comment #1

actionman says ...

Terminator: Salvation is a disasterpiece. Wells -- I am SHOCKED to have just read this piece. I cannot believe you could tolerate the endless sub-mediocrity that was this film. McG is a talentless fool; he has fucked this franchise completely. Everyone hates the film. It's dying at the box office. There won't be any more sequels. And that's annoying because Cameron's template and Mostow's threequel added up to some of the best movie sci-fi of all time.

"It's not Michael Bay sludge."

Are you being serious? If Michael Bay had made Terminator: Salvation, it would've been EPIC instead of BORING. The worst part of the film -- it was PRETENTIOUS. It thought it had something to say, thought it was saying it, but...nope. There was nothing there. T2 was an elegant film. It had a great script and a deep idea about the future. T3 was a bit lunkheaded overall, but Brancato and Ferris' script for that one was 10 times better than the ass-cream they delivered on Salvation. And Haggis and J. Nolan also contributed?! I could go on and on but I have to get ready for work.

Wells -- you'll watch this film again on DVD and see the other side. It's a horrendous movie.

To give this movie a pass and still rag on Michael Bay, the premiere action auteur of his generation, is simply mystifying.

I still love you, though.

comment #2

Rich S. says ...

Still haven't seen Terminator: Salvation, but I'm not surprised by your comments on Bale v. Worthington. Anyone who saw Reign of Fire had to be surprised that they cast Bale as the savior of humanity. He played basically the same character in Reign of Fire, but was basically blown off the screen in that department by Matthew McC. When the stoner/surfer dude acts circles around you, you've got problems.

I guess this only confirms the fact that Bale was not the reason people went to see Dark Knight.

comment #3

Burbanked says ...

Nice going, Jeff. You've already goaded actionman into using the words "Bay" and "auteur" in the same sentence. It may never end now.

I agree with Jeff up to a point that the direction of TS was decently shot and understandably edited. But the story of this movie is just such a hopeless wreck, and McG really has no idea how to make the best of it. It's got plenty of action and some of it even feels compelling; but what the action is structured around never makes a lick of sense.

This franchise was crippled by T3. McG has simply put it out of its misery.

comment #4

The InSneider says ...

I too, am SHOCKED that you're giving this one a pass. It was awful. I don't think I'd ever watch it again. For what? What stood out? Besides Common's uncommonly bad acting? You disappointed me here, Wells. I was dying to read you rip it a new one.

comment #5

vansmith says ...

I saw it, it was ok, very road warriorish, the kid who played marcus is good, a tough guy, big future in the biz. the terminators themselves were the problem, there wasnt one defining terminator who was ripping up and scaring everyone...here's the story for the next one, they find out its a few humans running the terminators...you always gotta put a face on the bad guy..

comment #6

McClaneSveUs says ...

Wells, this movie was a mess. Much of the inane plotting you complained of in Drag Me To Hell is doubly evident in Terminator....especially the final half hour, which finds John Connor jogging openly around Skynet.....gimme a break.

Every scene that Bale occupies in the movie is cringe-worthy....and hardly serves the story or film in any way....

And those scenes aboard the submarine? All of them belonged in a Steven Segal DTV garbage flick.

It should have been The Wizard Of Oz meets Mad Max, but they completely bombed and lost track of their strongest character, Kyle Reese.

comment #7

Calraigh Bracken says ...

This is incredibly confusing. This....fuckery of a film gets a pass? Are you kidding me?

comment #8

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

Haha, yeah, the submarine was hilarious for some reason. Quite a few people laughed when those establishing shots of it came on screen. Just looked funny for some inexplicable reason.

Sam Worthington seems like a good guy. In interviews he comes across as a nice chap - no nonsense, no diva quirks, just a straight-up decent fella. Seems to me that the actors you'd most want to go for a pint with are mostly Aussies.

comment #9

Sabina E says ...

haha, whatever, everyone can talk shit about T4, but I loved it and I saw it twice.

I really liked Sam Worthington's character, too. and Moon Bloodgood was fantastic-- I think she should get more roles in action films.

comment #10

Mark says ...

Worthington is more Russel Crowe than Eastwood. And TS is his Virtuosity.

If they at least stayed the course with the original ending, it would not have salvaged the film, but it would have at least better explained why a movie dedicated to Marcus is requisite in the Terminator saa.

comment #11

Steven Kar says ...

