Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Terminator franchise - past and future

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Future Films >> RE: Terminator franchise - past and future Page: <<   < prev  26 27 28 29 [30]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Terminator franchise - past and future - 5/1/2012 10:23:07 AM   
Marwood

 

Posts: 2617
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: Only The Shadow knows

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marwood
The way I see it is that if further Terminator films have to be made then I just hope the filmmakers don't shit on the memory or legacy of the originals. T3 and Salvation are inferior but at least reasonably respectful to T2 (apart from essentially saying the events of T2 didn't really matter because Judgement Day is a destiny - bollocks) and I see them as good sci-fi action films...just not particularly good Terminator films.


Well the key mantra of the series is "there's no fate but what we make (for ourselves)". T3 doesn't really contradict the second film or 'shit on it' if you follow the line of thinking that at that point in time, Judgement Day was inevitable. The Connors came under the misapprehension that they had 'won'. Because Skynet had already come online possibly with the virus, it was too late. It spread through the internet and was essentially software. I thought that spin on it was brilliant because the premise of there being a 'system core' seemed a little archaic. Although admittedly later on, it will have a system core or location that houses its 'consciousness' so the Resistance can finally destroy it and end the war. Besides, the earlier films put forth the idea that John Connor has a 'destiny'.

I think if they don't bother with any more films, they can always carry on the series in animated form. It could give them more leeway in terms of characters. For instance the T-800/850 Arnie Terminator only needing to be voiced rather than be 'played' by an actor.



Re-read my post: I didn't say that I thought either T3 or Salvation "shit on" Cameron's films just that it's always a concern I'll have for any further films made. As it stands like I said I think they were pretty respectful to what had come before.

As for T3 and the Skynet virus I suppose you're right; my thought about T3's explanation was always that it was a bit of a rushed/forced way of getting around what felt like a pretty definitive ending in T2. I guess it's as much about the way the story was presented in T2 though so T3 felt (to me at least) like it was retconning. Having thought about what you posted though I can see what you mean, I think because of some reverance to T1 and 2 I've just always had that knee-jerk reaction to the T3 explanation.

Animated Terminator would be a cool idea; while the show was inconsistent I quite like what I've seen of the TV series so an animated series (adult oriented of course) could be another neat way to expand the franchise in another format if future film projects don't take off.

_____________________________

Bilbo: What about the Ewoks? They were rubbish.

Tim: Yeah but Jar Jar Binks makes the Ewoks look like f***ing Shaft!

(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 871
RE: Terminator franchise - past and future - 5/1/2012 3:23:43 PM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2174
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
I know what you said and I don't need to re-read it or reconsider my opinion. I was speaking to the people who think that the third film defecated on the previous one(s) when I explained how it didn't, that's all.

The series was OK but it got a bit silly with a temporal war between Skynet and the Resistance. Cameron was an interesting character very well played by Summer Glau. And it hints at a possibly bizarre and un-natural relationship Connor may have with her in the future. The ambiguity of the T-1000 character was interesting and the FBI agent character could've been more interesting. Personally, I would've liked to have seen more of the future war.

I think if they are to carry on the Terminator series in film format, they ought to explore how the Resistance manages to capture and re-programme Skynet technology. The idea that they raid storehouses for terminators and the like is an interesting one. And of course shows how they manage to steal and scavenge in order to survive. My reckoning is that due to Skynet's ever growing global reach and strategic/technical dominance in the field and 'on the chess board'. That Connor transforms the Resistance into a more guerrila style outfit as seen in the earlier films. That's not to say though that he doesn't still utilise such things as helicopters and fighter/ground-attack aircraft (remember the L.A future war scenes were just glimpses of one battle) but that his approach is more nuanced than what we saw in 2018. Having taken on-board some harsh lessons following the events of TS. You can further that idea with a more de-centralised chain of command for instance. In addition to small units opertating semi/fully independently, living out in the field for weeks/maybe a month at a time. Scavenging whatever they can and attacking targets of opportunity to distrupt as much of Skynet's operations/network as possible. This is how I think they could make the war more interesting and I can easily envisage it with Bale as Connor, Yelchin as a more mature Reese, Connor's tightly-knit 'inner circle' (which could foster suspicion from some) and a more intimate portrayal of John and Kate Connor's relationship. Which was hardly touched upon in TS.

