10 Essential Facts About 'Terminator Salvation'
- Thread starter Terry_Lasater
- Start date
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Some part of me deep inside doubts that the screenplay, if read aloud on a theater stage with no special effects, would remain a "compelling story".
Somehow I simply doubt it.
BTW: When I said deep inside, I meant my first fleeting thought.
Somehow I simply doubt it.
BTW: When I said deep inside, I meant my first fleeting thought.
Nektonic
Veteran
Awe, there's a human villain again. Why can't they just do a strait up future war film using what Cameron showed of the future in little glimpses in T1 and T2? They were very depressing and dark, but since they were only short visions of the future they weren't too overwhelming for the audience.
I get the feeling that this film will be a lite version of the future sequences we've seen so far from the first two films. Also, it takes place in 2018. That's not even a full 10 years from now. Does anybody buy the idea that Skynet could be built, become aware, launch the nuclear armageddon, and build all those terminators and other machines by that time?
Having said all that, I think that this could still be a good film. The trailer shows some promising stuff and doesn't give too much away, which is a good thing as trailers these days seem to spoil the surprises by telling the audience the whole plot. There are elements like the terminator motorcycles that are so spot on with what Cameron was doing with the Hunter Killers in the first two films. The robot at the end of the trailer does look like a transformer though.
I get the feeling that this film will be a lite version of the future sequences we've seen so far from the first two films. Also, it takes place in 2018. That's not even a full 10 years from now. Does anybody buy the idea that Skynet could be built, become aware, launch the nuclear armageddon, and build all those terminators and other machines by that time?
Having said all that, I think that this could still be a good film. The trailer shows some promising stuff and doesn't give too much away, which is a good thing as trailers these days seem to spoil the surprises by telling the audience the whole plot. There are elements like the terminator motorcycles that are so spot on with what Cameron was doing with the Hunter Killers in the first two films. The robot at the end of the trailer does look like a transformer though.
Cheesesailor77
Veteran
Aren't they working within an established timeline? I thought the nukes went off back in '97.
Richard J. Johnson
Joystick Member
How do you turn down Superman because your'e afraid to fly?
Cheesesailor77
Veteran
that can't be true
Mike Harvey
Veteran
T3 takes place in 2004, plus some of the machines had already been built when Skynet took over. So 15 years is believable.
Well, as believable as the whole series can be
Nektonic
Veteran
You're right, the original date of Judgement Day was in 1997. It just hurts the believability of the film a little when the dates for these things have already passed. Sure in 1984 when the first film takes place, the dates were far enough off in the future for them to work.
Kinda reminds me of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Movie is still awesome even though we hadn't even come close to the kind of space exploration that the movie postulated.
Capt Quirk
Veteran
Better get somebody other than "Mopes and Mumbles" Bale to read it if you want it done out loud. I swear I've seen a wilting fern with more character.
Capt Quirk
Veteran
With each passing Terminator film, the timeline gets skewed a bit more, so things happen at different times. When the first one happened, they found parts of the Terminator, and that moved things forward for example.
capitalP
Veteran
I can honestly call myself an obsessed fan of the franchise, with that being said T3 left such a bitter taste in my mouth that I swear never to give another Terminator film a chance again unless Cameron is fully involve. Yes I will see this one because frankly I just have to. I must say from the new trailer the cinematography looks amazing, so maybe that DP wasn't such a bad guy after all, I'm on team DP now...lol
From reading the article, what gets me is, it says James Cameron was the creator, if that's the case why the hell did he ever sale off the rights...? Maybe he never owned the rights, I don't know, I'm still pissed from T3 so I'm flaming everyone in the vicinity....
From reading the article, what gets me is, it says James Cameron was the creator, if that's the case why the hell did he ever sale off the rights...? Maybe he never owned the rights, I don't know, I'm still pissed from T3 so I'm flaming everyone in the vicinity....
Nektonic
Veteran
I hear you capitalP, T3 was a letdown, although the apocalyptic ending made up for some of the problems of the film. I'm both excited and kinda wary of this new Terminator film.
