. She also explains the Transport chip - it's embedded in all cyborgs and prevents them from feeling pain and emotion. She then gives Marcus a tour of the whole Skynet City, showing off the T-800s that are being developed and giving him a peak at the T-1000 and T-X in the earliest stages. She also shows him the time machine technology they've been working on, and the neural net AI database of human brains, which will allow the Terminators to better act like humans and as such better infiltrate human encampments.

Then the big shock: Marcus is too late. Kyle's brain has been removed and he's been uploaded to the neural net database, and Star has been terminated. All hope is lost, and Serena has activated his Transport chip, so Marcus can't do anything.

Just then there's an explosion. Serena is distracted and, just like in the finished film (where it actually makes less sense), Marcus rips out his Transport chip. He then jumps into the time machine, which burns his clothes off, and he goes back in time just far enough to rescue Kyle and Star, grab a laser weapon and set off the explosion that distracted Serena (whether or not Brancato and Ferris were watching Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey while writing this scene is unconfirmed). And then the action begins.

The trio try to escape Skynet City with Kyle driving an ATV, paying off his driving lessons. They're pursued by Hunter/Killer Terminator Tanks, and they take most of them out as they rip through the seaside resort (including killing one Tank by... making it drive into a pool), but they end up on a dock and with one last H/K tank about to end them. Then suddenly Blair shows up leading an airstrike that destroys the tank. Then the sub surfaces, and John Connor finally makes his appearance, leading human troops in combat against the Terminators at the resort. Connor and Kyle meet, but it's not a big moment.

Marcus has rescued a bunch of humans while at Skynet City and the Resistance take them aboard the sub. Everybody is happy and it seems like the Resistance has won the day when Marcus suddenly realizes that Serena is among the refugees. She attacks, blowing off his arm and gut shooting John Connor. Fade to black.

Later Marcus wakes up in the hospital. Blair tells him that they're covering up Project ANGEL - even within the film this was too stupid to let anyone know about it. But there's bad news: John Connor's not going to make it. His wound is fatal. On his death bed John Connor gives Kyle the picture of Sarah Connor (when I interviewed Anton Yelchin he confirmed that this scene had been cut before shooting, which he thought was a good idea. That does make it seem like the original ending was never intended for production). John and Kate beg Marcus to take up the mantle of John Connor - since no one has really seen him anybody can be him. The legend is bigger than the man, they insist.

Marcus agrees, and John Connor's face is grafted onto Marcus (this, it turns out, is the source of Connor's scars. You would think they would have cut off his face from the back of the head, under the hair, but I guess not), despite the fact that nobody really knows what Connor looks like anyway. But it's done, and Connor dies and Marcus now must step up and lead the Resistance into the future.

In a lot of ways the original Terminator Salvation script is still poking through in the final film. In fact, except for the additional John Connor nonsense in the first two acts, the opening two-thirds of the movie (minus the prologue, which was not in this script) more or less follow the original beats. These are the best parts of the movie, and it's when the finished film moves into the third act that everything starts falling apart. It's obvious that McG and Jonathan Nolan never really cracked their own third act, and without the death of John Connor they never found a reason for this movie to even exist. In effect what they've done with their undercooked third act is make a movie that's a TV episode - in the end everything is more or less back at the status quo. And by backgrounding Kyle and robbing him of his third act heroics, the finished film has taken away its only other good reason to exist, namely that it's the beginnings of the Connor/Reese friendship.

Would the original ending have worked? People would have walked out of theaters mad, no doubt. But it was a ballsy idea that could have been executed better than it was in the script. You don't even need to do the face transplant - have Marcus be the original owner of those John Connor scars the whole movie and they'd read like a reveal at the finale. The ending of Salvation now is so pat that it isn't the opening of a new trilogy but just another boring prequel, setting up things we already knew about. Killing Connor would have been shocking and would have added drama to the upcoming installments. Hell, it sounds like Skynet City offered pretty great technology to the heroes - why not have Connor's brain downloaded into Marcus' body?