< Message edited by Emyr Thy King -- 5/1/2012 3:29:25 PM >


_____________________________

"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self

(in reply to Marwood)
Post #: 872
RE: Terminator franchise - past and future - 5/1/2012 9:12:27 PM   
Marwood

 

Posts: 2617
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: Only The Shadow knows

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King

I know what you said and I don't need to re-read it or reconsider my opinion. I was speaking to the people who think that the third film defecated on the previous one(s) when I explained how it didn't, that's all.

The series was OK but it got a bit silly with a temporal war between Skynet and the Resistance. Cameron was an interesting character very well played by Summer Glau. And it hints at a possibly bizarre and un-natural relationship Connor may have with her in the future. The ambiguity of the T-1000 character was interesting and the FBI agent character could've been more interesting. Personally, I would've liked to have seen more of the future war.

I think if they are to carry on the Terminator series in film format, they ought to explore how the Resistance manages to capture and re-programme Skynet technology. The idea that they raid storehouses for terminators and the like is an interesting one. And of course shows how they manage to steal and scavenge in order to survive. My reckoning is that due to Skynet's ever growing global reach and strategic/technical dominance in the field and 'on the chess board'. That Connor transforms the Resistance into a more guerrila style outfit as seen in the earlier films. That's not to say though that he doesn't still utilise such things as helicopters and fighter/ground-attack aircraft (remember the L.A future war scenes were just glimpses of one battle) but that his approach is more nuanced than what we saw in 2018. Having taken on-board some harsh lessons following the events of TS. You can further that idea with a more de-centralised chain of command for instance. In addition to small units opertating semi/fully independently, living out in the field for weeks/maybe a month at a time. Scavenging whatever they can and attacking targets of opportunity to distrupt as much of Skynet's operations/network as possible. This is how I think they could make the war more interesting and I can easily envisage it with Bale as Connor, Yelchin as a more mature Reese, Connor's tightly-knit 'inner circle' (which could foster suspicion from some) and a more intimate portrayal of John and Kate Connor's relationship. Which was hardly touched upon in TS.


Apologies, I thought that was directed at my post specifically.

Like the ideas about the Resistance's growth by the way, sounds like a good way to show its evolution from Salvation more into how it was portrayed in the Cameron films.

_____________________________

Bilbo: What about the Ewoks? They were rubbish.

Tim: Yeah but Jar Jar Binks makes the Ewoks look like f***ing Shaft!

(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 873
RE: Terminator franchise - past and future - 6/1/2012 1:51:13 PM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2174
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
It's fine mate, I apologise if I was a little sharp or curt. I could've made my intended subject clearer too. I've read comments that TS didn't have a hint of the weaponry we saw in the future war of 2029. People seem to think that 'laser' weaponry will just magically appear out of thin air by 2029 when it's the result of on-going weapons development by Skynet. It's continually honing itself, pursuing more effective ways of eradicating humanity, very systematically like a machine would do. Resources will become more scarce (despite all that rusting metal strewn across the landscape) and so energy weapons would make more sense. Saves on having to build and maintain factories for production of shell casings and the like. Anyway, those Moto-Terminators and Harvesters had some kind of plasma/laser weapon(s) so clearly Skynet already had the technology, but haven't yet been able to miniaturise them so that the technology is small enough to fit into an assault rifle. I think the one bugbear people have is that the T-800 came into being much sooner than 'prophesised' in the original films. That's an understandable frustration but then seeing as even the date of Judgement Day changed, it will have an a knock-on effect on the timeline. I prefer to think of it as a temporal ripple.

