Terminator Salvation

[Lotd2242]

Oh I don't know, I figured that it didn't kill Marcus because more than likely, it knew he was a terminator, until Marcus attacked it, then it probably figured it was a defected one, and figured it should kill him to stop messing with his mission.

That doesn't explain John Connor. It walks past a gatling gun, grabs him by the throat, and rather than just crushing his puny neck, throws him against a wall.

I'm not one for logic with films anymore, I mean, I just watched The Spirit, and enjoyed it thoroughly . I know there are ones that always have to find some sort of logic in movies, granted, I like it with SOME forms of movies, like crime/mystery movies, especially if there set in modern day, or even in 50's eras, you get the idea.

I don't demand movies always follow logic. I enjoyed the hell out of Crank and Crank 2 and neither of those movies make any sense whatsoever logically, but they're funny and more importantly they don't try to BS the viewer. They are up-front about the fact they're making a movie that is ridiculous and would never work in reality. They're also consistent in that fact whereas a Terminator or a Dark Knight will pretend to be in the "real world" one minute and then toss that convention the second it becomes inconvenient.

I liked the film, wasn't bad, wasn't the worst film I'd ever seen either (Santa Claus vs. The Martians is right up there, but is only saved by Mystery Science Theater riffing it). Was there plot holes, or things that didn't really add up? Of course, but hey, I think they did alright with what they went with at least.

And what's with everyone complaining about Christian Bale/The Dark Knight? Sure, he was similar to his Bruce Wayne act, but well, there's some difference in those two characters, personality wise, but not much, at least to me that is. But now all of a sudden The Dark Knight haters are coming out of the woodwork, "ohh, now it's 'cool' to hate that movie now, I better agree with the bloggers!" (Of course, if you didn't like Dark Knight for VALID reasons, that's fair enough with me)

I actually liked Terminator more than Star Trek, neither of which were the Worst Film Evah. It's just they're such generic nonsense that would be utterly forgettable without the brand name stamped on top.

As for the Dark Knight, the only thing that saved that movie from mediocrity was Ledger's Joker. I think people are slowly coming around to the idea that it was a over-hyped as they watch it repeatedly and begin to see all the flaws come to light as the adrenaline rush the action produces begins to fade.

[Moseph]

Cool. So now we have TWO movies that just continue to beat on the same old plot points that Terminator 2 supposedly resolved. We already know this story, and it was already stale in T3. Apologists for T3 and Salvation can claim that the the plot is still alive because the future has changed from what was portrayed in the first two movies ("this isn't the future my mother warned me about") -- but it sure hasn't changed much. And as far as the large-scale plot is concerned, almost nothing happens in Salvation. They find Reese, and that's about it. Besides that, it's back to status quo by the end of the movie. It's like they're twiddling their thumbs, delaying the inevitable time travel bits, because after that they'd actually have to come up with a new storyline. One critic (I forget who) compared Salvation to a TV show episode; I agree with him.

If the characters were good, that might make up for the stagnant setting and story, but they're not. There are no Sarah Connor-caliber people here, just bland soldier types. Marcus and Reese are the only ones who are even remotely interesting, and much of Reese's appeal comes simply from the similarities/contrasts with the Reese from T1.

Also, time travel seems a lot sillier at this point in the story arc. What exactly is going to happen if Reese dies? Will Connor fade into nothing, McFly-like? Will it simply create another alternate reality, separate from this one, where the machines win? These questions, although they've always been present, didn't matter in T1, because the narrative wasn't focused on the future. By the time Salvation is underway, though, the canonical narrative has finally reached the future without answering the questions about how failure to enact the past would affect the continuing story. It becomes another mindless plot point that just needs to be covered because, hey, we need to do all the things that T1/T2 predicted, because we threw out the make-your-own-future paradigm long ago.

[Kiyosuki]

I think it's kind of amusing that the film closed with the famous no fate but what we make motto, all things considering since the third film.

[Sinewav]

I think it's kind of amusing that the film closed with the famous no fate but what we make motto, all things considering since the third film.

I didn't even bother with the third one. Is that bad?

[berrypievision]

[Apart from the new Star Trek movie making it "cool" to like Star Trek]

Really, it's cool to like mediocre garbage? Oh wait, duh. I mean, Family Guy is culturally beloved, so why the hell am I asking that? Star Trek 11 is a horrible movie, and just a copy of previous trek films. Its no better than Terminator 4. As that other user said, they are both sub-par.

[Secret Agent Man]

Also, time travel seems a lot sillier at this point in the story arc. What exactly is going to happen if Reese dies? Will Connor fade into nothing, McFly-like? Will it simply create another alternate reality, separate from this one, where the machines win?

Don't forget, Cyberdyne first got the Terminator-like technology from the first Terminator sent back to 1984 to kill Sarah Connor. No Terminator in the past = no Cyberdyne = no Skynet = no war. (Of course, that in itself is a time paradox.)