I don't know what the big deal is about the Worthington fella. He was OK in a mediocre and badly-written movie. There was something bland about his good looks and I don't think he stole the show. But compared to Bale's pathetic and superfluous character, Worthington fared better. And I am willing to give him a chance as an actor. I like Aussie actors.

I can't remember a movie in recent memory that had so many useless, dispensable, redundant characters that added nothing to the plot mechanics: the little black girl, Common, Bryce, Jane Alexander, hell, even Bale's character for that matter...

comment #12

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

Steven: its use of supporting characters reminded me of those Matrix sequels with all those random-ass resistance fighters nobody gave a shit about.

comment #13

Steven Kar says ...

Bosh:

Yes, that's it. I knew there was a similar example but couldn't remember and it turned out to be the Matrix sequels which had twice as many superfluous characters with absolutely nothing to add to the story...

comment #14

bibliotechnician says ...

"...Michael Bay, the premiere action auteur of his generation, is simply mystifying."

In one fell swoop, this partial quote has illustrated and illuminated all that is wrong with the summer blockbuster. Here is an avid, articulate, and passionate movie fan promoting and canonizing the man who, more than any other director, opened the door for the Ratner's, Steven Sommer's, and McG's of the world. People who should be making video games, not badly filmed and edited scenes of explosions. For me, when the credits rolled and the audience erupted at the end of "Armageddon," I knew in the pit of my stomach that summer would never be the same: special effects were no longer to service the movie, they were the movie.

comment #15

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

"Terminator shards and remnants blended with The Road Warrior, Transformers and The Road"

Seeing that a film's influences must be other movies that have already come out, shouldn't that last one be THE POSTMAN?

comment #16

actionman says ...

Listing the names Ratner, Sommers, and McG is an insult to the incredible work that Bay has been doing for years. The man has -- like it or not -- developed an instantly recognizable style over the last 10+ years, fully waranting and earning the term "auteur" to be used when describing him as a filmmaker.

I know I get ragged on for enjoying the beautiful destruction that Bay brings to his movies, but when it comes to sitting in a darkened and chilled movie theater in the middle of the summer for two hours, and massive explosions are on the menu, I want nobdoy but Bay for this sort of thing. He makes the rest of those idiots listed above look like cheap left-overs. I'll add Len Wiseman to the list, who stole blantantly from Bay in the fiasco that was Die Hard 4.

I am fully aware that Bay's storytelling abilities are average at best, but I am not going to a Bay movie for the story. Or the dialogue. Or the typically cheesy attempts at humor. I am there for the photo-realistic special effects and the supreme loudness of all the crunching metal and Megan Fox in short-shorts and the sexy camerawork and the gorgeously saturated colors of his always stunning cinematography.

I am a firm believe in the "31 Flavors" mentality when it comes to movies, and I am willing to watch any movie from any genre by any filmmaker. But when it comes to this sort of guilty pleasure nonsense, Bay is the bees knees.

comment #17

MovieBob says ...

It's a tolerable movie, but it's just average and it doesn't linger AT ALL.

Ironically, I didn't regard McG as the problem in the end. He did his "job," in that the action scenes all work as well as they can in a PG13 version of this universe. And yes, he DOES prove to me that he's a better filmmaker than Bay is - the action actually has a pace to it, can be followed and makes sense in terms of scene-geography and doesn't resort to fucking shaky-cam every five seconds.

And since this WILL eventually turn into a "versus Transformers" thing, I'll happily note: The big stompy Terminator is INFINITELY better-designed and executed than those shambling junkyard insect-sculptures people keep telling me are supposed to be The Transformers, and that this film has only ONE extraneous and largely removable character (Connor) whereas T'Formers had, what... nine? Fifteen?

The stuff that's wrong with this movie is almost all on the pre-production side, the demonstrable result of too many cooks versus a filmmaker who doesn't have the clout to say no to them. A lousy script telling what was already a bad story bent out of shape to accomodate a name-star and neutered down to a PG13? We're LUCKY it was only average.

comment #18

berkguru says ...

actionamn u are joking about Michael Bay right? that guy is a major league hack/douchebag

comment #19

bents75 says ...

"People who should be making video games, not badly filmed and edited scenes of explosions."

I think this is an unfair commentary on video games. I've played plenty of later generation video games that have much more rounded stories, characters, and production design (among other things) than in anything Ratner, Sommers, or McG have done.