_____________________________

"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self

(in reply to Marwood)
Post #: 874
RE: Terminator franchise - past and future - 6/1/2012 2:33:37 PM   
Marwood

 

Posts: 2617
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: Only The Shadow knows

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King

It's fine mate, I apologise if I was a little sharp or curt. I could've made my intended subject clearer too. I've read comments that TS didn't have a hint of the weaponry we saw in the future war of 2029. People seem to think that 'laser' weaponry will just magically appear out of thin air by 2029 when it's the result of on-going weapons development by Skynet. It's continually honing itself, pursuing more effective ways of eradicating humanity, very systematically like a machine would do. Resources will become more scarce (despite all that rusting metal strewn across the landscape) and so energy weapons would make more sense. Saves on having to build and maintain factories for production of shell casings and the like. Anyway, those Moto-Terminators and Harvesters had some kind of plasma/laser weapon(s) so clearly Skynet already had the technology, but haven't yet been able to miniaturise them so that the technology is small enough to fit into an assault rifle. I think the one bugbear people have is that the T-800 came into being much sooner than 'prophesised' in the original films. That's an understandable frustration but then seeing as even the date of Judgement Day changed, it will have an a knock-on effect on the timeline. I prefer to think of it as a temporal ripple.


Exactly; the films play fast and loose with the concept of time and paradox anyway so expecting perfect synchronisation with T1 and T2 now should be abandoned. Sort of like the 2009 Star Trek reboot used the time travel business to explain the "new timeline". In T2 Sarah and John altered one possible timeline and essentially created a new one according to T3 but certain things are fate related so will still happen in some way. As I had written before while I think it was a bit throwaway in T3 it's an understandable concept to try and explain those kinds of differences.



_____________________________

Bilbo: What about the Ewoks? They were rubbish.

Tim: Yeah but Jar Jar Binks makes the Ewoks look like f***ing Shaft!

(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 875
RE: Terminator franchise - past and future - 6/1/2012 3:02:42 PM   
rich


Posts: 4664
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Neo Kobe
T2: No Fate
T3: Nuclear war is fate

This is the biggest problem, but there are lots of others. Another sequel should just get on with the war, and finally provide a finish with the time machine being used.


< Message edited by rich -- 6/1/2012 3:08:34 PM >


_____________________________

Weekend write-ups

(in reply to Marwood)
Post #: 876
RE: Terminator franchise - past and future - 6/1/2012 5:58:17 PM   
ripperman


Posts: 141
Joined: 3/10/2007
quote:

ORIGINAL: rich

T2: No Fate
T3: Nuclear war is fate

This is the biggest problem, but there are lots of others. Another sequel should just get on with the war, and finally provide a finish with the time machine being used.




Interesting especially the Nuclear war is fate observation but Iím actually beginning to think that a terminator movie set in the future war set up will never work. TS was such a disaster in my opinion. The whole idea of the terminator as a presence is lost in that and will be lost should another one be made. One of the great strengths of the original films and yes even T3 to a certain extent was that these almost unstoppable things were here in our present and the characters had no idea how to destroy them. One enemy, in each of these films was infinitely more scary and intense than the entire army of cgi transformer bots in TS.

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 877
RE: Terminator franchise - past and future - 6/1/2012 6:39:50 PM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2174
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
quote:

ORIGINAL: rich

T2: No Fate
T3: Nuclear war is fate

This is the biggest problem, but there are lots of others. Another sequel should just get on with the war, and finally provide a finish with the time machine being used.



T2: No fate but we make
T3: This is the fate we made

They've mined all the can from terminators being sent for the Connors and TS rightfully got on with the future war. I think it's provided a platform sufficient enough to explore more of the war and really get to know more about John and Kate Connor, Kyle Reese, the Resistance, Skynet etc. I wouldn't mind seeing something take place outside of the continental United States. Seeing as this is a global war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ripperman
Interesting especially the Nuclear war is fate observation but I'm actually beginning to think that a terminator movie set in the future war set up will never work. TS was such a disaster in my opinion. The whole idea of the terminator as a presence is lost in that and will be lost should another one be made. One of the great strengths of the original films and yes even T3 to a certain extent was that these almost unstoppable things were here in our present and the characters had no idea how to destroy them. One enemy, in each of these films was infinitely more scary and intense than the entire army of cgi transformer bots in TS.