These are all pointless considerations now. The finished film opted to play utterly safe, and as a result it's a lump without buzz or excitement. Ironically Bale's demand to beef up John Connor, which led to a final film that is utterly distended, would have perfectly set up the character's demise. The biggest problem with Connor dying at the end of the original script is that his death carries no weight as he's a nobody throughout the film. But in the current movie, which feels like it's building to that death, it would have been the kind of surprise that works, one that's had a foundation laid.

The beefing up of Connor led to the diminishment of Reese, a big problem in the final product. Anton Yelchin came on to Terminator Salvation at a time when he was the second lead; I imagine his demotion must have been disheartening. And to audiences it's disappointing as Yelchin is the best actor in the piece. A Terminator Salvation with twice as much Yelchin might very well have been a movie that was more enjoyable, in the same way that Star Trek overcomes its script handicaps with great casting.

Looking at this weekend's box office it's likely that Terminator Salvation is the end of the franchise. And it's probably the end of Christian Bale forcing major rewrites on projects as well. I do think that a smarter rewrite of the original Brancato/Ferris script, one that allowed for a truly shocking ending, might have turned out a film whose failure at the box office would have been worth mourning. While I enjoyed myself watching Salvation, at no point did I really give a shit about what was happening or what was going to happen next in the series. McG and Nolan muddied the end of the picture, delivering action generics (yet another Terminator fight in a factory) while never finding their own hook that would give this movie more of an impact than you would get from an expanded universe novel. The only thing that was really, truly broken in Brancato and Ferris' script was Project ANGEL, and the finished film doesn't really give Skynet any better motivation for collecting humans. McG, fearing the fan backlash (which was already starting when the original ending leaked) opted to 'fix' the element that least needed fixing.

Gravedigger
05-24-2009, 08:31 PM
Are these people fuggin stupid? He signed on to do three films, Bale did, so why in the last paragraph would they say this is the last film in the franchise. You'd think they'd be aware of this. And 43 million on opening weekend isn't the worst ever.

As far as Conner's skin being grafted on Marcus, yeah, I'd have issues with it as well as it would just be a shock value ending. From what I saw, the ending was just, of course there are question marks, but overall it was an enjoyable film.

Bowser
05-24-2009, 08:32 PM
Well, I'm off to check this out at 10. I am not expecting anything but shit blowing up.

Thig Lyfe
05-25-2009, 01:44 AM
Best McG movie since Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle.

BWillie
05-25-2009, 02:11 AM
Thought it was a good film. I give it 8 out of 10. I liked seeing more about the origins of skynet and what not. I really liked the Marcus Wright character and twist. I don't know what the bad reviews were all about. It's not a top 100 movie of all time but it was good. Obviously they were setting it up for a second movie. I think the second movie is going to be really good, there's so much they can do now.

Tribal Warfare
05-25-2009, 02:20 AM
Thought it was a good film. I give it 8 out of 10. I liked seeing more about the origins of skynet and what not. I really liked the Marcus Wright character and twist. I don't know what the bad reviews were all about. It's not a top 100 movie of all time but it was good. Obviously they were setting it up for a second movie. I think the second movie is going to be really good, there's so much they can do now.

if they can shell one out it made 43 mill over the weekend thus far 2nd place to A Night at the Museum part 2.

Fire Me Boy!
05-25-2009, 07:00 AM
Thought it was a good film. I give it 8 out of 10. I liked seeing more about the origins of skynet and what not. I really liked the Marcus Wright character and twist. I don't know what the bad reviews were all about. It's not a top 100 movie of all time but it was good. Obviously they were setting it up for a second movie. I think the second movie is going to be really good, there's so much they can do now.

I'm really tempted to call you an idiot.

;)

Easy 6
05-25-2009, 08:42 AM
It cant possibly be any worse than 'The Day The Earth Stood Still'.

