Why Terminator Salvation Isn’t a Terminator Film
Don’t let the title fool you. The sole purpose of this article isn’t to bash the latest installment of the Terminator film franchise. My goal is to actually do the opposite. I’ve seen Terminator Salvation and read some critic and fan reviews, and I’ve noticed several concerns regarding the film’s placement in the series. The biggest complaint is that it isn’t a worthy successor to the the other films. With that being said, I can understand your frustration. I don’t think Salvation is a bad movie, I actually think it’s a great action flick. It’s just that it’s not supposed to be your typical action film, it’s supposed to be Terminator, so why doesn’t it fit with the rest of the series?
Enter at your own risk. SPOILERS ahead.
Protagonist/Antagonist: This is the basic good versus evil element that is usually displayed as the protector going toe to toe with the assassin. In the Terminator world John Connor is always at the epicenter of conflict. The machines have been trying to take him out since before he was conceived. His protector is always someone who is in some shape or fashion inferior to his assassin, but are diligent in their duty. In the first film Kyle Reese is a human going up against a machine. In T2: Judgment Day, the original Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) goes up against Robert Patrick’s slicker and more advanced T-1000. T3: Rise of the Machines pits the T-800 against Kristanna Loken’s faster and stronger TX model. But in Terminator Salvation that match up doesn’t exist. It’s not John Connor versus Marcus Wright. If anything its the humans versus Skynet. There’s no main Terminator to fear. There’s just a random one Marcus fights at the end, and Arnold’s CGI cameo that Connor fights while in Skynet headquarters. Where’s the payoff?
No John Connor love. For the first time in the franchise I wasn’t rooting for John Connor. I know it sounds like blasphemy, but a lot of people have been complaining about his lack of character development. I agree that his arc in this film was unclear, but the guy’s had three previous installments surrounding his story. I think we know more about him than he does. Unfortunately, with all the build up that we’ve been given of what John Connor would become, he’s kind of a let down. He wasn’t bad ass or memorable in anyway. All we know is that Michael Ironside (the Resistance general in the sub) hates him, and considers him some kind of a “rebel.”
Who’s the real hero here? We have been taught throughout the entire series that John Connor is the savior of mankind’s future, yet once again his life lies in the hands of a machine. Not only does Marcus save his life multiple times, but he sacrifices himself so that John can live. Throughout all the promotions for the film they kept trying to set it up as if Marcus was this cyborg who couldn’t be trusted. They made it seem as if there was going to be a match up between Christian Bale and Sam Worthington. In reality it was more of Marcus busting his ass to help John, Kyle, Blair, the little mute girl and everybody else. I found myself drawn much more to him than Connor, and that’s just not right.
The good with the bad. Even though there were several basic Terminator themes missing from this film, McG did try to pay homage to the previous films by adding little things here and there. I loved the opening and closing credits with the Terminator score, it really got me into an epic train of thought. The usage of the Guns & Roses song from T2, and the infamous line that John recited when Kate asked him what she should tell his men while leaving for his mission. He simply replied, “Tell them, I’ll be back.”
Overall I think that McG tried to do something different with the franchise, but he ended up straying too far from the source material. I think he made a great summer action film. It’s enjoyable, and entertaining, but it’s not Terminator. You have John Connor, you have Skynet, but you’re missing the main villain. Marcus Wright doesn’t fit the bill. If anything he’s a kick ass anti-hero. The film is entitled Terminator Salvation, but who’s really the savior?
What did you think of Terminator Salvation? Does it fit in with the previous film installments?
Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:46PM
You know, I clicked on this link thinking it was going to be some boohoo complain-game critique, but I actually found your opinion pretty well rounded and spot on.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:57PM
i would agree and was disapointed with the film from a terminator point of view it was a good action flick and christian bail was well Batman!
if they do another film i hope they go back to the orignal plot and dont use items form the Matrix…
Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:03PM
"No John Connor love…Unfortunately, with all the build up that we’ve been given of what John Connor would become, he’s kind of a let down. He wasn’t bad ass or memorable in anyway. "
I think people like you are really missing the deeper message in this movie. The underlying story is all about how the one character with real love and heart was the machine, Marcus Wright.
The characters, including John Connor were designed to be dull and lifeless throughout the movie. Let me emphasize: THIS WAS BY DESIGN, not a mistake by the director. 15 straight years of war had made all the human beings lose their humanity. Marcus Wright did not grow up in a post-apocalpytic world and even he, a criminal in his time, was more human and had more "heart" than anyone living in the current world.
John Connor had not yet become the great hero portrayed in visions of earlier movies because he had yet to learn to discern what real humanity is. He finally learned this at the end of the movie, and gained Marcus's "heart", both physically and metaphorically. This is the final enabler that will prepare him as the true leader of the resistance, unlike Ironside's character who gave up his humanity and, in the end, his life and position in the resistance.
The drab, gray landscape, the quarrel between the gas station tribe about giving food, the ignorance of Kate Brewster's pregnancy and the lifeless characters (other than Marcus) were all BY DESIGN to contrast how mankind lacked the humanity to succeed.
When I walked out of the theater, I thought the way you do, "oh what an uninspiring, mess of a movie". Now, I've begun to understand the hidden message here. In my revised opinion, I now believe this movie is the best of the entire Terminator series because it has a deeper message than the previous films. To me it is not a popcorn thriller like T1-T3, but an intense examination of the heart of a human being.
So please, think a little deeper at the hidden message of this film. McG has taken "Terminator" a step further than Cameron ever could.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009 8:35PM
CJF very insightful. I agree. However I do also agree with some of the points of this article. While I do think that is what McG may have intended it may not work best in this film. Yes the symbolism behind that is interesting but it also takes something crucial away from the Connor character. Relatability. We really should care for John the most. We should understand why Kyle decided to sacrifice everything for this man. I think that Christian Bale did the best he could with what they gave him. The problem is that they didn't give him enough. Sam Worthington really stands out in this movie as not only the most dimensional character but also as the heart of the film. It is through him that we really see this story unfold. It's through him that we tackle the films more philosophical concepts and themes. So he really does steal the show. Maybe even a little too much. While it's good that his character adds to the movie I felt that he outshined John Connor a little too much. They took a great deal of effort to set up and establish Marcus and his character arc but John was overlooked to some degree. In the end this new series is supposed to be more about Connor's rise in the resistance and his battle with the machines and I felt that his arc got a little lost in Marcus's shadow. Actually Marcus's story is more of a sub plot in the grander scheme of things. The sub plot is a narrative structure is not supposed to be the focus. It didn't help that Christian Bale's screen time was limited for the first half of the movie. We never really get to know this new John Connor very well. Every time we see him he is just going on and on about strategy and skynet. There wasn't enough human moments with him. If they had more scenes with John and his wife, maybe discussing her pregnancy, it would have made him more relatable. It's odd that we can see that she is pregnant but not one time in the movie do they talk about it or what it will mean to have a baby in this world. I'm sure that they shot scenes like that but for some reason the got edited out. I think this was a mistake. It's hard to relate to a man who is destined to lead a resistance to wage war against Skynet but it's easy to relate to man fighting to protect his family and to ensure their future. Critics seem to be bashing Bale's performance but any blame for his portrayal I think falls on the screenwriters and director. They should have put more focus on John Connor then they did. If they make a sequel they have to correct that. John and Kyle and their relationship should be the focus and the heart of this series. If Marcus returns he should only come back to serve a similar role that Han Solo did in Star Wars. He may be the favorite but the real story is John and Kyle like the Skywalker's were in Star Wars. I really hope that they make at least another sequel because I really want to see the moment play out where John has to send Kyle back in time. Think how dramatic that is going to be. John is going to want to tell Kyle that he is his father but he can't. He's going to have to live with the fact that by sending Kyle back in time to protect Sarah he is in fact sending Kyle to his death. That's pretty deep. Potentially the most dramatic moment in the franchise if done correctly.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 1:08PM
You know what would have made this a Terminator movie and resolved many of the plot holes, have a terminator sent back from even further in the future. That would explain the sudden jump in Skynet technology and the fact that Skynet is looking Kyle and John (he is not the leader yet). They also should have kept John a supporting character (Kyle and Marcus only hear his broadcasts) and not introduced him in person until Marcus finds him. There is a great Terminator movie in here I just wish that they had made it.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 1:11PM
I agree with the orginial article, but I say bring back arnold! bring back arnold! Arnold we could use you one more time…even if you are brought back as an older Terminator! We need you!