There's a different dynamic to the first three terminator films seeing as they're effectively chase films. Which is why any films subsequent to them, starting with of course TS feels different and so it should. I don't buy this idea that any film depicting the war will be a disaster (if you consider TS a disaster because of that). Terminators are still tough machines to kill, whether singularly or in great numbers. Actually, I would've thought that would be part of the challenge. As heavy weaponry will not always be available and it requires the Resistance to improvise. For instance we know Skynet will still send out individual terminators to eradicate human enclaves. I think that as a threat to Connor, his family and the Resistance would be an intriguing route to explore. It also shows Skynet's ruthlessness and greater sophistication in fighting humanity. Coupled with the bleak and desolate imagery of a future war, I think the future setting would definitely provide a satisfyingly darker experience. For me, the terminators are merely an extension of Skynet who's the ultimate enemy. So the fact that the landscape of a film would change doesn't bother me, because the same antagonist is there. It's just the battlefield which is different. One thing that's interesting about TS is how it showed that sometimes, man can be the enemy too.

< Message edited by Emyr Thy King -- 6/1/2012 6:40:27 PM >


_____________________________

"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 878
RE: Terminator franchise - past and future - 6/1/2012 7:00:43 PM   
ripperman


Posts: 141
Joined: 3/10/2007
quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King

quote:

ORIGINAL: rich

T2: No Fate
T3: Nuclear war is fate

This is the biggest problem, but there are lots of others. Another sequel should just get on with the war, and finally provide a finish with the time machine being used.



T2: No fate but we make
T3: This is the fate we made

They've mined all the can from terminators being sent for the Connors and TS rightfully got on with the future war. I think it's provided a platform sufficient enough to explore more of the war and really get to know more about John and Kate Connor, Kyle Reese, the Resistance, Skynet etc. I wouldn't mind seeing something take place outside of the continental United States. Seeing as this is a global war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ripperman
Interesting especially the Nuclear war is fate observation but I'm actually beginning to think that a terminator movie set in the future war set up will never work. TS was such a disaster in my opinion. The whole idea of the terminator as a presence is lost in that and will be lost should another one be made. One of the great strengths of the original films and yes even T3 to a certain extent was that these almost unstoppable things were here in our present and the characters had no idea how to destroy them. One enemy, in each of these films was infinitely more scary and intense than the entire army of cgi transformer bots in TS.


There's a different dynamic to the first three terminator films seeing as they're effectively chase films. Which is why any films subsequent to them, starting with of course TS feels different and so it should. I don't buy this idea that any film depicting the war will be a disaster (if you consider TS a disaster because of that). Terminators are still tough machines to kill, whether singularly or in great numbers. Actually, I would've thought that would be part of the challenge. As heavy weaponry will not always be available and it requires the Resistance to improvise. For instance we know Skynet will still send out individual terminators to eradicate human enclaves. I think that as a threat to Connor, his family and the Resistance would be an intriguing route to explore. It also shows Skynet's ruthlessness and greater sophistication in fighting humanity. Coupled with the bleak and desolate imagery of a future war, I think the future setting would definitely provide a satisfyingly darker experience. For me, the terminators are merely an extension of Skynet who's the ultimate enemy. So the fact that the landscape of a film would change doesn't bother me, because the same antagonist is there. It's just the battlefield which is different. One thing that's interesting about TS is how it showed that sometimes, man can be the enemy too.


Interesting points all. I guess Im kind of a movie curmudgeon at times. For instance I always consider the first movie a horror sci fi and the thought of a terminator movie revisiting that is too much of a lure for me personally. Wouldnít it be great if the terminator universe was explored differently ala Scottís Prometheus and Blade Runner movies. Iíve always thought he would make a fascinating terminator movie too. As regards TS, sorry itís just a bad movie, ok set it in the future war if you have to but I personally think they made a hash of it. Not once during that movie was I excited, or scared, tense or even remotely interested in what happened to the characters. Christian Bale is a fine actor too but I just wanted him gone, to hell with humanity!! Transformer for slightly more grown upsÖand McG directed it.