Count me in for $7.50

BWillie
05-25-2009, 12:46 PM
WTF is the Night at the Museum so far up the list? The first one sucked, and I about shit my pants when I found out they were making a second one. Who goes to see that shit? Must be a good weekend to go to the movies with your kids.

Guru
05-25-2009, 12:59 PM
WTF is the Night at the Museum so far up the list? The first one sucked, and I about shit my pants when I found out they were making a second one. Who goes to see that shit? Must be a good weekend to go to the movies with your kids.You answered your own question.

Bowser
05-25-2009, 01:22 PM
It was good in that it was your stereotypical summer blockbuster film. Lots of action, lots of shit exploding, but I just didn't like it that much. It was OK at the very best. The effects were top notch, and that probably saved the movie for me.

This role Christian Bale played just seemed underneath him, somehow. The Marcus and Kyle characters were way more interesting than the John Connor character. Hopefully the next two will far outdo this one.

I am very good at suspending reality at movies, but what killed it was

when Connor got stabbed through the heart with a fucking BEAM, lived for hours afterwards, then gets a heart transplant from a Terminator donor that just had said heart damaged by the Ah-nold terminator, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FUCKING DESERT!! That is one tough bastard, lol.

JD10367
05-25-2009, 02:04 PM
It cant possibly be any worse than 'The Day The Earth Stood Still'.

WTF is the Night at the Museum so far up the list? The first one sucked, and I about shit my pants when I found out they were making a second one. Who goes to see that shit? Must be a good weekend to go to the movies with your kids.

I had the misfortune of running "TDTESS" in IMAX and am now running "NATM2".

For "TDTESS" I played a game I like to call, "Look at nothing but Jennifer Connelly".

For "NATM2" I'm playing a game called, "Keep your eyes focused on Amy Adams's ass at all times".

There's always something redeeming in a film. :)

But, yeah, "NATM2" is doing surprisingly well, since it is a kid's film and it's a comedy. Your competition is three sci-fi-ish films ("Terminator", "Star Trek", "Wolverine") and an adults-only religious-themed mystery ("Angels and Demons"). So sometimes it's more about timing than how good or bad your film is.

(I didn't count "Dance Flick" which, rightfully, should gross about fifty bucks nationwide...)

Ralphy Boy
05-25-2009, 04:12 PM
Just got back. Movie sucked. Completely hokey & over the top crap. If we were going into a point in time prior to when Reese made his original journey back, then the technology should have been in keeping with the original Terminator, not light years past it. When the one machine turned into a larger robot, I thought I was watching Transformers.
The CGI wasn't very good and the Arnold robot looked ridiculous. Really bad writing as well.

In my opinion, it was EPIC FAIL.

Deberg_1990
05-26-2009, 08:19 AM
I just read that it was a box office disappointment this weekend....


If you can say that only 42 mil was disappointing....

Its all relative of course, but i think they were expecting 70-100 mil.

JD10367
05-26-2009, 09:13 AM
I just read that it was a box office disappointment this weekend....


If you can say that only 42 mil was disappointing....

Its all relative of course, but i think they were expecting 70-100 mil.

With "Wolverine", "Star Trek", and "Angels and Demons" all preceding it, that would've been a very optimistic hope, given the bad advance reviews for "T:S".

And I think the news will get worse for them. "Up" should debut in #1 next week, and I think "Trek" and "A&D" will leapfrog to 2nd and 3rd. "T:S" will be fighting with "NATM2" for fourth, and I bet they gross around $11-13M.

Deberg_1990
05-26-2009, 09:31 AM
With "Wolverine", "Star Trek", and "Angels and Demons" all preceding it, that would've been a very optimistic hope, given the bad advance reviews for "T:S".