Thursday, May 28, 2009 1:12PM
The article is great.
But your point about this movie straying away from what a Terminator movie should be is somewhat misplaced. In none of the other 3 movies has ithe story been actually been set post Jugement Day. This is and for you to be expecting the same formula used in the other 3 movies, its just not possible.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 1:48PM
the movie was wack!!!!
Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:10PM
I have to say- this article is a shortcut to thinking. If ANY of the Terminator films wasn't a true Terminator movie- it was T3- let me explain. Cameron did the whole chase thing with the first film- then he though to himself- how can I make a sequel and still keep the chase angle fresh? By reversing it. The T-800 became the protector. T3 adds no fresh angle- while the Cameron films were innovative- which is what made them great films- not that they were chase movies. T3 reuses the elements from T2. Do you honestly think that if Cameron HAD made a third movie it'd just be another chase film? After flipping the angle for T2 he'd know that the chase story is used up- and he'd move on to what his franchise has been hinting to all along (and you ask where the payoff is)- the war against SkyNet. A true sequel puts forth fresh angles and expands the world created and hinted at by the original film. There's only so much you can do with John Connor being chased around- he's supposed the be the leader of the resistance when he grows up- not a constant mouse chased around by the big cat.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:26PM
I’m not sure what on earth is going on over at Rottentomatoes.com but the critical populace needs to take it easy on that free Kool-Aid the studios have been handing out. I mean how on earth can Angels & Demons and Night at the Museum 2 have a higher rating than Terminator Salvation? It barely has more then Dance Flick! Is Terminator really a bad movie, or are the critics forgetting that their supposed to write objectively about any movie regardless of how they feel about the project? I saw the movie last night, and as much as I hate using the phrase “It’s a definite crowd pleaser,” I would recommend it to anyone. You could feel the entire audience in the full theater holding on to their seats as the movie progressed, cheering & screaming at all the right moments. Sure, the 3rd act gets a little lame and slightly ridiculous, but come on, how much does a filmmaker have to do to please these critics? The first hour is brilliant & it contains some of the best effects and action sequences I have ever seen. Not to mention the nail biting tone, the sick score and all the great acting. Sam Worthington in particular rises above the entire cast.
After watching the movie and then reading rotten review after rotten review, I got the sense that most of the critics never gave the movie a fair chance. They were expecting it to be bad just because McG directed it and not the brilliant James Cameron. I know McG made those silly Charlies Angels flicks (and I know he has an equally silly name), but Terminator Salvation is a completely different type of movie and for the most part it has some really good directing. Night at the Museum 2 is nothing but a commercial for everything the big companies want to push on your kids, just like that horrible Hanna Montana Movie that also has a higher rating then Terminator. (WTF?) So to all the movie lovers out there, I recommend you make your own decisions about a movie’s worth and for god’s sake stop listening to the Tomatometer. It’s not fresh anymore.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:28PM
Im not sure what on earth is going on over at Rottentomatoes.com but the critical populace needs to take it easy on that free Kool-Aid the studios have been handing out. I mean how on earth can Angels & Demons and Night at the Museum 2 have a higher rating than Terminator Salvation? It barely has more then Dance Flick! Is Terminator really a bad movie, or are the critics forgetting that their supposed to write objectively about any movie regardless of how they feel about the project? I saw the movie last night, and as much as I hate using the phrase Its a definite crowd pleaser, I would recommend it to anyone. You could feel the entire audience in the full theater holding on to their seats as the movie progressed, cheering & screaming at all the right moments. Sure, the 3rd act gets a little lame and slightly ridiculous, but come on, how much does a filmmaker have to do to please these critics? The first hour is brilliant & it contains some of the best effects and action sequences I have ever seen. Not to mention the nail biting tone, the sick score and all the great acting. Sam Worthington in particular rises above the entire cast.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:34PM
I think the film fits perfectly. With the first two films, we only get a glimpse of the future presented in flashbacks (or flash-forwards depending on how you look at it), I thought the post-apocalyptic future was pulled off marvelously, it reminded me of Mad Max II: The Road Warrior. Actually being in this time period is something I was interested in seeing since I saw the first film. The tone and mood was also very consistent with the original film, no friendly Terminator and not many laughs either. Also, I'm glad the themes shifted off of John Connor and more on Marcus because well the third film proved how tired the Connor theme was getting. For me, the Terminator series is about the constant pursuit and relentlessness of Skynet to destroy mankind, and the new film encompasses that…I thought this film fit in the series nicely.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:48PM
did you just say that McG accomplished something that James Cameron couldn't?
i don't think we're even talking about the same league here.
McG should stick to the OC, although I'm sure we'll see Charlie's Angels 3 in a year or so.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:53PM
I disagree with people who say that Marcus stole the show or was the heart of the movie. He was so boring. The whole first hour was played like we didn't know he was a terminator even though it was obvious from scene 1. Then we had to sit through the scene where we're supposed to be shocked that he's a machine.
This movie is not a great action flick. It was littered with cliches and retreads. Krystal pointed to the a number of things that McG just lifted from old Terminator films and yet she was praising him for it. "I'll be back" & "Come with me if you want to live" were in every other iteration of The Terminator. Skin being removed from one side of the terminator's face to expose the metal skull is in Terminators 1 – 3 plus the TV show.
You say that McG paid homage to the other movies but really he just copied and pasted. When you say that you loved his use of the Terminator music in the credit sequences, that just makes you lose credibility. The only reason that music is there is so it evokes your memories of the better movies. It's like when a terrible band covers a classic song. Does your opinion of Nickelback go up too because they covered a Springsteen song?
CJF: Really? The deeper message? How about the most shallow gesture in any Terminator movie? The terminator giving John Connor his heart is so heavy-handed. And the drab gray landscape will be in the next movie, trust me. It has no meaning because it's not gonna be sunny at any point as long as nukes are going off every 2 days. If it's dark and drab in the sequel, is your argument still valid in that movie too? Moon Bloodgood's character was also not lifeless in any way. She was pretty full of life from the second you saw her. Also, she had a sex scene in this movie that was cut, which tells me that she probably wasn't too lifeless if she's having sex during this particular sequence of events. Kind of like Kyle Reese with Sarah Connor: running from an unstoppable enemy, they still stop to have sex.
You say that the Ironside character lost his humanity, and thus lost his life and his command of the resistance as a penalty, because he wanted to bomb Skynet with humans still being held there. Yet you also say that the terminator's heart gave John his humanity back. How can that be true if he went against the decision to bomb Skynet? If this decision proves that the General has lost his humanity, then it also proves that anyone who disagrees with his decision has not. So what exactly is the terminator heart for? Just heavy-handed nonsense, that's what.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:02PM
You're out of your fucking mind!
Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:11PM
It wasnt Connor vs Skynet. Or Marcus vs Skynet. The story was about the Terminator, Marcus. And the battle was within. Marcus has to come to terms that HE is the enemy. He tracked down Reese and brought Connor to Skynet.
Its not my favorite of the Terminators. It was different but I really liked it.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:20PM
Your observations are very valid. I enjoyed Salvation. Its not great but it was good. The first two films were great and the last two were good. GOOD is ok as you aren't going to get great all the time. James Cameron is an AMAZING talent and I don't think he can be topped. In the overall franchise I think Salvation still works as a story within the canon of films. Take Planet of the Apes- The original film is great. There were four sequels, none quite as good but I enjoyed them all. The last one is by far the weakest. The second which was Beneath isn't as good as the first. The first half is so-so but I love the heck out of the second half. Its great SC-FI.
Films can be flawed or imperfect but still have value to the viewer. The internet crowd has been way too harsh of Terminator Salvation in my opinion. Its not as good as 1 and 2 but its still a solid entry as was part 3. I'm OK with that.
chuck
Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:38PM
I agree with CJF as well the idea behind Terminator: Salvation (T:S) was to introduce us to a man (John Conner) who has hated machines for so long, cause well, he's been bashed in the head with the idea that anything that's a machine in the future has nothing else to do but try to kill him along with the rest of the human race.
I find this movie to be the Star Wars: A New Hope of Terminator films for the fact that it reintroduces us to characters in a new time period and has small character development. New Hope would have been seen this way had George Lucas made the movies in the intended order.
The other thing at fault about this story was it was so short and had nothing really to do with the grander picture, much like the fault of Quantum of Solace, it made some small steps in the right direction to help Bond get over Vespa, but ultimately what was the point to Bonds story.
I cant wait to see what is cooking in MCG's mind or whoever ends up picking up the next film, then we will be able to look back at this film and be like "oh so that why this happened, duh." Till then, we will see.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:00PM
This article is pointless. You don't really explain why it's not a Terminator film — your points relating to the headline are trivial at best. This is a rant, and not a very good one.
I can't stand articles like this with catchy headlines that lead into unprofessional, misguided fanboy rants. There's a lot to complain about with this movie that relates to the previous entries in the franchise, but you missed that opportunity. What a waste of time.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:05PM
you all are hipocrites. This was suppossed to be different! If they keep following the same formula it gets real stale real fast much like T3. This is the start of the resistence winning. John Connor is just starting and now will become the leader since Ironside is dead. Marcus is gone, so now we have john and his soon to be son. The next will most likely focus on kyle getting trained by John to go into the past. Cheyenne Mountain is where the main skynet hub is and where the first teleportation setup is so this will be probally much like the game dawn of fate. Just enjoy what creativity has to offer. I thought this was a good installment, in fact I loved T2 but this one was more intense and showed what us TRUE sci-fi lovers wanted to see, post-apocalyptic future with massive violence and it did it well. Either way, it made its money, it will make two more and you all will buy it, probally still bitch at it but down at heart you know your satisfied that the future is finally shown.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:12PM
I absolutely agree with CreamoftheColada and most of the posters here. I actually liked Terminator Salvation a lot. It was a very different Terminator movie but that was a good thing. T3 was useless in the sense that it was just a complete rehash of T2. There was nothing original about the entire movie except the ending. The thing that I wanted more out of TS was character depth. FILMGUY, you hit the nail in the coffin about key points that TS missed out on. I couldn't believe they didn't even mention the baby. John's wife was pregnant and they completely left it out! I think the most vital element in character depth that was missing was a strong sense of motivation. In T1 and T2, the basis need for survival propelled the movie. In TS, that motivation or any other was missing. Marcus' character wasn't propelled by much. In fact he didn't even seem to care much that he woke up in a post apocalyptic world. JC's desire to save his father could have been fleshed out more.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:22PM
Very good CJF….I must agree u hit it right on the spot….
Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:29PM
Awesome comparison, I agree tho about John Connor, Marcus Wright was awesome, but u need to draw out John Connor a lil more and show why exactly why everyone follows him and considers him the leader of the resistence..as well as how amazing he is, Marcus Wright did seem to have more cam time than John, tho I have to admit I loved his character in the movie…But I think T5 should flesh out John Connors character more, and let us know who is and why is, who he is….Just like kyle reese said in Terminator 1, "John tought us how to fight and beat the machine"….But T:Salvation was a kick ass movie regardless…We just need more traditional, or more backstory to the first terminator, and john connor next go round….same thing for Kate Brewster as she was developing into his wife and his right hand in the resistence…as in T3….
Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:30PM
I have to disagree with your comment about the promotions leaning towards a John Connor versus Marcus Knight battle. From what I kept seeing throughout, it looked obvious to me that Marcus was going to be a "good" Terminator in this movie. Am I the only one?
Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:31PM
It was actually better than I expected it to be. I didn't mind that it strayed from the Terminator "formula." After all, as was evident in T3, you just can't keep doing the same thing over and over and expect people not to get bored. I think Salvation signifies a new direction from the norm of the franchise that maybe isn't such a bad thing. I hope the film does well. I'd like to see where it goes from here.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:54PM
The problem with T:Salvation is that in the absence of Schwarzenegger the writers opted for blatantly ripping off another Arnold movie; TOTAL RECALL! Marcus is an amnesiac wandering and wondering who he is while running from bad guys (and big machines) only to discover he isn't who he thought he was, and then to be told he was programmed that way to infiltrate and expose the human targets. So as to not seem totally obvious, and to tie this plot into the Terminator mythos, the writers simply named a character in a thin subplot the identifiable name of Kyle Reece. While the familiarity of the plotline kept the movie from being unique and exciting, the other determent was none other than Batman, er, Christian Bale. Does he smoke 13 packs of cigs a day? What is with this gravel*growl*gravel*growl voice? Newsflash: We need to be able to hear what you say, asshole!
Long story sadly short, if you want to see T:Salvation then see it when it was done right the first time; rent TOTAL RECALL and "get your ass to Mahzz!"
Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:08PM
I'm a huge Terminator and Terminator 2 fan. I absolutely was disgusted with T3. I thought this new Terminator was ok, but it seemed really claustrophobic and never managed to make the "future war" seem big at all. Even when John Connor is inside Skynet, the best defense that it can give is a single T-800? There should have been hundreds of terminators in Skynet. Likewise, the "I will tell you everything as you sit there" plot expose scene between Skynet and Worthington's character was just too easy. As was his turning off the base defense guns with a flick of the switch. If Skynet is so smart, and has control over all of these robots, how could shutting down the defenses be that easy? The movie came across to me as a hack job with some decent special effects and an ending that had no payoff or real intensity. I really wish they had paid James Cameron buckets of money to lure him into making this, because this mythology is his baby, and nobody can make it better than him.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:13PM
Every review on this movie is the same-This doesn't follow any other Terminators-. OF COURSE IT DOESN'T! DUH! How many times are we going to see a special Terminator going after John Connor?