(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 879
RE: Terminator franchise - past and future - 6/1/2012 7:19:23 PM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2174
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
Thing is you've grown up with memories of experiencing the 'classic' Terminator films for the first time. So when a later film comes, even if it's to the same standard, it's not going to have that same shock/entertainment value. TS for me is a good film but it falls short of the bar set by the first two films, and frankly that bar is so high you'd need a Saturn V rocket to get up there. Of course I'm not trying to excuse a film's deficiencies and the film does contain some (the plot thread tying Reese and Connor together for instance) but I actually quite enjoyed the references to the other films. As it reminded me that they tried to keep to the spirit of the source material rather than slavishly follow suit. Even the end fight in the assembly plant was good and such things as the molten steel background and the shots of the T-800 walking up the stairs did make me reminisce. Funnily enough, I think Christian Bale just psyched himself up too much. It showed when he had a go at the poor DoP and he just made Connor to be an unrelatable arsehole frankly. I understand the idea that a leader cannot always be nice, but he just seemed to shout a lot in the film. We know Christian Bale is better than that. It's a shame that the relationship between John and Kate Connor wasn't explored. There was barely any intimacy there and seeing as though they were starting a family together, you would've expected there to be some tenderness or even vulnerability. Remember this is a film about the importance of not only saving humanity as a whole but not letting go of our own humanity. Perhaps the music could've been better, the musical beats of Brad Fiedel weren't greatly absent. Although the music for the end battle in the plant was decent.

< Message edited by Emyr Thy King -- 6/1/2012 7:21:45 PM >


_____________________________

"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self

(in reply to ripperman)
Post #: 880
RE: Terminator franchise - past and future - 8/1/2012 8:46:37 AM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1806
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: ripperman

quote:

ORIGINAL: rich

T2: No Fate
T3: Nuclear war is fate

This is the biggest problem, but there are lots of others. Another sequel should just get on with the war, and finally provide a finish with the time machine being used.




Interesting especially the Nuclear war is fate observation but Iím actually beginning to think that a terminator movie set in the future war set up will never work. TS was such a disaster in my opinion. The whole idea of the terminator as a presence is lost in that and will be lost should another one be made. One of the great strengths of the original films and yes even T3 to a certain extent was that these almost unstoppable things were here in our present and the characters had no idea how to destroy them. One enemy, in each of these films was infinitely more scary and intense than the entire army of cgi transformer bots in TS.


A few things:

1. The future war we saw in T1 and T2 did look pretty interesting.

2. Also the only reason one terminator is so unstoppable is because it was set in the past. In 1984 and 1991 they didn't have the firepower or technology to defeat the robots, but when we look at the future wars depicted in T1 and T2 there are clearly quite a few terminators. Also they have to develop the story and take it further. They can't just keep making it one terminator v the humans. That just becomes boring.

3. Terminator Salvation... I enjoyed it. When I saw it in the cinema I really hadn't read too much about it and actually really enjoyed it. I think it doesn't deserve the flak it has received and is miles better than the rather boring and redundant T3.


_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to ripperman)
Post #: 881
RE: Terminator franchise - past and future - 8/1/2012 8:13:26 PM   
rich


Posts: 4664
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Neo Kobe
quote:


T2: No fate but we make
T3: This is the fate we made


What? No. The entire point is that Sarah Connor prevents her atomic holocaust nightmare from coming true. And she does, they just didn't use that ending in T2. To be honest they should have stuck it on there just to prevent so much nonsense being produced afterwards.

_____________________________

Weekend write-ups

(in reply to Private Hudson)
Post #: 882
RE: Terminator franchise - past and future - 8/1/2012 8:35:18 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1806
Joined: 30/9/2005
Well said Rich.

Remember the alternate ending in T2? If they used that then no T3 or T4.