And I think the news will get worse for them. "Up" should debut in #1 next week, and I think "Trek" and "A&D" will leapfrog to 2nd and 3rd. "T:S" will be fighting with "NATM2" for fourth, and I bet they gross around $11-13M.

True. There is a ton of competition out there right now.

I cant wait to see "Up" this weekend. Pixar never lets me down.

Sure-Oz
05-26-2009, 09:59 AM
I'm really tempted to call you an idiot.

;)

I'd rank the film a 4 or 5/10 at best. Bale was pretty much a hardass throughout and no character development on anyone but marcus wright, who i actually gave a crap about. The actions scenes were great, but that was it. There really weren't alot of those anyway...and I really hope that MCG improves the next one but who knows...

I enjoyed it to the extent that i had no expectations for it but if i came in with the high hopes i had before the reviews i would be utterly dissapointed. The reviews of RT at 34% are spot on imo...

I think i had fun only when they fought terminators and the marcus wright scenes, bale was worthless imo in this film and most of the characters as well. The ending well...yeah Sam Worthington really was the lone bright spot in this film, looking forward to seeing him in other movies.

I suggest this as a netflix only rent and don't see it in theaters unless you are just diehard for terminator action.

DenverChief
05-26-2009, 10:29 AM
Just got back. Movie sucked. Completely hokey & over the top crap. If we were going into a point in time prior to when Reese made his original journey back, then the technology should have been in keeping with the original Terminator, not light years past it. When the one machine turned into a larger robot, I thought I was watching Transformers.
The CGI wasn't very good and the Arnold robot looked ridiculous. Really bad writing as well.

In my opinion, it was EPIC FAIL.


you must be smoking crack.....the technology (Phased-plasma rifle in the forty watt range anyone?) was actually not as advanced as with the original, which means there will be more coming out....I completely enjoyed the movie

MagicHef
05-26-2009, 10:48 AM
I kind of felt like the whole movie was Mad Max meets The Matrix.

It's 2018 in this movie. How is the T800 coming out when it's supposed to be new in 2029? The robot factory having touch panels and stairs for ease of use by humans was interesting, too.

MagicHef
05-26-2009, 11:15 AM
you must be smoking crack.....the technology (Phased-plasma rifle in the forty watt range anyone?) was actually not as advanced as with the original, which means there will be more coming out....I completely enjoyed the movie

In the first movie, Arnold's Terminator from 2029 was brand new, and its major upgrade over previous Terminators was that it looked exactly like a human, rather than having "rubber skin." It doesn't make sense for them to have been able to make something like Marcus in 2018.

MagicHef
05-26-2009, 12:01 PM
As in the final film Kyle and Star are captured by Skynet and transported to Skynet City, but with one major change: Skynet has no idea who Kyle Reese is. This is a point that bothers many viewers of the final film; I'm not radically concerned, as Kyle Reese's time traveling shenanigans are public record enough that it's believable Skynet would have found out about him while taking over the world's computer networks. But by having Skynet not know who Kyle is the original script removes the machines' idiotic plan to bring John Connor to Skynet City instead of simply killing his dad. This feels like the kind of change that was made to give John Connor more to do, since the whole sequence where Connor convinces the Resistance forces to step down doesn't occur in this script (and why would it? He's Michael Ironsides in this movie).

In T1, the reason that the Terminator goes through the phone book, killing all the Sarah Connors one by one, is that pretty much all records were lost on Judgment Day. They didn't know which Sarah Connor in LA was John's mother. This also makes sense in the fact that if the machines knew about events before Judgment Day, they would know that sending all 3 Terminators back in time would fail, and the fact that they built the time machine is the only reason that John Connor exists, therefore they would not have built it.

the Talking Can
05-26-2009, 12:02 PM
I kind of felt like the whole movie was Mad Max meets The Matrix.



that's precisely what i felt like, thank you...and it wasn't near as good as either...

Deberg_1990
05-26-2009, 12:04 PM
heh, ill never forget the second i left the theater on opening day after Matrix 2.