The thing I'm not liking with Terminator Salvation, and this is being picky, but I loved the darkly oppressive and heavily atmospheric future war sequences that James Cameron shot for the first two films. There is a hazy and smokey atmosphere that you just don't see anymore in films these days. The future war scenes were always at night and had a cold blue cast to them. Whether this was accomplished through lighting, lens filters, post processing or a combination of all three I don't know for sure.
What I do know is that this same kinda look and feel that was prevalent in other 80's genre films like Alien/Aliens, Blade Runner, The Hunger, Escape From New York, The Thing, Raiders of the Lost Ark, original Star Wars Trilogy, Dragonslayer, etc. I wish they would've embraced this aesthetic a little more to help smooth over the continuity between T1, T2, and Salvation. Seriously, a smoke machine and keeping this film all at night would go a long way.
This new Terminator looks a little bit slick and too clean for my tastes, kinda like a lot of newer films. At the same time, they've desaturated the color palette like so many current Hollywood films do. If reminds me of the whole shaky-cam fad that is plaguing filmmaking these days. A sort of faux realism that has worn out its welcome. Add to that the contrast with the new film most likely using tons of digital effects while the first two films used miniatures and practical effects so well (the T1000 was the only major use of digital effects in T2), and I feel like this would've worked better if done 15 or 20 years ago. Need I remind anyone of Indy 4?
Call me crazy but I like a little grit, grain, and smoke in these kinds of films. Also, my theory is that the first film has the best future war sequences because their budget was also the lowest. Once the budget is in the hundreds of millions, it is very hard to make a down and dirty post apocalyptic future actually look really down and dirty. With teams of designers, FX wizards, prop makers, and other artists and crew in their filmmaking armies, I get the impression that a lot of directors get carried away and overdo things. "Wouldn't it be cool if we had this gizmo?" Rarely does a filmmaker come along that actually has some restraint and tries to do these kinds of films (action, sci-fi, fantasy) without all the fluff. The Bourne Trilogy and Children of Men are both really good examples. The last act of Children of Men is probably the best film of recent years that is close to what the overall look of the post Skynet armageddon should look like, of course with more ruined buildings, no vegetation, and charred skulls laying about.
And don't even get me started on the fact that they are using machine guns instead of the plasma rifles that were seen in the first two films and even in the Sarah Conner Chronicles. Last time I checked, this was considered a sequel and not a re-imagining of the Terminator series. It would be the same as doing a direct sequel to Aliens that takes place during the same year and replacing the smart guns and pulse rifles with laser guns. Or how about replacing the phasers from Star Trek with shotguns and machine guns? Continuity man.
This is just my gut reaction from seeing the trailer. I know you can't judge a film solely on a trailer, so I'm just speculating and theorizing on what might not work in this film. I'm still interested in seeing it and hope it is the awesome war against Skynet film that it all the Terminator fans want it to be.
The thing I'm not liking with Terminator Salvation, and this is being picky, but I loved the darkly oppressive and heavily atmospheric future war sequences that James Cameron shot for the first two films. There is a hazy and smokey atmosphere that you just don't see anymore in films these days. The future war scenes were always at night and had a cold blue cast to them. Whether this was accomplished through lighting, lens filters, post processing or a combination of all three I don't know for sure.
What I do know is that this same kinda look and feel that was prevalent in other 80's genre films like Alien/Aliens, Blade Runner, The Hunger, Escape From New York, The Thing, Raiders of the Lost Ark, original Star Wars Trilogy, Dragonslayer, etc. I wish they would've embraced this aesthetic a little more to help smooth over the continuity between T1, T2, and Salvation. Seriously, a smoke machine and keeping this film all at night would go a long way.
This new Terminator looks a little bit slick and too clean for my tastes, kinda like a lot of newer films. At the same time, they've desaturated the color palette like so many current Hollywood films do. If reminds me of the whole shaky-cam fad that is plaguing filmmaking these days. A sort of faux realism that has worn out its welcome. Add to that the contrast with the new film most likely using tons of digital effects while the first two films used miniatures and practical effects so well (the T1000 was the only major use of digital effects in T2), and I feel like this would've worked better if done 15 or 20 years ago. Need I remind anyone of Indy 4?