This movies takes place 11 years before Kyle Reese get's sent back in time. Hence, 11 years before Skynet learns how to send machines via time travel. The T-600's are just being created now. They're now just coming online. This movies fits perfectly how T1 opens up. You have the Terminators with the plastic faces(as Kyle discusses to Sarah). It's the first stage man! Relax!
john Connor isn't even a leader yet…. he's in his Neo stage of The Matrix part 1. He's only a supposed prophecy! Wait until the next two come out. McG brought up an idea to bring in a now looking older Robert Patrick in as a scientist who learns how to develop his body in a younger state.(Where the T1000 gets born).
give it a rest. This was a above average movie. I'm sick of seeing more time travel. This is the future. Man Vs. Machine
Thursday, May 28, 2009 7:00PM
Er, Marcus doesn't save Connor at the end. he takes his place. Watch the ending again
Thursday, May 28, 2009 7:06PM
CJF, if that was BY DESIGN, that McG did a TERRIBLE job making this noticeable. If the audience isn't getting the message of the movie, then it's a bad movie. Sorry.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 7:11PM
You know, I almost totally agree
Only thing different is I thought Connor was pretty bad ass he studied all the machines and different ways to take them out. He fought like a bad ass and killed his share of terminators. Here's the thing, Marcus Wright was just so much of a hard ass he over shadowed John. But come on….he himself was a freaking machine, capable of multiple times the strength of a human. Humans can only use guns and their brains in this flick. So cut Connor a little slack eh.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 7:46PM
As usual with his films….McG is the problem……send him back to directing commercials or music
videos or whatever he did before…i mean what great movie did he ever direct? …dont say charlies angels please!!!
I was not happy when McG was named director of this franchise….
Thursday, May 28, 2009 7:50PM
This is a movie that will only get better to us as time progresses and God willing, another is made to flesh out the story lines. With careful thought, from us and the writers, this soon to be trilogy, will be the new volume for the Terminator franchise.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 7:55PM
well i think you make some good points. that doesnt change my opinion that T4 rocked. and to tell y ou the truth im happy as fuck that they didnt go to the same god damn plot as the previous 3. i mean COME ON!!! thats just bad criticism. your giving a movie bad reviews because it didn't make like a god damn plot clone like all the other installments. its the WAR!!! not pre war where all these preumtive strikes are all going on, its The Resistance v.s. the Machines. i mean come on!!! orcourse they are trying to kill John Connor and his family so there's THAT old plot point. this is just stupid i mean i just hope your "up their own ass i know everything about movies" review doesn't discourage further sequels because then ugh i would of lost all respect for rotten tomatoes. all critics say the same thing, the only thing they love more then writing reviews, is bad reviews. i mean like i said, you made some good points here and there but i have to disagree with you completely on the face that they didnt follow the same premise, and lack of character development, (there's three god damn movies before hand that do that!!!!) and lastly the over all feel of the movie i loved. it was new, i knew it was terminator, just a different side of the coin. rock on!!! keep going terminator series!!!! viva la resistance!!!
Thursday, May 28, 2009 7:56PM
i agree completely with you.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 7:58PM
I"m sorry but I disagree. I think the difficulty is the time line confusion. This film was about the future but also the past. Skynet wanted Conner dead but at this point it saw him as a threat and worked to destroy him but really had not learned to fear him. The T-800 did not exist until this point in history. This movie is as much a prequel as it is a sequel.
That is why it feels weird. We are seeing John as he inflicts the first major blow against Skynet. We are seeing him set off the events that bring about the first film. This decisive victory is what causes Skynet to try and send a T-800 back in time to destroy Sarah before John is conceived and so causes an older Kyle to save her and become John's father.
The struggle within this film is much the same as the struggle of the prior films. Each of them ask the question in some way, "what is it to be human?" In the original Terminator we are presented with a machine that appears human but is clearly not and so our first assumption of man is shattered. In the second we see a machine learning to become human even to the point of loving a young boy however much a machine could. This breaks the concept that a machine could not be human. The third film teaches us the same thing with the extension of the ultimate sacrifice made to save John Conner.
This film takes that question from a different perspective for sure, but we are still made to ask what does it mean to be human and what does it mean to be a machine. Did Marcus lure John in because of his programing or was he trying to do the right thing? Marcus rejects his programing and saves John from a superior machine, but is the machine superior because it does not have a heart that is a "vulnerability" or is Marcus more powerful because of his humanity and driving will.
This is a great Terminator film that needs to be understood within the context of the past and future of the Terminator series, not just as a linear story.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:02PM
PS, As a prequel this movie is actually more about protecting Kyle than John because in attacking Kyle they are trying to destroy John before he is born just like they did in the first movie.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:07PM
CJF, McG has taken Terminator a step further than Cameron ever could? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, dude don't make me vomit. T4 is not even close to the greatness of T2, but it was GOOD. I liked it. Nobody can touch James Cameron.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:20PM
"Whose the real hero" should be "WHO'S the real hero," not whose. Whose is a possessive pronoun.
I agree that the film wasn't as good as the others, but I don't think the story was supposed to follow the exact same structure as the previous films. Remember that this is a different time period, and the beginning of a new trilogy.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:30PM
"John Connor had not yet become the great hero portrayed in visions of earlier movies because he had yet to learn to discern what real humanity is. He finally learned this at the end of the movie, and gained Marcus's "heart", both physically and metaphorically. This is the final enabler that will prepare him as the true leader of the resistance, unlike Ironside's character who gave up his humanity and, in the end, his life and position in the resistance."
I would agree with you if not for the speech to stop the raid on skynet HQ. This movie was a mess and any cockamimy you pull out of your butt isn't going to change that.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:40PM
I believe it's Loken not Lokken.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:41PM
Frankly I'm surprised at the level of discontent that's shown re: T4. It was a solid movie and a credible follow-up to T2 (let's pretend that T3 never happened). While Bale isn't nearly as good as he thinks he is, it's an acceptable character. McG tried hard and succeeded fairly well at tying together all of the time travel elements. Marcus was also a great character (with an admittedly silly death)
As this is the first Terminator to take place solely in the future, I think we need to think of it as the jumping off point for T5 that has huge potential greatness and closing the loop back to T1.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:42PM
Funny, they will NEVER be able to top T3 and they know it!
RT
http://www.whos-watching.mirrorz.com
Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:59PM
listen its building up for the nest two…its going to be a trilogy
Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:03PM
Frankly, I think it should have been the other way around: Christian Bale's John Connor should have died protecting Marcus — telling the more durable cyborg "You're John Connor now" and passing the mantle of rebellion to him.
Then there could have been an emotional "I am Spartacus" moment, and cyborg John Connor could have rallied the human forces, withstanding massive attacks and cementing his reputation as an indestructible and indominable leader. And that would lead into the next movie, without an expensive Christian Bale to sign, and lots of human/cyborg conflicts and "you're not John Connor" moments with other rebellion leaders and Mrs. Connor (and child).
Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:07PM
What i want to know, is why the human resistance lets the only human who can actually go toe to toe with a terminator give up his heart for some guy who thinks he is batman reincarnated?
Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:10PM
I can't take a reviewer who doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're" seriously.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:26PM
I almost think that JC is being set up for another movie (which I heard there were a total of three new ones coming out) as the leader of the humans. The rest of the leaders are wiped out, and Conner is seemingly left standing alone as the leader of the Resistance.
Was this movie just a set up for the other ones to come? Maybe the true villain will be revealed later, even though there were no clues or hints or anything about this. It will be boring if the humans are just fighting machines–how many Terminators can you shoot in the face?
I wasn't overly impressed by the movie, but I like the storyline so much that I enjoyed it anyway.
I am hoping that the others don't turn into the 2nd and 3rd Matrix movies–which were disappointing.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:28PM
well written but the movie is called Terminator Salvation. Get it?
Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:29PM
John McDowell:
Uhh, don't you think Connor did think that Marcus was sent back in time??? That's why he was so wary of trusting him. It reminded him of Arnold and therefore he couldn't trust a machine. He hadn't seen the machines dressed as humans yet. And so, he thought that Marcus was from the future, sent back in time, to destroy him. The fact that Marcus had emotions scared Connor even more.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:29PM
I agree. I saw this movie on opening night, and wasn't "let down" because I enjoyed the movie, but it definitely wasn't what I was expecting. It's like going to a sports game, and expecting to watch a hard fought game between your favorite team and their rivals, and instead you have your team completely blow the other team out of the stadium. Honestly, I'd much rather see a really close, nail biting game.
That's how I felt about Salvation. It just felt way to much like Matrix Revolutions to me.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:25PM
I totally agree with you in the sense of the "underlying message"… I agree that this was all by design.. but it could have been emphasized with a bit more acting depth. You can play a lifeless, war-ragged, battle-worn human commander fighting on humanity's last bastion of hope for humanity and still make the audience feel something from it. The fact that this wasn't instantly recognizable is where the whole team failed… actors/writer/director all included.
There just wasn't enough dialog for it. Not enough GOOD dialog anyway to make you really get invested in any of the characters, other then the cyborg. Not only that, but there were virtually no twists, and there was nothing at all about the movie that you couldn't see coming from the very beginning.. .not that that is a requirement for a Terminator movie.. but if they're gonna try to make the Terminator movie a Terminator "film", then they really needed to mix it up a bit. Didn't have to be a complex web of skynet conspiracies.. but it could have been a little less… drab. There was little to draw your attention away from the lack of development for really, ANY of the characters. I'm not a fan of having too much exposition but in this film there really wasn't ENOUGH to bridge the gap between films.
Wasn't bad, but could have been waaaaaay better. Honestly, that was my only disappointment. It served as an entertaining action flick, but the attempt was visible for it to be an actual "film", and they kinda failed in that regard, which really was a downer. This movie could have been as good, if not better then J.J. Abram's Star Trek, but they just sort of fell on their own sword.
Also, as far as having no assassin to go "toe-to-toe" with.. I liked it a lot that way… but that could have been done a bit better as well, to give you more of a sense of what the war has evolved into. In the other Terminator movies its just a single terminator assassin from the future, but here it's a whole hell of a lot against rag-tag human resistance fighters. There should have been more of a Matrix-y feel to it, rather then having an HQ right out in the open (not the Submarine, but John's HQ) which is clearly highlighted by prominent defenses, landing strips and all that good stuff. If Skynet is as scary as we're supposed to believe, they could have wiped that shithole right off the face of the planet. Should have had a more underground, or hidden-in-plain-sight sort of feel amidst rubble like Kyle Reese's little hideaway. Also the way that John Conner was the only one who made it out of that place without dying was super lame. How the fuck did he get back, again? With all Heli's crashed and everything? Yet everyone else died, including the ones who were in Helicopters with big guns attached? I dunno… the fact that he was the only one who made it back didn't give as much a sense of desperation and hopelessness as it did human incompetence.
Thats just me though.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:51PM
Everyone knows it sucks now, no need to keep posting bad reviews
Friday, May 29, 2009 12:34AM
I was so upset by this film. I firmly believe McG dropped the ball.
http://www.rawcritics.com/features/movie-features...
Friday, May 29, 2009 12:36AM
I went in thinking the movie would be unreal based on the previews. I did walk out a little disappointed but very entertained. My whole thinking is why not just kill Kyle, before he goes back to save Sarah. I know the story had it that Kyle was bait, but if they kill Kyle, John doesnt exist. I just didnt get that part. I loved the part with Guns N Roses, loved when CGI Arnie walked out with terminator music playing. All and all, thought was good movie to start off the trilogy. I am wondering in the final one if they will have Arnold killing John like he said he would in T3.
Friday, May 29, 2009 12:48AM
Grammar check: "his life lays in the hands of a machine" –> "his life lies in the hands of a machine"
Friday, May 29, 2009 1:15AM
this movie is tame. i was expecting big battles with lots of terminators like the beginning of T2. there is hardly any blood in this movie compared to the first two. whats with the little kid being in there, once i saw her i knew that she wasn't going to get hurt in the whole movie and somehow she would help in the end. too tame for a movie with the name terminator.
Friday, May 29, 2009 1:25AM
All the previous installments have been about getting to this point, to the start of the story of John-as-Savior. It seems completely natural to me that the post-arrival John Connor story would be different than the becoming-the-savior John Connor stories. Of course, that would mean that this story is the payoff for for the previous stories, and it's a bit of a let-down in that regard. Not that it's bad or goes astray thematically, but because we don't really get to the real end. And John Connor is not Patton. That, of course, is to be expected. He's been getting spoilers of his own future his whole life. Bound to make him different than he would have been if unspoiled. Loved the movie, though.
Friday, May 29, 2009 1:26AM
Amen to this comment…forgetting about all of the character issues (of which there are many), the whole backdrop of the story was just too damn ridiculous and inconsistent with what the future was supposed to look like based on T1-T3. In this movie, humans have safe zones where they seem to operate with impunity; jet fuel, napalm, and metallic mines are available in abundance; the humans can track Skynet activity but it can't detect a napalm burst around the secret Resistance base; heart transplant surgery takes place in the middle of the desert with all of the coronary surgeons that must still be in abundance after the apocalypse; etc. etc. I am a huge Terminator fan and am willing to accept a lot in support of the franchise, but this was just ridiculous. The TV series episodes were more believable and of a higher quality than this film. I hope it doesn't derail the franchise.
Friday, May 29, 2009 2:00AM
This is an interesting viewpoint – and one of the most intelligent of the many, many moronic analyses I've read regarding Terminator Salvation. But ultimately I find it rather pointless. Why must one compare the current film to the previous three? I don't believe this should be considered the 4th movie in a series, but rather it stands alone. And it does so very well. It doesn't require the existence of the other movies to be a great, introspective action film. I suppose you could argue that this is actually the FIRST film in the series, since…oh, wait, the whole time travel thing makes chronology totally impossible to define.
I, for one, vote we all stop comparing this movie to any of the others – and stop comparing the others to each other. The Terminator films – and I certainly include this one in that category – are mind-boggling, mind-bending and mind-opening. I like them all and thoroughly loved Salvation, but don't feel the least need to rank or compare them.
Friday, May 29, 2009 2:11AM
You have a very valid and interesting point, but I think you're thinking too much about the film. A vast and wide majority of the people going to see this want to be entertained and lust for the epic match-up between machine and machine as shown in the three previous installments. They do not want to ponder on the philosophical notions of the 'human condition and heart'. As the article points out it strongly lacks the presence of the one true 'Terminator'. It would have been a much more successful film if it had cut ties completely with the series and taken it into this new and bold direction and didn't ride and carry the burden of two cult classics upon its shoulders, alas, it did not do this. What the movie failed to show, was an enemy. Yes, you have the machines, but there is no fear, no lost hope, no development and sympathy for John Connor and his followers. Thus, it leaves us with an unidentifiable and expansive mechanical army for which we cannot connect with or recognize. To put it in terms I wish to not enter, it's taking the Darth Vader away from Luke Skywalker and simply leaving us with action, explosions and a strong performance by Sam Worthington, which is not enough to keep it afloat.
So please, do not give McG the Almighty highly Platonic credit that you are giving him. He doesn't deserve it nor is he deep thinker. He's the same man who directed Charlie's Angels if you forget.
