Comments on: Why Terminator Salvation Isn’t a Terminator Film

By: eddyhawk

eddyhawk — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:37:38 +0000

Excuse me, if we aren't allowed to compare this to previous films, then why this film is named TERMINATOR: Salvation? If this film can stand alone, why it's not named ANNIHILATOR or something else? If this film doesn't require the existence of the other movies, why can't McG create his own movie without piggybacking Terminator name?

By: eddyhawk

eddyhawk — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:07:20 +0000

Terminator franchise is meant to be ended at T2. Then some dudes decided to continue it with T3, which is horrible (downgrades John Connor into useless guy whom in the future is killed anyway). I don't think with such plot there will be another sequel. But McG insisted in making T4, so we expected that he will come up with briliant plot to save it from this mess. Yet it just another mess. John Connor is not even the leader of the Resistance (only a 'captain'), while his wife, the cyborg, and Kyle Reese doesn't do anything important in the movie, they are only distractions, and can be removed completely. The script completely avoid plot holes from prequels and avoid things that we actually want to see from T4:
-John Connor as the Resistance leader becoming a serious, unpacifiable threat to SkyNet
-Massive/frequent attack of the 1st generation of terminators to Resistance base, eventually repelled.
-Skynet invents Time Travel and send a special Terminator to kill Sarah Connor
-John Connor or anybody else never tell the truth to Kyle Reese because he don't think Kyle can't handle it
-Kyle eagerness to hijack SkyNet's Time Travel Device and stop the Terminator
-John Connor reluctance to let Kyle Reese go, knowing that his father will die there for nothing (John Connor will be killed in near future anyway according to T3 plot). But eventually he understand that he can't change fate (just like he can't stop SkyNet), so he sadly let Kyle go.

And let's add things to above plot (my own ideas):
-SkyNet actually plan to send the newly built T-900 to kill Sarah Connor. John got confused over this incompatible fact and then realizes that he must destroy that T-200 so that SkyNet is forced to send the old T-800 (Arnold) just like the way it was supposed to be. If the nearly unstoppable T-900 got sent, Sarah won't stand a chance.
-John and the Resistance must also disable the remaining Time Travel Devices created by SkyNet so that SkyNet can't send another Terminator.
-After Arnold & Kyle are sent to the past, SkyNet send the remaining prototypes of T-900 to kill John and John fights back with the Resistance (so John has further part to do in this movie)
-To sum it up, all these Resistance triumphs/attacks managed to delay SkyNet next-generation robotics by a few years (which later result in T-1000)

See? Even I can pull a better plot out of my ass than whoever write T4 script!

By: The Ceej

The Ceej — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:34:36 +0000

Any real Terminator fans know there were only two Terminator films. Anything other than those is just fan fiction.

By: poker blog

poker blog — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:33:21 +0000

I totally agree its not a terminator film

By: Sam Worthington Defends Avatar and Terminator

Sam Worthington Defends Avatar and Terminator — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:27:02 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Bobby

Bobby — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:46:04 +0000

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!

By: Glhjbvrh

Glhjbvrh — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:19:01 +0000

EQ303f comment2 ,

By: G.W.

G.W. — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:48:07 +0000

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!

By: Reese

Reese — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:44:50 +0000

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?

By: nonoke

nonoke — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:20:10 +0000

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

By: Trish

Trish — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:41:15 +0000

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.

By: easyoneoone

easyoneoone — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:43:53 +0000

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?