Obviously a 20-40 hour visual story doesn't require as much finesse as a 2 hour one, but I think my point still stands in the relative sense.

If I wouldn't pay $10 to watch a movie made by Stephen Sommers, I wouldn't pay $60 to play a game made by him either.

comment #20

actionman says ...

no, berkguru. i'm not joking. the guy is a master of the action film. how do you know he's a douchebag? have u met him? have u ever worked with him?

comment #21

Steven Kar says ...

I always thought that Bay stole from Tony Scott and the other action-movie/TV-commercials/music-video directors who came before him and developed his own style by also mixing into it some of the TV-commercials/music-video aesthetic that he learned before becoming a movie director.

comment #22

bibliotechnician says ...

You're absolutly right, bents75. Sometimes i use video games as THE reference for incoherent storytelling, acting, etc., when i know the medium has evolved tremendously and should be held in a much higher regard. Believe me, my 90+ hours in the incredible Fallout 3 would confirm this.

To add to your comment about not playing a game by Sommers, i would rather play a game based on a Bay movie (which are notoriously the worse games, btw) than watch a Bay movie.

Moviebob sums up Bay's directorial vision better than anything i have ever read: "...shambling junkyard insect-sculptures people keep telling me are supposed to be The Transformers." That line made me shaky-cam piss high resolution, texture mapped, and specular highlighted urine.

comment #23

Burbanked says ...

MovieBob: I think you might complete me. "shambling junkyard insect-sculptures" is about the most accurate and concise descriptions of the TRANSFORMERS robot designs I've ever read.

actionman: I absolutely love your passion for movies, despite not sharing the Bay-love with you. The problem for me is that Bay's storytelling, dialogue or cheesy attempts at humor are absolutely NOT average at best and instead are far below that. I simply have a hard time tolerating this idea that a genre picture has to sacrifice these vitally important things in order to be entertaining. There's no reason that it has to be "guilty pleasure nonsense" when blockbuster entertainment like RAIDERS or DIE HARD or ROBOCOP or T2 can exist as total packages. No nonsense, no guilt. Just excellent big-budget entertainment.

And although I agree with you that Bay does this better than the other hackmeisters being intoned here, he has ABSOLUTELY lowered the bar on movie storytelling to the point where these others can get hired. They're cheaper and easier to control than Bay, and from a studio standpoint they deliver consistently enough on an investment. If you hate their movies, you've got Bay to blame for them.

comment #24

Jonah says ...

I don't get the Bay love, Actionman. I can't stand him. I've seen all of his films except for Bad Boys 2, I always think I'll enjoy them (except for Pearl Harbor, I knew that would be shit) but I never do. I love action movies, the bigger the better.

You are right about one thing. Bay has established a distinct style over the last ten or so years. Unfortunately, his style is shit. During Transformers I took an unneeded bathroom break and another break to call a friend back. I never do either of those.

That being said, he is better than Ratner and McG.

comment #25

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"I've seen all of his films except for Bad Boys 2, I always think I'll enjoy them, but I never do."

Don't ever, EVER see BB2. Good God, I figured there was NO WAY he could mess up a sequel to the original (which I admittedly dug) that was about nothing but guns, women, and swearing, but somehow he managed to find a way to do it.

I'm also about the last person on earth to complain about a movie's length, but between all the tiresome, incessant cutting and godawful overindulgent "comedy" it seemed about 4 hours long.

All in all, one of the worst movies of the decade for me. And I saw The House Bunny. And Brown Bunny, which I actually kind of liked, but I digress.

comment #26

mroswald says ...

I just checked this one out on a matinee yesterday. And in a word, no.

There was such fundamental problems with the story. The main one is regarding Sam Worthington's Marcus. The revelation that he is essentially an undercover Terminator actually isn't one because: 1. It was already revealed in the trailer and 2. the first scene shows Marcus SIGNING A GODDAMN BODY DONOR FORM FOR CYBERDINE SYSTEMS. Jesus.

The other major boner was the way they handled John Connor. John Connor should be mythic, a legend, a Sub-Commander Marcos of the resistance. So why is Michael Ironside in the movie treating him like some snot-nosed private? And, I'm sorry, but you have to earn a place with the resistance? Nice to see that exclusivity is alive and well in the post-apocalypse.

Wells, shame on you for liking this. As penance, you are to watch the first Terminator five times and second one ten times.