[Native Jovian]

Really, it's cool to like mediocre garbage? Oh wait, duh. I mean, Family Guy is culturally beloved, so why the hell am I asking that?

Ahahahahahaha.

I'm Native Jovian and I approve of this message.

[Moseph]

Don't forget, Cyberdyne first got the Terminator-like technology from the first Terminator sent back to 1984 to kill Sarah Connor. No Terminator in the past = no Cyberdyne = no Skynet = no war. (Of course, that in itself is a time paradox.)

Yeah, but it's not even the paradoxes that I really have a problem with. It's the fact that, at this point in the story, we're supposed to be horrified by the prospect of Reese being killed, but we don't even know what his death would signify. If they would just tell us how time traveling or not time traveling would actually affect the present story (no effect? Connor disappears? everyone disappears? giant purple bunnies? what?), I'd be okay with it, paradoxes and all, because it would explain why Reese is an important character.

I guess it bugs me so much because I'd been viewing the Terminator movies with an alternate universes theory, and under this theory, Reese's death would screw up someone else's reality, but not the reality that the story deals with, so it would seem completely inconsequential.

[Eckerson]

Yeah, but it's not even the paradoxes that I really have a problem with. It's the fact that, at this point in the story, we're supposed to be horrified by the prospect of Reese being killed, but we don't even know what his death would signify. If they would just tell us how time traveling or not time traveling would actually affect the present story (no effect? Connor disappears? everyone disappears? giant purple bunnies? what?), I'd be okay with it, paradoxes and all, because it would explain why Reese is an important character.

I guess it bugs me so much because I'd been viewing the Terminator movies with an alternate universes theory, and under this theory, Reese's death would screw up someone else's reality, but not the reality that the story deals with, so it would seem completely inconsequential.

I was under the impression that Connor was running under a "worse case scenario" mindset when it came to keeping Reese alive. I don't think any of the characters really know what would happen if Reese was killed. I believe that extended to Skynet, which would explain why Skynet wanted to kill both of Reese and Connor.

So Connor was concerned that it would undo everything for the humans, including his existance, and Skynet was concerned that it would not impact their current timeline at all, only an alternate one.

I don't think that they could have explained outright what the impact would be, because if it was known in the movie, then how one side acted would not make as much sense (although I doubt that much thought went into it). Connor would still probably want to protect Reese even if it would only affect a different timeline to protect that one as well, but if it was known that killing Reese would undo everything I would think Skynet would have just killed Reese and been done with it.

[Bleck]

Really, it's cool to like mediocre garbage? Oh wait, duh. I mean, Family Guy is culturally beloved, so why the hell am I asking that? Star Trek 11 is a horrible movie, and just a copy of previous trek films. Its no better than Terminator 4. As that other user said, they are both sub-par.

the best thing about these threads is how they are always full of people who have no idea what they are talking about

[Moseph]

I was under the impression that Connor was running under a "worse case scenario" mindset when it came to keeping Reese alive. I don't think any of the characters really know what would happen if Reese was killed. I believe that extended to Skynet, which would explain why Skynet wanted to kill both of Reese and Connor.

So Connor was concerned that it would undo everything for the humans, including his existance, and Skynet was concerned that it would not impact their current timeline at all, only an alternate one.

I don't think that they could have explained outright what the impact would be, because if it was known in the movie, then how one side acted would not make as much sense (although I doubt that much thought went into it). Connor would still probably want to protect Reese even if it would only affect a different timeline to protect that one as well, but if it was known that killing Reese would undo everything I would think Skynet would have just killed Reese and been done with it.

And that brings us back to the lousy script. It would actually have been pretty cool to have a scene between John and Kate wherein John confides that he has no idea what's going on, no idea what will happen if he lets Reese die, and expresses worry that he's allowing his father-son love for Reese to distract him from the hard choices of military leadership -- it could easily have been worked into the scene(s) about his uncertainty regarding Marcus. This would have helped to clarify Reese's role, to humanize John, and to actually portray a relationship between John and Kate.

[relyanCe]

the best thing about these threads is how they are always full of people who have no idea what they are talking about

QF-fricken-T.

[Kiyosuki]

I didn't even bother with the third one. Is that bad?

Well...it explains how Judgement Day happened anyways, just later. But other than that not really.

It basically took a crap on the you make your own fate theme of the second film. I've heard some people rationalize that Judgement Day -was- the fate we made for ourselves, it's all valid cause it's interpretation but I still personally feel like it was pretty exceedingly unecessary to go past the second film.

I thought Salvation was middle of the road, it wasn't great but it was alright I guess... certainly better than 3 imo, but it still has that overencompassing feeling of "did we really need to go to the future?" for me. It's a summer explosion film though, so it is what it is. It lacks the central character dynamic that made the first two a -little- more than action sci fi flicks, but the war at least looks sorta cool I guess. (though the third's disastrous attempt to recreate that was its main fall imo so maybe abandoning that was for the best.)