You could feel the air being completely let out of a major franchise.

Crash and burn...

jiveturkey
05-26-2009, 12:55 PM
In T1, the reason that the Terminator goes through the phone book, killing all the Sarah Connors one by one, is that pretty much all records were lost on Judgment Day. They didn't know which Sarah Connor in LA was John's mother. This also makes sense in the fact that if the machines knew about events before Judgment Day, they would know that sending all 3 Terminators back in time would fail, and the fact that they built the time machine is the only reason that John Connor exists, therefore they would not have built it.That's deep and I'm lost.

MagicHef
05-26-2009, 01:00 PM
I guess another reason I'm disappointed in the movie was that all 3 previous Terminators added a significant twist to the overall story.

T1: Laid out whole story, Kyle Reese is John Connor's dad.
T2: Chips are destroyed, Judgment day is apparently avoided.
T3: Judgment Day is unavoidable.
T4: Nothing really, maybe the fact that John Connor wasn't always the leader of the Resistance? That's pretty weak, though.

keg in kc
05-26-2009, 01:10 PM
heh, ill never forget the second i left the theater on opening day after Matrix 2.


You could feel the air being completely let out of a major franchise.

Crash and burn...The reviews leading into it were so bad I didn't even watch it.

I don't think anything will ever match Batman and Robin. Even Episode 1 couldn't match that one.

Guru
05-27-2009, 12:39 AM
heh, ill never forget the second i left the theater on opening day after Matrix 2.


You could feel the air being completely let out of a major franchise.

Crash and burn...Though I liked the action scenes in it, it was a complete destruction of what the Matrix was.

Sure-Oz
05-27-2009, 05:07 PM
Though I liked the action scenes in it, it was a complete destruction of what the Matrix was.

The trailer made the movie seem so much better, who knew

Dicky McElephant
05-27-2009, 05:49 PM
.

Deberg_1990
05-27-2009, 06:51 PM
The trailer made the movie seem so much better, who knew

I knew the moment i saw this:

Directed by McG

Sure-Oz
05-27-2009, 09:16 PM
I knew the moment i saw this:

Directed by McG

I should've too...

The trailer makes the movie look damn good, and im still hurting that i chose to go see that over Star Trek, which i plan to see here in the next week.

Deberg_1990
06-01-2009, 01:22 PM
I read the box office fell 63% this weekend. Its officially a flop now...


Ouch....most likely it will get rebooted in 6-10 years like Trek did.

Mr. Plow
06-01-2009, 01:40 PM
I read the box office fell 63% this weekend. Its officially a flop now...


Ouch....most likely it will get rebooted in 6-10 years like Trek did.


Ouch is right.

JD10367
06-01-2009, 02:17 PM
I read the box office fell 63% this weekend. Its officially a flop now...

Well, everything pretty much bumped down in order, with the two new flicks slotting in at #1 ("Up") and #3 ("Drag Me To Hell"). I'm actually surprised "T:S" did as well as it did per screen, and is almost at $100M, considering the numbers being pulled in for the other films. And it's doing better than "A&D". (I'm also surprised "NATM2" didn't fall off more than it did.)

This Week Last Week Title Weeks Released Weekend Gross Total Gross Per Screen # of Screens

1 new Up 1 $68.2M $68.2M $18.1k 3766

2 1 Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian 2 $25.5M $105.3M $6.2k 4101

3 new Drag Me To Hell 1 $16.6M $16.6M $6.6k 2508

4 2 Terminator Salvation 2 $16.1M $90.7M $4.5k 3602

5 3 Star Trek 4 $12.8M $209.5M $3.7k 3507

6 4 Angels & Demons 3 $11.2M $104.8M $3.2k 3464

7 5 Dance Flick 2 $4.9M $19.2M $2k 2459

8 6 X-Men Origins: Wolverine 5 $3.9M $170.9M $1.7k 2263