I wonder if James Cameron is weeping somewhere.

comment #27

Mark says ...

Where does Twilight fall on your worst of the decade list? Jeffrey's pass on that one was equally strange. Not since he expressed love for all of Neil Labute's early films have I felt that Jeffrey's crap radar was so off.

comment #28

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Wait...what's wrong with Neil Labute's early career? I didn't think he jumped the shark until Wicker Man remake, and even then he did it so entertainingly, I really have a hard time building up any hate.

But In the Company of Men, Nurse Betty (underrated; sweet cast), and especially Your Friends & Neighbors? I got no serious problems with any of those.

comment #29

rr3333 says ...

Michael Ironside from 'V' was in this? Oy! No wonder it stunk.

Its like having William Forsyth in a movie. You know it'll be 'B' movie crap.

comment #30

rr3333 says ...

Speaking of William Forsyth, I just checked IMDB and I feel like I'm in bizarro world. 'Raging Bull 2' in Pre-Production with Forsyth in DeNiro's role.

WHAT!?!??!??!

comment #31

Jonah says ...

I don't get the Neil Labute hate either. I hated that one he did with Paltroy...Persuasion I think. I didn't like Wicker Man either. But his first several movies were great.

comment #32

twicks says ...

I'm gonna second Wells here...I enjoyed this movie. Went in expecting a shaky-cam mess, but the action was all totally coherent and well-done. Thought the story was more than solid, too -- just enough twists to keep things interesting.

comment #33

JSantos says ...

I'm with DeafBrownTrashPunk. I saw it this weekend expecting not so good and was really pleasantly surprised. I was impressed at the effort made to have the movie actually be about something, i.e. Marcus and his salvation, than to have it just be about blowing the cheese up and the CGI Arnie cameo, which felt appropriate at its size and placement.

Here's the thing: the community hates McG, I get it. There's no movie he can make that will ever change people's minds, ever. Never, ever. Never, ever. So you either hate him or you don't.

But TS is by no means the crime against humanity some would like it to be. At worst, it's B-movie bad which can be good at 2 am on a Saturday night in the right mental state.

I think it's hokey sci-fi good, which is great for a Sunday matinee. Plus it had Bale, and as muted as he can be sometimes, he's never uninteresting. And Anton Yelchin's approximation of Michael Biehn is pretty spot-on. And Moon Bloodgood is nice to look at, as well as BDH.

I can say this with great certainty: TS felt like a movie, unlike Star Trek, which felt like a high-end TV show.

comment #34

actionman says ...

"I wonder if James Cameron is weeping somewhere."

my buddy went to a screening of Aliens at the Aero in Santa Monica last week and said he danced around the subject of Terminator: Salvation and wouldn't answer definitively if he'd seen it yet or liked/didn't like it. Kind of a wuss move if you ask me.

comment #35

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

If true, that is an absolute abomination, rr.

The first imdb comment (WHAT THE F_UCK...IS THIS?) pretty much sums it up. And you know if the commenters on imdb are pissed, wait till they feel the wrath of real film lovers.

The "plot synopsis" cracks me up, too:

"A unique combination prequel and sequel that explores 'before the rage' and 'after the rage' of world middleweight boxing champ Jake LaMotta's tumultuous life and times."

Uhhhhh, isn't that basically the story of Raging Bull? You know, that black and white film that is pretty much unanimously decided to be the career-defining moment for DeNiro, Scorsese, Schrader, 80s cinema in general??

And this "before/after the rage" talk has me thinking awful things...are they going to handle his rage like they handle Jason Statham's heart rate in Crank?

comment #36

Mark says ...

"I don't get the Neil Labute hate either."

Start with the fact that Labute hates all his characters, and most likely hates you as well, and then the reflected hate may appear more warranted. The guy that directed Wicker Man is the same guy that did The Shape of Things and Your Friends and Neighbors. Trust me. I know this for a fact.

comment #37

markj says ...

What a terrible summer for sci-fi/action fans. First Star Trek, now Terminator, with the latest behemoths from Michael Bay and Stephen Sommers still to be unleashed.

Avatar can't get here soon enough.

comment #38

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

It's only been out about 10 days, AM...it's a pretty decent bet that he hasn't seen it yet, or hadn't seen it last week. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, he's not normally the kind of guy to censor what he thinks.