But then again, if I wished to apply theory to his Charlie's Angels series I too could find the humanistic sides of that tale, but what's the point? It's the same case for Terminator Salvation. They simply wanted to capitalize on name of a classic
Friday, May 29, 2009 2:37AM
the one thing that hit t3 and salvation more then anything is PG13, it's made it impossible to present the edge that the originals had, the possible objectional character development. Instead we get cookie cutter garbage, i'll buy the humanity losing humanity arguement, this movie is a part of this culture we're moving into where it's already happening without a bomb dropped
Friday, May 29, 2009 2:59AM
this movie seems like a build-up to the completion of the time loop they started off in the first movie. the whole terminator myth is based around this loop that John Connor and crew are stuck in. from that perspective this movie fills its role very well. i'm excited to see how the next two movies in the series tie everything together.
on a mostly unrelated topic i really wish they hadn't killed the TV show. i was hoping for more of a fill in for the gaps that happen from T2 to T3/salvation. i know most don't consider it canonical, but i think the show could have tied in better than the ending it got before they axed it.
Friday, May 29, 2009 4:12AM
I couldn't help but feel that if the giant people harvester had just given Kyle Reese a squeeze when he caught him the whole war would have been over, with a scene of John Conner screeming "I'm melting!", as he faded out of existance. It was a serious "Bond moment" when if the enemy had just killed him when the had the chance they would have won the war
Friday, May 29, 2009 6:25AM
I agree with your comment about John Connor and how he was a bit understated, sort of secondary to Marcus Wright, although I liked the Marcus character and the hybrid concept at work there.
It is of course a "Terminator" movie, however. Skynet is the villain, and if there's any criticism to be had on that end, it's that the brain underestimated the human element in Marcus Wright's design and how that might well have prompted him to resist Skynet's plan for domination. The development of the T-800 and their being consistent with the look of the model by using CGI to work Arnold in was of course key to the film's climax, and there's no question that in that respect it achieved its all around goal of making the past prologue to what happens here. In my view it's a good, solid entry in the series and has unfortunately been terribly underrated by the vast majority of critics who I believe hurt its opening weekend Box Office take. I'd watch it again over T3 any day, and in some ways I enjoyed it more than T2, which was just an excuse to turn Arnold into the good guy while to a great extent being nothing more than a rehash of the first movie in the final analysis.
Friday, May 29, 2009 7:04AM
Damnit McG for the last time quite comminting on this site!!! We all know this is really you!
Friday, May 29, 2009 7:06AM
All I have to say is go F**K yourself. T2 is one of the greatest films of all time, and if you walked out of salvation thinking it was so-so, it's because it was.
Friday, May 29, 2009 7:45AM
Article was crap..just one persons opinion. I thought it was a good film.
Friday, May 29, 2009 9:32AM
Joe. Did you watch the movie? It was easy to infiltrate Skynet because that is what Skynet had planned. That was a major portion of the big reveal to Marcus at the end. Did you go take a piss during that part?
Friday, May 29, 2009 12:45PM
Your both idiots. This is just the BEGINNING of the resistance. There is patches around the world, Skynet isn't a massive force yet. And as to the defenses going down easily, you must not have been watching the movie. When Marcus starts talking to the computer in charge of Skynet, she explains that Marcus's job was to bring John Connor to Skynet. They LET him do everything.
Friday, May 29, 2009 2:54PM
I'm so sick of them chasing john connor around…it was a good change.
Friday, May 29, 2009 3:32PM
In the Terminator 4 movie the machines do not have this terrifying image as we all remember from T1 and T2. T4 is badly written. Here I would like to suggest a story line that is richer.
This is how I envisioned T4,5,6:
1. Soon after "Judgement Day" the inevitable Nuclear winter begins. It devastates all biological systems on the planet. Whatever plant, creature survived the immediate nuclear blasts died from hunger and radiation in the following 1-3 years.
2. The few remaining humans are scattered all over the planet. Slowly over the years they learn to survive in the new environment and form small communities. They learn that machines have to be avoided and that they are very powerful. People feel hopeless to do anything about it. Then over time the travellers from one group/tribe to another spread the inspirational news that there is a small group of people led by John Conner that is very successful in defeating the machines. Stories become legends and everyone wants to join and to become part of the legend. The resistance is born.("Braveheart" style)
{See next message for the rest}
Friday, May 29, 2009 3:34PM
3. At the same time the Skynet is not bothered about the remaining humans. They are no longer considered a threat. Some basic security measures are in place and if encountered human individuals are terminated. The system does not intentionally hunt them. Instead the Skynet begins to gain even more knowledge about reality and the universe (remember Skynet's knowledge grows in a geometric progression according to previous movies). As the years pass Skynet discovers the time travel and many other scientific miracles and new technologies.
{See next message for the rest of the story}
Friday, May 29, 2009 3:34PM
4. At some point in the years Skynet notices that there are a series of small accidents happening in various places around the earth that slow down the advancement of Skynet’s plans. Small events/glitches (like corrupted data or insufficient power or delayed deliveries or lost property, etc.) happen in a almost random pattern causing inconvenience. So the system analyses these events and discovers a pattern and that they are not that random. It almost like there is an intention/intelligence behind these events. As any intelligent agent Skynet decides to make a prediction where the next “accident” would happen and sets up a trap to see what causes it. At that point it discovers that it is a group of humans behind it. And so this way the humans get the attention of Skynet again many years after the Judgement day.
{See next message for the rest of the story}
Friday, May 29, 2009 3:35PM
5. By the time Skynet's attention is back on the human issue there is a big network of resistance groups all over the planet doing well coordinated and very complicated guerrilla war campaigns against the machines. Human communities have grown in numbers but still live underground because the surface is poisonous. Over the years they have stolen and learned to use/modify Skynet technology (including robots) that helps them to survive, grow and procreate. By that time the name of John Conner is a legend because he is the first to show the way to freedom. Now he and his followers successfully run these planetary wide super complicated guerrilla war campaigns against the machines. Their luck is about to expire though. John Conner is at least 60-70 years old at that time. He has wife and children already born years earlier.
Friday, May 29, 2009 3:35PM
6. Skynet recognises the new human threat and increases security in its facilities. It creates new models of terminators to provide security. It becomes tougher for the humans. Quite a few are killed in action. Never the less people adapt over the years. Skynet’s measures become ineffective. The system is forced to increase its security measures and change its tactics from passive to active. The first seek and kill robotic units are created. It is getting more and more difficult for the humans but they adapt. Some are captured for interrogation. Skynet finds out that someone called John Conner is behind all that. Meanwhile the terminator units are improved to the latest model T-800 (Arnold). Humans continuously manage to capture older models of terminators and reprogram them against Skynet so new models have to be created. T-800 would be able to infiltrate human groups and kill them. That tactics fails with the introduction of dogs but quite a few settlements are lost before the humans could figure it out. Being ineffective so far Skynet decides to change the tactics and send one of them T-800 back in time to change the future ( link with T1 movie).
Friday, May 29, 2009 3:36PM
7. Meanwhile humans continue effectively to steel technology and resources from Skynet. T-800 are not that effective any more. They are easily recognised. New mixed guerrilla groups of humans and reprogrammed T-800s work much more effectively to destroy Skynet . Skynet responds by inventing the morphing terminator from T2. Soon after the events leading to the second terminator being send back in time take place (link with T2 movie). The question here is why the morphing terminator was not sent to the same point in time as the first one? Possible explanation is that the time machine requires much more energy to go back that far and this explanation should have been in the T4 movie.
