Terminator = Prequal?

Chamber005

Carbonite Member
Hey, so I didn't see a Terminator Salvation thread (though I'm sure there must be one somewhere), so I figured I'd start one.

S

P

O

I

L

E

R


Not going to get too into it other than a couple things. First, I actually really enjoyed the movie. All the critics were so hard on the storyline, and the whole time I'm watching the movie I'm thinking, "What the heck more could you want from a Terminator flick?" Like, for instance, several critics complained about the ending being set in a factory-esque setting. WTF? The entire point of the final battle was an homage. In that scene they literally killed the terminator every single way the terminators have been killed in the previous three films.

And speaking of the third film, don't even get me started on how it burns me when someone looks at it as forgettable. This dude in the audience, right after Salvation ended, said to his buddy, "Yeah, but I don't count the 3rd one." People get so stuck on their crap that they can't tolerate change. There was nothing wrong with T3, just like there was nothing wrong with Salvation.

And THEN the critics started complaining about how we all knew the "secret" that the T700 ('er whatever) guy was a terminator all along. You would literally have to be a retard in quick sand not to know that when dude emerges from the blown-up installation that he's not a terminator. And since when do Terminator films need a secret? Was it a secret Arnold was a machine in the first, second or third? Why do we need this guy's machine-ism to be a secret? So friggin stupid...

And, I swear, every single news outlet couldn't WAIT to say that Night at the Museum beat Salvation -- which it totally didn't!! Salvation earned 13 mil on that first thursday. Night at the Museum and Salvation were neck and neck for Friday, Saturday, Sunday. What kind of idiotic measurement is this? Should I take two movies 7 weeks into their run and say "Hup! But it beat it that 7th wednesday!" **** like that completely hurts a movie garnering more sales because human beings, by nature, have a pack mentality. Christ, look at the cash Titanic raked in. I mean, come on...

Anyway, I thought the movie was a solid, solid Terminator flick. Much better than any other 4th installment of any franchise I've ever seen. And the introduction of the T800 was completely bad-ass.

And to the mention of the T800, after pondering a bit, I've decided that this movie has to be q prequal if you account for which machine was used in each movie. We go T800, T1000 and then...I dunno what the chick was, but she could make complex weapons so she had to be further along than the T1000. Thus, since in this movie the primary terminator are the T600s (the clunky rubber skin guys), I've decided that this is more of a prequal than a sequal.

The only thing that will forever boggle my mind is why Edward Furlong hasn't been John Conner throughout this series. He's been the correct age at each installment. Did they just never ask him, was he on drugs, did he decline? I think had he been in the series the entire time people would have found the 3rd and then the 4th installments much more cohesive. IMO.
 
1) You seriously couldn't find the eleven page Terminator thread? It's been maybe 8 threads below yours on the first page... (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=141392)

2) Knowing Marcus was a terminator ahead of time was disappointing because the film made a huge point about that reveal being a big deal, and filmed it in such a way that it was supposed to be a suprise. Sure, there were plenty of hints, and you could have figured it out, but why not just tell us ten minutes in rather than 40 minutes?

3) The fact that Night of the Museum II (which I didn't even know existed prior to it's release) even came close is not good news... a Terminator film should triple it...

4) The film was obviously a prequel. I can't imagine how there would be any doubt there.

5) Ed Furlong did have some drug problems. It would have been cool to have the same actor all along, but at the same time he never really was a real actor anyway, so I'm quite sure Stahl and Bale did a better job than he would have.
 
have you seen furlong lately?
furlongmd4.jpg
 
If the ever do another Orson Welles movie, this guy from Mad Men should have the part locked--
paul_s2_517x307.jpg
michael-gladis.jpg
Orson_welles_sm_3c19765v.jpg

I totally agree, and in fact, I remember thinking the same thing when watching Mad Men last summer. But that pick of Furlong just looks like Welles for some reason. Maybe it is the facial hair. I don't know if I'll be able to watch T2 for awhile now after seeing that picture. Furlong looks like he needs a fitness and weightlifting intervention from Arnold.
 
Back
Top