Apparently he kinda dug T3. Me too.

comment #39

Mark says ...

actionman, Cameron's non-response is not a wuss move. It in fact speaks volumes. it's an absolute washing-of-the-hands condemnation of the whole thing. Why trash the thing and declare that no one can hold your jock strap, when everyone is already doing it for you.

comment #40

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"Start with the fact that Labute hates all his characters, and most likely hates you as well"

You know, if this is the case, it actually doesn't bother me at all. I guess I'd rather be hated than treated like a braindead zombie and have everything laid out for me. But that is just my personal taste.

Also: a) how do you know he hates his characters? b) what exactly is the problem with that (aren't actors praised nearly every year for playing a great, ruthless cold villains)?

Personally, I would say that he is very perceptive at portraying hate and hateful characters so I think there's possibly some spillover effect you might be getting there. Or maybe he really does hate them. I don't know.

What I do know is the dude's films don't bore me. That is something I can't say of very many filmmakers right now.

comment #41

actionman says ...

Mark -- Cameron made this big public announcement about telling McG that he reserved the right to hate or love T4 and that he wouldn't comment on the film until he'd seen it. Somehow, I doubt that Cameron hasn't seen the movie yet...

And yeah...Cameron should have enjoyed T3...it was a fun movie. A far cry from T2 but fun nonetheless, and mostly true to the spirit of what he had created in the first place.

McG, the writers, and the producers have dug this franchise's grave.

Oh, and aside from The Wicker Man and Possession, LaBute's work has been stellar (still haven't seen Lakeview Terrace so can't comment on that one). His trilogy of hate (In the Company of Men, Your Friends and Neighbors, Shape of Things) are still some of the funniest, most scathing black comedies of all time.

comment #42

Jonah says ...

"Start with the fact that Labute hates all his characters, and most likely hates you as well, and then the reflected hate may appear more warranted.""
I don't care if he hates all of his characters. That means he doesn't hold back in how he treats them.

I also don't care if he hates me. I'm sure plenty of directors are grumpy, hateful bastards. I'm sure McG is a pleasant fucker. Doesn't help his filmmaking. Many of the all time great directors are known for being bastards that treat their crew like slaves.

"The guy that directed Wicker Man is the same guy that did The Shape of Things and Your Friends and Neighbors. Trust me. I know this for a fact.""

Yeah, anybody with access to IMDB knows the same guy directed all of those films. Not sure I get your point. I like Labute's early work, not his recent work. Thought I made that clear.

comment #43

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

It's too early to write the summer off altogether. We've still got Public Enemies, Funny People, Transformers 2 and Harry Potter to come. So far it's been okay - not great, not shit either. Just alright.

comment #44

Mark says ...

"I guess I'd rather be hated than treated like a braindead zombie."

Fortunately, some movies don't make this a mutually-exclusive decision. Though some, like Wanted, offer both amply.

And don't even start to suggest that Labute respects you and doesn't lay everything out. How about the 3rd act exposition by Rachel Weiss to conclude The Shape of Things. "Ha ha audience; i was just fucking with you. She's really a bitch, and he's a sucker. Ha ha ha."

comment #45

Ghost072 says ...

"Start with the fact that Labute hates all his characters, and most likely hates you as well, and then the reflected hate may appear more warranted."

Well, at least for In the Company of Men and Your Friends and Neighbors, that hate was mostly warranted, wasn't it? I never saw Shape of Things, but The Wicker Man seemed to me to be the ultimate fuck you to the studio. I just couldn't shake the feeling that both he and Cage for in on the ridiculousness of the whole thing and had decided to pull an elaborate prank. That couldn't have been a serious attempt, could it? Even with the bear costume?

I'm also on board with the T3 love. I thought Mostow's film was a worthy entry in the Terminator universe and his use of practical effects and stunts was refreshing. Also, as I remember, it had a great last 20 minutes or so. Have to see it again to be sure. Wouldn't mind seeing that naked Terminator again anyway - now there is a thought I wouldn't have imagined having after seeing the first two films.

comment #46

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"And don't even start to suggest that Labute respects you and doesn't lay everything out. How about the 3rd act exposition by Rachel Weiss to conclude The Shape of Things."

True, but it was based on his play, so some of that staginess is kind of inherent to the material. Most David Mamet plays are the same way (yes, even Glengarry Glen Ross). Dude writes great dialogue. I'll take what I can get from a film.