_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 883
RE: Terminator franchise - past and future - 8/1/2012 8:36:37 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1806
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King

Thing is you've grown up with memories of experiencing the 'classic' Terminator films for the first time. So when a later film comes, even if it's to the same standard, it's not going to have that same shock/entertainment value. TS for me is a good film but it falls short of the bar set by the first two films, and frankly that bar is so high you'd need a Saturn V rocket to get up there. Of course I'm not trying to excuse a film's deficiencies and the film does contain some (the plot thread tying Reese and Connor together for instance) but I actually quite enjoyed the references to the other films. As it reminded me that they tried to keep to the spirit of the source material rather than slavishly follow suit. Even the end fight in the assembly plant was good and such things as the molten steel background and the shots of the T-800 walking up the stairs did make me reminisce. Funnily enough, I think Christian Bale just psyched himself up too much. It showed when he had a go at the poor DoP and he just made Connor to be an unrelatable arsehole frankly. I understand the idea that a leader cannot always be nice, but he just seemed to shout a lot in the film. We know Christian Bale is better than that. It's a shame that the relationship between John and Kate Connor wasn't explored. There was barely any intimacy there and seeing as though they were starting a family together, you would've expected there to be some tenderness or even vulnerability. Remember this is a film about the importance of not only saving humanity as a whole but not letting go of our own humanity. Perhaps the music could've been better, the musical beats of Brad Fiedel weren't greatly absent. Although the music for the end battle in the plant was decent.


Agreed. And you are right. T1 & T2 are among the best movies ever nevermind best sci-fi!


_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 884
RE: Terminator franchise - past and future - 8/1/2012 9:33:16 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2197
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet
quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

Well said Rich.

Remember the alternate ending in T2? If they used that then no T3 or T4.


They still would have made Terminator films after T2 if that alternate ending had been used.They wouldnt let something like continuity get in the way of making more money.

For the record i like T3 and Salvation.Both are solid action movies and a fine addition to the franchise.


_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to Private Hudson)
Post #: 885
RE: Terminator franchise - past and future - 8/1/2012 9:53:14 PM   
rich


Posts: 4664
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Neo Kobe
Well Salvation is quite entertaining, and a vastly better robot movie than the Transformers films but it's still not worthy of the title Terminator. 

_____________________________

Weekend write-ups

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 886
RE: Terminator franchise - past and future - 9/1/2012 5:16:49 PM   
ripperman


Posts: 141
Joined: 3/10/2007
quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson


quote:

ORIGINAL: ripperman

quote:

ORIGINAL: rich

T2: No Fate
T3: Nuclear war is fate

This is the biggest problem, but there are lots of others. Another sequel should just get on with the war, and finally provide a finish with the time machine being used.




Interesting especially the Nuclear war is fate observation but I'm actually beginning to think that a terminator movie set in the future war set up will never work. TS was such a disaster in my opinion. The whole idea of the terminator as a presence is lost in that and will be lost should another one be made. One of the great strengths of the original films and yes even T3 to a certain extent was that these almost unstoppable things were here in our present and the characters had no idea how to destroy them. One enemy, in each of these films was infinitely more scary and intense than the entire army of cgi transformer bots in TS.


A few things:

1. The future war we saw in T1 and T2 did look pretty interesting.

2. Also the only reason one terminator is so unstoppable is because it was set in the past. In 1984 and 1991 they didn't have the firepower or technology to defeat the robots, but when we look at the future wars depicted in T1 and T2 there are clearly quite a few terminators. Also they have to develop the story and take it further. They can't just keep making it one terminator v the humans. That just becomes boring.

3. Terminator Salvation... I enjoyed it. When I saw it in the cinema I really hadn't read too much about it and actually really enjoyed it. I think it doesn't deserve the flak it has received and is miles better than the rather boring and redundant T3.



As I mentioned terminators in our present as it was at the time and so much better for it. The crux of the movies essentially and why they work so well. If skynet has the technology to send a terminator back to a time of more primitive weapons etc then why not keep doing that. Extend the technology so that more terminators could be sent at a time. Better technology, more terminators invading the past = odds of human survival diminshing = more intense movie.
  I have to respectfully disagree. The 2 series of Sarah Connor chronicles showed that you could extend the universe in the present and keep it interesting and intelligent. So many cool storylines and possibilities to explore with that. Ok the series ended in the future war thing, but we had to assume that there would be more to come where the characters had  flashbacks of the past etc pehap. This maybe the only way another terminator movie could work in my eyes, a type of half and half.