Call me crazy but I like a little grit, grain, and smoke in these kinds of films. Also, my theory is that the first film has the best future war sequences because their budget was also the lowest. Once the budget is in the hundreds of millions, it is very hard to make a down and dirty post apocalyptic future actually look really down and dirty. With teams of designers, FX wizards, prop makers, and other artists and crew in their filmmaking armies, I get the impression that a lot of directors get carried away and overdo things. "Wouldn't it be cool if we had this gizmo?" Rarely does a filmmaker come along that actually has some restraint and tries to do these kinds of films (action, sci-fi, fantasy) without all the fluff. The Bourne Trilogy and Children of Men are both really good examples. The last act of Children of Men is probably the best film of recent years that is close to what the overall look of the post Skynet armageddon should look like, of course with more ruined buildings, no vegetation, and charred skulls laying about.
And don't even get me started on the fact that they are using machine guns instead of the plasma rifles that were seen in the first two films and even in the Sarah Conner Chronicles. Last time I checked, this was considered a sequel and not a re-imagining of the Terminator series. It would be the same as doing a direct sequel to Aliens that takes place during the same year and replacing the smart guns and pulse rifles with laser guns. Or how about replacing the phasers from Star Trek with shotguns and machine guns? Continuity man.
This is just my gut reaction from seeing the trailer. I know you can't judge a film solely on a trailer, so I'm just speculating and theorizing on what might not work in this film. I'm still interested in seeing it and hope it is the awesome war against Skynet film that it all the Terminator fans want it to be.
Last edited:
I often judge a movie on its trailer, and I think this one has to compete with transformers for merchandising. It has to be one long commercial to sell robots.
Games, toys . they are pushing it to be pg 13 as the link mentioned
T1 and T2 are Sci fi thrillers and they could easily stand on theire own.
T3 was just a waste of time.
I doubt that this one will be as good as T1 or T2 but I do believe its gonna be good and better then T3.
Games, toys . they are pushing it to be pg 13 as the link mentioned
T1 and T2 are Sci fi thrillers and they could easily stand on theire own.
T3 was just a waste of time.
I doubt that this one will be as good as T1 or T2 but I do believe its gonna be good and better then T3.
Captain Pierce
Veteran
Nektonic: the future sequences of T1 are set in 2029; given that TS is set a full 11 years earlier, I think they have a little leeway to show a slightly different world. If, as has been reported, Skynet hasn't yet deployed the T800's, only the T600's, it makes sense that the "phased plasma rifle, 40-megawatt range" (for example) isn't around yet, either.
There's also the line about "This isn't the future my mother warned me about" to take into consideration. There's been so much mucking about in the timeline (as witnessed by the constantly changing date of "Judgement Day") that it could be entirely possible that all bets are off at this point...
There's also the line about "This isn't the future my mother warned me about" to take into consideration. There's been so much mucking about in the timeline (as witnessed by the constantly changing date of "Judgement Day") that it could be entirely possible that all bets are off at this point...
Nektonic
Veteran
What do you think most kids would rather see, a dull grey skeletal robot with rubber skin hanging off of it, or a candy-colored jive-talkin' robot that can turn into a car or a boat? Also, what would most parents rather their kids see? Clean and colorful Micheal Bay action where nobody really gets hurt except maybe Megatron, or post apocalyptic LA ruled by demonic looking red-eyed walking death machines? Plus, the protagonist of Terminator is a grown man (Bale), while the protagonist of Transformers 2 is Shia LeBeouf and his girlfriend Megan Fox.
Part of me wonders if it would've been smarter for them to release this as a big winter movie in December. This worked for I Am Legend and The Day The Earth Stood Still. Terminator Salvation, while not necessarily as dark and depressing as the first film probably looks dreadfully unpleasant to most moviegoers next to the shiny and cartoon colored action of Transformers and GI Joe. Plus, the last Terminator film was T3, which came out in 2003. Transformers came out in 2007, so its got a definite advantage being fresher in the audience's mind. Darker fare usually seems to do better during the winter season. Summer rolls around and everybody seems to want the more colorful and cartoony stuff that most of the superhero films end up being. The Dark Knight was a huge hit, but Gotham City is not nearly as dark and depressing as the future world of the Terminator films.