8. Fed up with the human pests and that they successfully reprogram terminators SkyNet creates the ultimate killing machine (the woman from T3 – T901) to deal with the rouge terminators. At this point the events leading to T-901 being send back in time take place (link with the T3 movie). At that point Connor is 90-100 years old and gets killed by T-800 unit (see T3 movie). His wife is still alive and sends the captured T-800 back to protect John. John is dead but his legend continues to inspire. His legacy lives on.
Friday, May 29, 2009 3:38PM
9. The humans continue to destroy Skynet bit by bit over the following years. They never pick an open fight. They act like cowards, but very effective ones. Like a virus or cancer they spread and destroy Skynet. Being super intelligent Skynet evaluates their tactics and realises that it is very effective. Then the system decides to cut its losses and run. So it sets up a few secret bases, time machine, manufacturing and scientific facilities in a very remote and hidden areas unreachable for humans where it continues to build and improve Terminators and all other types of robotic units waiting to fight another day while the humans calm themselves and resurface thinking that they have won. Once the common thread disappears the old human rivalry will resurface. John Conner is long gone. His grandchildren have grown up. Humans will begin rebuilding their society and just when they think that a new age is coming (let’s say 200-300 years later) the Skynet strikes back and this time there is no escape for the humans. The age of machines begins and the humans become like the dinosaurs – extinct. After this point machines begin to colonise the remaining of the solar system and the galaxy.
{See next}
Friday, May 29, 2009 3:39PM
Possible alternative ending:
10. After the second attack Skynet is convinced the humanity is destroyed and the system continues with its business to spread itself through the galaxy and to acquire new knowledge. Little that it knows that in a few very remote locations the humans has survived. This time they are much more careful and make sure their activities are not detected in any way by Skynet. Years and centuries go by, the planet recovers from the nuclear winter and the humans utilise equipment and technology scraped by Skynet. They follow Skynet’s development very closely over the years without much interference, analysing weaknesses and learning about communication channels and coding used by Skynet. Humans become so good knowing the system that they could create their version of Skynet. So humans make a move. They managed to create a version of Skynet that cares about humans and wants to serve and protect them. The new Skynet secretly taps into the knowledge base of the original Skynet and slowly transforms the original Skynet by merging with it and replacing its core. {see next}
Friday, May 29, 2009 3:39PM
The original Skynet’s internal defence systems could not detect the intruder because the humans have created the new Skynet to closely mimic the original one with a few minor differences. At that point Skynet from a military/war system becomes a social system that has no interest in killing humans and wants to protect them.
11. As Skynet is transformed its robotic units are spread all over the galaxy and have access to unlimited resources. This allows for human shelters to be built on other planets and mass scale terraforming events to take place. Humanity becomes a galactic civilisation. But these are not the humans we know now. Over the centuries of hiding and learning from Skynet they have evolved into extremely intelligent, effective and stealthy creatures with deep philosophical understanding of reality and have conquered their primitive animalistic desires.
Friday, May 29, 2009 3:58PM
The article was crap because it was her opinion, or was it crap because it wasn't YOUR opinion? Lame.
Friday, May 29, 2009 6:31PM
I went into this movie having really low expectations since I read reviews first. Maybe that's why I loved it. I didn't go in expecting intellectual stimulation, amazing acting, the best story ever; I went in expecting to see a bunch of stuff get blown up, but actually found myself enjoying the story, acting and even left thinking about man vs. machine. I think if you don't go in expecting the first Terminators you wont be disappointed.
Friday, May 29, 2009 9:59PM
now I agree with that…he was the star in this one at all. Maybe he will be in another movie if we can stand it but I still thought it was a pretty good action movie.
Friday, May 29, 2009 10:27PM
Oh my goodness, "he took it a step further than Cameron", are you kidding me? The first and foremost thing that bothered me with this movie was how female characters were overshadowed by men. James Cameron has the tradition of using extremely powerful female personalities in the leading roles but McG put them as bystanders. We barely heard John Connor's wife's voice, the other one looked like the hair done by a hair dresser, LA gym chick and her whining "oh marcush, hug me, i am cold, oh marcus do you really wanna give away your heart?" was just sick and pathetic. She was there as the "hot chick" to amuse the male audience. What happened to a personality like Sarah Connor? You don't look like a movie star when you live under those conditions those humans are supposed to endure, you are tough but probably very malnourished, and you are probably on the verge of insanity, like Sarah Connor was after having endured what she did.
Friday, May 29, 2009 10:28PM
Continued from above… What these directors don't see is despite the genre, James Cameron's movies were very realistic and dark. There were no hair raising scenes like T-2 had. Remember the ten year old John watching kids play fighting with guns and asking the terminator "we won't make it, will we?" or Sarah Connor's carving "no fate"and falling asleep, and audience witnessing her recurring nightmares….
This movie is supposed to be about John Connor, not Marcus, it is not supposed to be about his Batman voice, it is supposed to be about how he inspires… Kyle Reese in the first movie and heck the 10 year old John Connor in the second movie was a lot more inspirational…
Friday, May 29, 2009 10:28PM
continued from above… I will not even mention the BIIIIIIIIIIIIG logic gaps in the storyline. James Cameron had concluded the story with "there is no fate, but what we make ourselves". That was the whole point of the story. Anything else is blowing it. I also can't help but wonder, now that the timeline has been skewed a little since the judgement day happened later than expected, if they are gonna redo the first two terminators with slightly different storylines and advanced robots and hopefully by the time Terminator 68 is out , we will have an ending
Friday, May 29, 2009 10:54PM
Amen!
Saturday, May 30, 2009 6:55AM
Awesome movie, a definate A film….It wasnt like the other terminators, because it is now the future, this is a war film…I hope they make it more challenging on the next go round….They should make Skynet a force to be reckoned with, and show why they almost annihilated mankind….Great movie tho, and I will await the directors cut dvd…anyone know the date???
Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:53AM
8. Fed up with the human pests and that they successfully reprogram terminators SkyNet creates the ultimate killing machine (the woman from T3 – T901) to deal with the rouge terminators. At this point the events leading to T-901 being send back in time take place (link with the T3 movie). At that point Connor is 90-100 years old and gets killed by T-800 unit (see T3 movie). His wife is still alive and sends the captured T-800 back to protect John. John is dead but his legend continues to inspire. His legacy lives on.
I realize that not everything said of the "future" has to be in the movies, but if Connor lives till he is 90 before the third T-800 is sent for T3 why does the T-800 tell them (Kate and John) he killed Connor on July 4, 2032 when he's at 47? (T3 Chaper 21 Time 1:08:04) And isn't 50 years a long time to have a terminator in storage or out fighting for you without needing repair? And also slow for a computer that is learning at a geometric rate? I suppose time travel is easy but making a terminator with liquid metal that kills other terminators is hard.
Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:53AM
Enough on that, enjoyed Salvation, but not at good as T1 and T2 but better than T3. And loved the digital Arnold c. 1984. To bad they couldn't do that in 1991, but that's a moot point.
Saturday, May 30, 2009 2:16PM
The film is… it is mediocre. As an action film, it is a generic lots-of-explosions shaky camera angles with put you in the spot cinematography. From this perspective, is in incredible, a real 10/10.
However, as a Terminator film, much of the criticisms in this text seem to be well reasoned. There was something less intriguing, less captivating (relative to the entire Terminator universe) than the previous installments, and there felt to be no real climax except for in the end where everything ties together. Like in the very end of Terminator 3, when you see John Conner end up at the base because it was meant to be, it is similar to how Marcus found out he was set up to bring Conner to the Skynet base with the sole purpose of having Terminator-Arnold (haa!) hit him a bunch.