"Ha ha audience; i was just fucking with you. She's really a bitch, and he's a sucker. Ha ha ha."

Oh come on, it was a little more complicated than that.

Jonah makes a good point. How many times have we seen a documentary about stars having a great time on the set of the movie, only to actually watch the finished project and be utterly bored by it?

Kubrick used to get a lot of this shit about hating humanity (wasn't it Kael who hated almost all of his films?), and he still does today -- only to a lesser extent because history has treated most of his films pretty damn well thus far. And we all know what a demanding and obsessive guy he could be.

I guess I'm not sure what your beef is, exactly. I enjoy films from all across the spectrum. Saying that Labute's films suck because his characters are repulsive seems to be a rather stiff and rigid way to approach a visual art form. Do you hate all the optimistic people in Capra films, too?

comment #47

Mark says ...

I'm not talking about actors, and how well they're treated. But in regards to the characters he presents to us, I always get the feeling that Labute is saying to himself, "Now what can i make this character do that would really turn off the audience." And that attitude to me serves no greater purpose. It's hateful.

And the best villains are never hated by director and actor. I think Hopkins and Demme actually admired Lector, e.g., It's why Tim Robbins makes the worst villain everytime. (Catch a Fire, War of Worlds, AntiTrust, etc.) He hates them all, and it shows in the performance.

comment #48

DavidF says ...

I don't think T3 was terrible - the ending really saved it, in particular.

But, Actionman, I don't see how you can argue it was "mostly true to the spirit of what [Cameron] had created in the first place."

The whole theme of T2 was "no fate but what we make" and T3 basically said, "it doesn't matter what the hell you do. there WILL be a Judgement Day and Skynet will keep sending back Terminators - T-1000s, sexy chick terminators, whatever it takes - until kingdom come."

Kinda the exact opposite of Cameron's point, no?

And I've said it before but as much as I revere the first two films, there is no temporal paradox that explains how Kyle Reese can be Connor's father since it means Connor isn't conceived until after Arnold is sent back in time to kill his mother....

comment #49

BurmaShave says ...

rr3333, what is it you do not get about Michael Ironside? The man was Jester for fucks sake. One of the great voices in film. And he was one of the only people in this movie to do his job perfectly.

Also Wells how was it a surprise that Worthington owned the movie when that has been the word for months and it is mentioned in all the reviews? And I have to agree with action, I think you're being way too kind. Anthony Lane's review was something much more in keeping with how I felt about it. I particularly love his final line:

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/06/01/090601crci_cinema_lane

comment #50

Rich S. says ...

More love here for Michael Ironside. I might not have the proper sophisticated taste in B movies, but, just off the top of my head, the guy did Total Recall, Scanners and Starship Troopers. That's a career, right there.

comment #51

DarthCorleone says ...

There's no reason that it has to be "guilty pleasure nonsense" when blockbuster entertainment like RAIDERS or DIE HARD or ROBOCOP or T2 can exist as total packages. No nonsense, no guilt. Just excellent big-budget entertainment.

And although I agree with you that Bay does this better than the other hackmeisters being intoned here, he has ABSOLUTELY lowered the bar on movie storytelling to the point where these others can get hired. They're cheaper and easier to control than Bay, and from a studio standpoint they deliver consistently enough on an investment. If you hate their movies, you've got Bay to blame for them.

Burbanked>> Wow. Well said!

comment #52

Steven Kar says ...

To DavidF comment #48:

I think John Conner was conceived when a man, other than Kyle Reece, impregnated Sarah Conner, and it was THAT timeline (which we never got to witness) that led to Judgement Day and Skynet and the terminator and Kyle Reece being sent back in time.

Once Kyle Reece was sent back in time, he beat John Conner's "real" father to the punch by sleeping with Sarah Conner and fathering John Conner.

The John Conner in the "original" timeline probably looked different to Kyle Reece as a resistance fighter because he didn't look like Kyle Reece's son because he was fathered by a different man from the past. Maybe it was some guy Sarah fell in love with or something like that, and nobody had any idea of what the future had in store.

Basically, the story of T1 takes place in the past. And the future in T1 is actually the present.

I think!

People treat the Back to the Future time travel rules as if they were proven facts, but they're not. Zemeckis came up with his own time travel laws and he abided by them. But there are many different laws, paradoxes, and sci-fi explanations to time travel.