I hope that if it can work narratively, there will be an optional R-rated directors cut DVD of Terminator Salvation. The summer popcorn audience can have its PG-13. A more mature or unrated extended cut for DVD would be great for the die-hard fans who can take the darker and more mature elements.
capitalP
Veteran
I feel everything your saying about the look, but to be honest that would be something almost impossible to achieve. That would require special kind of special effects of its own and that would defeat the purpose. Because as you know, every period of movies has their own looks, example if you look at movies from the 70’s and 80’s different look, I'm pretty sure the crew on T1 & 2 and the flashbacks intended a certain look, but that look was achieved at that time because of many reasons, but most importantly I think because of the type of camera and grade film they used.
Now can they go back and get that same camera and that same grade of film? Don't know, but even if they did, it would not look the same today. The closest to that look they could get today is maybe if some guru colorist watch frame by frame of the old flashbacks and try to match it, even then I doubt it, because it would be digitize. The only way I could see them getting the look you are referring to is, if they built a time machine, shot the movie then bring the movie back in the time machine...lol hope I'm not confusing you too much.
But I know exactly what you mean about that look, it just felt raw and gritty. But from that trailer I do like how it looks, it has lots of green to it, sorta like that Saving Private Ryan look, but hey it’s just a trailer, who knows how its gonna look in theaters.
And to be honest, the most important factor is the story, as long as the story is incredible, I will forgive any look, because what made T1 good and T2 great is the complexity of the story and the acting and not to mention great direction, which in my opinion T3 lacked all the above. And please tell me it isn't true about that Arnold thing, please say it ain't so...
And oh yeah, when I read that PG13 thing, I almost cried! Bastards!!!!
CallaghanFilms
Veteran
What a shame that the irreplaceable Stan Winston's last hurrah will be deluded by giant yutzi transformers and poo pooing "bikebots" thingamabobs. Methinks a "The Phantom Edit"-esque treatment may be forthcoming in a year or two sans these unnecessary marketing distractions...
Edit:
I can't believe I find myself agreeing with McG...but please don't let this be PG-13
Edit:
I can't believe I find myself agreeing with McG...but please don't let this be PG-13
Last edited:
Nektonic
Veteran
True, but it still comes back to the whole thing of how in 1984, the future of the Skynet dominated world of 2029 was pretty far off. It now seems like things are going too fast. Plus, I get annoyed when they change things in an established universe, unless it is a straight up remake or re-imagining. This is one of the best reasons to just do more original material instead of dragging old film franchises out of retirement and adding a sequel to it so many years later. Of course, I know that the studios will continue to resurrect old films because it is a sure thing compared to taking a risk on a new concept.
You're right about the story. I know I'm being very picky about the specific look of the first two films. If the story and acting are great then the other things are less of a concern. I still notice these things though. I can't just pretend I don't see the differences.
You're right though. Every era of film has certain techniques, trends, and tools that are somewhat not fully controllable by the folks making the film, except in rare cases with someone on the level of Kubrick maybe. So I definitely understand that you can't make the film totally look like it was shot in the 80's no matter how hard you try. I can still vent about it though.
Although, setting the whole film at night is not impossible. I understand that they probably want to add some light into a rather dark story, so they add some daytime scenes to vary the palette a bit. Maybe if this does turn into a trilogy, then they can go darker with the second film and set it mostly at night with a colder look. That would make me pretty excited. Throw in the plasma rifles, or at least mix them in with machine guns and I'll hyperventilate like a giddy schoolgirl on seeing the Beetles for the first time.
Last edited:
William_Robinette
Shallow Member
If they don't have that laser pew-pew sound from the T1 & T2 flashbacks I'm leaving.
And I might not show up if it's rated PG-13...
And I might not show up if it's rated PG-13...