(in reply to Private Hudson)
Post #: 887
RE: Terminator franchise - past and future - 9/1/2012 6:52:43 PM   
kumar


Posts: 5220
Joined: 2/10/2005

I thought Salvation was pretty damn entertaining if a little bloodless. The end was decent, though it fell flat at the end with the heart transplant.

_____________________________

"Darth Silas - I love Craig as Bond too. Genius. "- Jackmansgirl 15/7/2008

Last films watched:

The Road - 4/5
Chronicle - 4/5
Twilight Breaking Dawn p1 - 1/5
Warrior - 5/5
Super 8 - 5/5
Paranormal Activity 3 - 3/5
MI 4 - 2/5

(in reply to ripperman)
Post #: 888
RE: Terminator franchise - past and future - 11/1/2012 10:47:19 AM   
Marwood

 

Posts: 2617
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: Only The Shadow knows

quote:

ORIGINAL: kumar


I thought Salvation was pretty damn entertaining if a little bloodless. The end was decent, though it fell flat at the end with the heart transplant.


As I recall that was a late rewrite as the original planned ending had Connor killed by the T-800, skinned by his lieutenants and then Marcus wearing a John suit for the rest of the war posing as him. I think after it was leaked and commentors largely went berserk it was rethought.

_____________________________

Bilbo: What about the Ewoks? They were rubbish.

Tim: Yeah but Jar Jar Binks makes the Ewoks look like f***ing Shaft!

(in reply to kumar)
Post #: 889
RE: Terminator franchise - past and future - 11/1/2012 1:03:41 PM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2174
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
quote:

ORIGINAL: rich

quote:


T2: No fate but we make
T3: This is the fate we made


What? No. The entire point is that Sarah Connor prevents her atomic holocaust nightmare from coming true. And she does, they just didn't use that ending in T2. To be honest they should have stuck it on there just to prevent so much nonsense being produced afterwards.


Yes. She prevented her nightmare coming true but died sometime after. Then it became John Connor's nightmare.

I find it quite telling they didn't include the alternative ending. And by the way, there were books written within the T2 continuity that carry on the story.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ripperman
As I mentioned terminators in our present as it was at the time and so much better for it. The crux of the movies essentially and why they work so well. If skynet has the technology to send a terminator back to a time of more primitive weapons etc then why not keep doing that. Extend the technology so that more terminators could be sent at a time. Better technology, more terminators invading the past = odds of human survival diminshing = more intense movie.
  I have to respectfully disagree. The 2 series of Sarah Connor chronicles showed that you could extend the universe in the present and keep it interesting and intelligent. So many cool storylines and possibilities to explore with that. Ok the series ended in the future war thing, but we had to assume that there would be more to come where the characters had  flashbacks of the past etc pehap. This maybe the only way another terminator movie could work in my eyes, a type of half and half.


The whole point of Skynet's actions in sending terminators to the past was as a last ditch effort to save itself from total annihilation by the Resistance, who had compromised its defences. That's where it ought to stay, not going into a temporal war situation where terminators are being sent back left, right and centre. It just makes the whole thing appear more absurd. I think the Terminator series can progress into future war territory, it's not a case that the original format has to be followed (assassin vs protector chase film) but that a decent script and a sufficiently apocalyptic and desperate world is shown on the canvas.

< Message edited by Emyr Thy King -- 11/1/2012 10:24:00 PM >


_____________________________

"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 890
Page:   <<   < prev  26 27 28 29 [30]
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Future Films >> RE: Terminator franchise - past and future Page: <<   < prev  26 27 28 29 [30]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News††|††Empire Blog††|††Movie Reviews††|††Future Films††|††Features††|††Video Interviews††|††Image Gallery††|††Competitions††|††Forum††|††Magazine††|††Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.156