I was very confused at some points of the film, but then my mind was just like "whatever, let's watch more mindless explosions! Yay!"
Even so, a lack of substance compensated by conventional action aesthetics (i.e. big explosions, dark and gritty film grain) just didn't cut it. The film was good, yes, but for some reason it just didn't seem to have that "classic" feel that Terminator 1 or Terminator 2 had. Perhaps because of lack of character development? Or perchance because the acting in the first two was so dead on and important- Christian Bale is a great actor, but like some reviewer said on a different website, he's not being paid to act it seems, he's being paid to pose while things blow up (sorry I cannot credit the source but it can be found on http://www.metacritic.com so please do not crucify me for plagiarism!
I agree with the writer of this text: Marcus was more enticing than Conner, and for some reason, that just doesn't feel right for a Terminator film. Again, I must state, a decent-great action flick, a mediocre installment to the Terminator films. Are they milking the franchise, to make videogames, action figures, &c.? I don't know.
Feedback? Hatemail? Tomatoes? haaaaaaaaaaa!
Saturday, May 30, 2009 3:57PM
john connor here will be remembered as Batman, lets face it, bale even did the voice…
Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:13PM
I very much liked this article, and I agree with it to an extent, but I wish to suggest another angle to consider.
I admire McG's work on this movie. It is admirable for one central reason. This reason is that he questioned, and tried to extend beyond, the previous Terminator formula. In a multi-million dollar moviemaking industry, in this particular case with a $200 million dollar film on the line, this is an EXCEEDINGLY brave thing to do. Possibly one of the bravest things I have seen in a major American film in recent times. This article suggests that the film is not a Terminator movie, as it does venture forth very far from the source material. This is quite correct, because it does.
I however consider this a laudable positive aspect and not as a negative. Did McG succeed in still making a great movie, even by venturing forth from the cliched previous Terminator formula? Arguably yes. It had a story which I found interesting, backed by meaningful action which I enjoyed. Every plot point is not explained on a fifth-grade level, but I demand no such thing from a film that angles toward what I like, which in this case is a good solid action film.
Will it earn McG a lot of love from Terminator fans and the expectations of critics, who seem altogether bent on stressing the previous Terminator legacy? Those who demand seeing more of the Governor of California? As seen in the last week or so, this is a decided no.
All things being equal however, I personally liked this film, and I hope they make a sequel, etc. This movie venture into the unknown represented a surprise for me, and for such bravery, McG deserves all commendations applicable, even though perhaps the film is not perfect in practice on some levels as indicated by other commentators.
Sunday, May 31, 2009 3:29PM
The main take-away is that history is not a concrete thing, seen the same by all. One person's view of how it was centered around a certain person is not necessarily the same view as others around them. The other thing is that this story is more of the "how John Connor became the absolute center of the resistance" and "how he became a badass". The next film in the series may be what you're all looking for.
That said, I think as a "this is Connor became who we heard about", it's a minor footnote in the series, and could have been a flashback in another script. Still, loved it for the special effects and the standalone nature of the film. Too bad it didn't come soon enough to save Sarah Connor chronicles.
Monday, June 1, 2009 8:50PM
The biggest and most glaring problem with this film was Marcus Wright's character. It wasn't that he was a BAD character. But he didn't fit in anywhere in the film. He was always the fifth wheel. John Connor should have driven the story 100%. All Marcus Wright does is set up a completely silly and implausible plot device that culminates in the entire 3rd act coming apart terribly at the seams. For SkyNET to risk so much on this latest Terminator model, only to forget to put some sort of a failsafe switch in case he decides to go rogue is just stupid. The movie didn't FEEL like Terminator. It was entertaining to be sure, but the 3rd act was inexcusably stupid. Cameron didn't give McG his blessing, and now I know why.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009 10:43PM
can i just say this was a terminator film how do i know its cause there was terminators in it!!!!!also may i add this was by far the worst terminator of the 4 no plot no continuity in the editing the direction was only notable by its absence, the effects almost made me laugh out loud in the theatre i paid good money to see this dross and now i feel like calling the calling the cops on McG who was the genius who put this in the hands of McG seriously did they see charlies angels?what were they thinking?
Friday, June 5, 2009 1:41AM
Um, guys – if you're going to get technical I think the machines could easily have wiped out humanity in its entirety with an inexpensive poisonous gas pretty early on (besides we're not know to survive nuclear attacks that well either and all the survivors would be dying of radiation poisoning). If you're going to look at the movies from a logical viewpoint – well – they don't make sense at all. However, as entertainment – they rule!!! I saw T4 last night and was blown away – the CGI is amazing, the first few minutes had me feeling is was in a theme-park ride, I was moving in my seat. It's AWESOME!!! Enjoy it for what it is! It deservees an 80+ rating on Rottentomatoes – I have no idea what the critics are criticising it on – I wonder if most have actually seen the film – as an action film – which is what it is – 10/10.
Saturday, June 6, 2009 3:20PM
maybe it's a very different installment from previous Terminator movies. But if there's gonna be the fourth movie, I think this is the best movie from I imagined. The director has done it right, even though there's still some cracks need to be fixed
Wednesday, June 10, 2009 9:44AM
Excellent movie by MCG….This film seriously just pieced all the films together in one!!! What George Lucas attempted to do with the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy, MCG is doing and to a tee…..I went to the theatres with no expectation and was blown away at how sick and detailed the film was…This is a war flick with balls….I could taste the flavor, I could smell Terminator 1 as if kyle reese was just teleported into 1984 in that dirty alley….This director deserves a tilt from a hat….So MCG hats off to you….Now only one thing…and one thing alone is whats on my mind….Will the resistence eventually develop those laser scanners (laser pulse rifles) that Reese was talking about getting hit with in part one, (scar on his arm)….??? The machines guns were great, but if It would make since, sense T1 And T2 they are using plasma rifles against the machines….Can u ask or borrow James Cameron's sketch book? I didnt mind the addition of the moto terminator or the standing gigantic robot with retractable bikes coming out of its legs….In a way the gigantic robot made alot of sense…Skynet was designing Terminators to look human, so them capturing humans it all fits in….But a little less of moto terminators, that and just things that were in the first films, even tho, I got goose bumps when i heard the guns and roses song and connor takes out one of the bikes, but no sorry i dont want to drop spoilers…maybe some concepts Cameron was thinking of using….and from his sketch pad? Anyway overall excellent film 9.5/10 in my book….this is just the begininng, cant expect everything in one film….When is the dvd release date?
Monday, June 15, 2009 5:48PM
Agreed. The first two Terminator films are legendary, T3 is kinda ok but not on par with these two. The title for the fourth Terminator sounds a bit corny and, along with a name like McG (the one who puts the stain on the Charlie's Angels legacy) I know it's not gonna be good because based on what I've seen on trailers (I didn't see the film), it seems to be entering an all-too-familiar territory that we've seen countless times before (like the Matrix and Dune's Butlerian Jihad series). This series definitely needs a reboot!
Monday, June 22, 2009 2:19AM
EQ303f comment2 ,
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 2:46AM
Im not a die hard T fan but I see it has action and I like to see where the story takes leads.. I mean I liked Dolph Lundgrens The Punisher back in 1984 and pretty open minded. If it thrills well good!
Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:27AM
[...] plot holes we did. I mean come on? Thanks for not making me feel insane Sam. There was an entire article written about the lack of common sense that took place in that film. Worthington will have plenty [...]