For example, some people believe that the timeline in the Terminator universe is a continuous loop that changes subtly, that there is no alternate universe...

As Sarah Conner said in T4: "One can go crazy just thinking about this stuff."

comment #53

DarthCorleone says ...

Cameron's remarks on Terminator Salvation at that screening were not a "non-response." He slammed the movie in a backhanded sly way without being blatantly rude. It seemed perfectly appropriate to me to not provide the damning soundbite - at least out of respect for a movie that has barely been in the theater for a week. Cameron made two great Terminator, and it's not his thing anymore. Why bother pissing on the new effort if it's not even worthy of his attention? He has moved on.

comment #54

Steven Kar says ...

For the record, this is what Cameron said about T4 at the Aliens-Abyss screening. From aintitcool.com:

When someone asked about "having other people take over franchises that you created." He got a huge laugh when he cut to the chase and said, "Oh Terminator?" He then said that he basically traded the rights for Terminator for a directing career. When Arnold wanted to do T3, his heart just wasn't in it. He said the producers "ran off with the rights, which caused some bad blood" and so when Arnold asked him after they were going in a different direction, Cameron told him, "Just do me one thing; ask for more money than anyone ever has." Arnold said, "Reeeeealllly?" He said, "Yes. Because what idiot would make a Terminator movie without you?" Which seemed like a direct jab at Terminator Salvation even though he was talking about T3. The audience roared accordingly.

comment #55

twicks says ...

I don't care about changing timelines...I'm just wondering how Skynet knows to hunt John Connor or Kyle Reese.

As of T4, Connor ain't that big a cheese in the Resistance. And Reese is a nobody, yet he's #2 on the kill list.

Apologies if I'm missing something obvious.

comment #56

Steven Kar says ...

twicks:

I'm also confused regarding the point you made:

Maybe the machines in T4 know about John Conner's importance in the scheme of things because he tried to destroy them, or at least thwart their plans, in T3. And T4 is a continuation of T3, and takes place after the events of T3, no?

So maybe they were aware of him in T3, especially when he broke into Skynet with Arnie and tried to destroy it. Then Judgement Day took place at the end of the T3 because he couldn't stop it, and then we moved on to events of T4 in which the machines have been aware of John Conner since the events of T3.

comment #57

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"But in regards to the characters he presents to us, I always get the feeling that Labute is saying to himself, 'Now what can i make this character do that would really turn off the audience.' And that attitude to me serves no greater purpose. It's hateful."

Hateful or not, I don't see how that attitude translates into bad or less interesting movies. Like I said before, at least his films get you feeling something.

I'm curious what you think of some of the more post-modern directors working today, like Gaspar Noe or Michael Haneke. Because they are essentially doing the same thing -- at least in most of their films -- which is use the characters and situations in his films to directly channel an audience's rage or hatred. I think Godard was among the first to do this, or at least do it successfully.

I suppose a lot of people don't like this technique. But there are a ton of filmmakers out there who just manipulate in the exact opposite way -- they're constantly trying to tell you how cool or likable their characters are instead of just letting the story unfold organically. I think some of Spielberg's early attempts at drama suffered from this syndrome.

Hate your characters, love your characters, be neutral about them...as long as you can make an interesting movie to watch, I really don't care!

comment #58

Burbanked says ...

Thanks for the compliment, DarthCorleone - and I had a similar thought about Cameron; that he really doesn't gain anything at this point by bad-mouthing the new movie, except for boosting his own ego.

...and then I read Steven Kar's comment after yours. Maybe ego wins out after all!

comment #59

Colin says ...

Actionman seemed like a clever username until it became apparent he worships Michael Bay.

comment #60

Colin says ...

I'm curious what you think of some of the more post-modern directors working today, like Gaspar Noe or Michael Haneke.- CitizenKaned

I feel that Haneke doesn't actually try to channel audience hatred into a character as much as channel his hatred at the audience.

comment #61

Bob Violence says ...

Haneke is one of the most determinedly modernist directors working today. The engagement with affect is a key modernist preoccupation (one can make the same argument with Godard) and, in Haneke's case, that of a modernist looking askance at postmodernism.

comment #62

xtmxady says ...

hmm, thanks for share it now, i like it. nowgoogle.com adalah multiple search engine popular and Newoes | SOE | Spiritku | Internet Technology

comment #63

gafi says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability systems