I think if they concentrated more on John's relations to Marcus, and actually tried to keep Marcus' status as a hybrid a surprise it would have turned out a bit better. It seems like the film was making his true nature out to be this big surprise in the story...but the trailer basically gave it away months before the film came out, and the beginning of the film's pretty clear about it too. Seems totally contradictory to me. If you're gonna make something a revelation, make it a revelation I say.

[Lotd2242]

Don't forget, Cyberdyne first got the Terminator-like technology from the first Terminator sent back to 1984 to kill Sarah Connor. No Terminator in the past = no Cyberdyne = no Skynet = no war. (Of course, that in itself is a time paradox.)

It gets worse. Skynet only exists because it went back in time to stop John Connor from existing. But John Connor exists only because Skynet went back in time to stop John Connor from existing.

I was under the impression that Connor was running under a "worse case scenario" mindset when it came to keeping Reese alive. I don't think any of the characters really know what would happen if Reese was killed. I believe that extended to Skynet, which would explain why Skynet wanted to kill both of Reese and Connor.

My problem is that I don't know where Skynet got the idea that Kyle Reese was going to time travel. I could see it being aware of John Connor by way of him constantly warring with them. Is that a function of the 3rd movie's terminator essentially creating Skynet?

[Eckerson]

And that brings us back to the lousy script. It would actually have been pretty cool to have a scene between John and Kate wherein John confides that he has no idea what's going on, no idea what will happen if he lets Reese die, and expresses worry that he's allowing his father-son love for Reese to distract him from the hard choices of military leadership -- it could easily have been worked into the scene(s) about his uncertainty regarding Marcus. This would have helped to clarify Reese's role, to humanize John, and to actually portray a relationship between John and Kate.

I completely agree with that. If their intent was to have the characters not know, it would have been nice to have known. I actually prefer that over them knowing what will happen to the timeline.

My problem is that I don't know where Skynet got the idea that Kyle Reese was going to time travel. I could see it being aware of John Connor by way of him constantly warring with them. Is that a function of the 3rd movie's terminator essentially creating Skynet?

On that note, why was Kyle Reese a priority target at all? It could be that the TX of the third movie gave Skynet what the future Skynet had known (Kyle Reese was sent back after the T-800, a reprogrammed T-800 was sent back after the T-1000, etc). That would have given Skynet a HUGE tactical advantage because Connor is running under advice from his mom about the original war. For all we know, this version of Skynet could decide that it won't create time travel, or that it will try to send a larger force back. That could even be the basis of a movie. The resistance has to stop Skynet from sending a large force back to kill Sarah Connor and manage to stop all but a single T-800, so they shove Kyle in after it before destroying the installation.

A lot of this stuff would have been nice have mentioned. It could be that they wanted to leave themselves room for future movies and explain it then, but I'm sure that was not the case.

Despite these issues, I still liked the movie, I'll still buy the DVD, and I will most likely see the next one they make.

[Moseph]

For all we know, this version of Skynet could decide that it won't create time travel, or that it will try to send a larger force back. That could even be the basis of a movie. The resistance has to stop Skynet from sending a large force back to kill Sarah Connor and manage to stop all but a single T-800, so they shove Kyle in after it before destroying the installation.

That would probably make a pretty good movie.

Or if they wanted to get all Back to the Future II on us, Skynet could succeed in sending several Terminators back to 1984, and Kyle plus some others (Blair?) go back, and we basically get a re-imagining of the first movie but with more firepower.

EDIT: And with the knowledge that Judgment Day will occur no matter what they do, Sarah Connor and any other survivors turn their efforts toward preparation rather than prevention.

Then Judgment Day happens.

And because they were expecting it, the following war is much shorter, and they beat the machines for good.

The series ends with John, Sarah, and Kyle standing on a cliff overlooking the rebuilding of LA, and one of them gives the now familiar monologue about making your own future.

[relyanCe]

That would probably make a pretty good movie.

Or if they wanted to get all Back to the Future II on us, Skynet could succeed in sending several Terminators back to 1984, and Kyle plus some others (Blair?) go back, and we basically get a re-imagining of the first movie but with more firepower.

EDIT: And with the knowledge that Judgment Day will occur no matter what they do, Sarah Connor and any other survivors turn their efforts toward preparation rather than prevention.

Then Judgment Day happens.

And because they were expecting it, the following war is much shorter, and they beat the machines for good.

The series ends with John, Sarah, and Kyle standing on a cliff overlooking the rebuilding of LA, and one of them gives the now familiar monologue about making your own future.

Somebody make a script NAO

[Lotd2242]

A lot of this stuff would have been nice have mentioned. It could be that they wanted to leave themselves room for future movies and explain it then, but I'm sure that was not the case.

Same problem Star Trek had. They left out information to the prequel comic and deleted scenes that would have easily closed plot holes.