PDA

View Full Version : Terminator 4,5 and 6.



Doodler
2007-May-10, 07:22 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/10/film.terminator.reut/index.html

Well enough just could not be left alone.

Daryl71
2007-May-10, 07:27 PM
We haven't even gotten a forth movie yet and the franchise is already in it's Star Trek 12: So Very Tired phase! :wall:

Swift
2007-May-10, 07:27 PM
Terminator 7: Terminator Vs. Rocky
:wall:

parallaxicality
2007-May-10, 07:31 PM
Why can't Cameron spend his money on something constructive? Instead of going up to the Space Station or down for his umpteenth trip to the Titanic, he might consider buying back the rights to his own story.

Gillianren
2007-May-10, 08:15 PM
As long as none of the new ones have Edward Furlong, and therefore I don't have to see his face in ads for a solid month, I'm okay with it; I didn't see the third one and won't bother with any new ones, either.

Romanus
2007-May-11, 06:18 PM
I just threw up in my mouth a little. (:P

To be fair, I thought T3 was competent, though it wasn't the first two by a long shot. I have no expectation that the luck will last, though.

ROFL at Swift. :D

NEOWatcher
2007-May-11, 06:30 PM
The more I think about it, the more I think they have a lot to work with.

If it's just one more of those "how bad can a machine be" movies, then by all means, let it die.

Other than that, you now have John Conner and "friend" protected from the nuclear blast. You can take that through the entire struggle of survival, banding together of the resistance, training of the T1, evolution of the machines, and probably a whole lot more.

Please let them do the right thing.

mr obvious
2007-May-12, 12:11 AM
Please let them do the right thing.

I opine that the right thing is to make sure they have the story arcs planned and logically worked out prior to greenlighting the sequels. I don't know if they've done that but would not be surprised if they hadn't, sadly.

VPCCD
2007-May-12, 12:48 AM
This is just more proof that hollywood is beggining to run out of good ideas for movies, and now has to resort to remaking old movies, making sequals and re-doing TV shows.
*sigh*

Lianachan
2007-May-12, 02:44 PM
I think the Spider-man films and Terminator ones are pretty similar, in that:

First film - very good
Second film - surprisingly, still pretty good
3rd film - jumps the shark
4th, 5th and 6th announced as a job lot well in advance.

Edited afterthought: That's probably true for many series of films, actually.

Ronald Brak
2007-May-12, 03:10 PM
Instead of a sequal, why not do a remake of the first movie? It's over 20 years old, so it is in remake territory.

Of course, these days, audiences aren't likely to find cyborgs that scary since quite a few of the older audience members will now be cyborgs themselves. I suggest that instead of the terminator being a cyborg from the future, I suggest we make him a cybernetic demon from the future, hell, the past, a parallel universe and another dimension. His name can be Freddy Terminator Kruger. The script practically writes itself.

GANG MEMBER: It's your washday, huh?
NAKED TERMINATOR KRUGER: Your souls, give them to me.

TERMINATOR KRUGER: .45 Colt semi automatic. Uzi nine millimeter with laser sighting. Copy of Necrotellnicom with human skin binding.
GUNSHOP OWNER: Hey buddy, it's just what you see.
(Terminator starts inscribing pentagram on floor.)
GUNSHOP OWNER: Hey, you can't do that.
TERMINATOR KRUGER: Wrong!

TERMINATOR KRUGER: Sarah Conner? Are you Sarah Conner?
SARAH CONNER: Yes.
TERMINATOR KRUGER: Take these sleeping tablets so I can destroy your soul in the dreamworld.
SARAH CONNER: Okay.

SkepticJ
2007-May-13, 04:17 AM
This is just more proof that hollywood is beggining to run out of good ideas for movies, and now has to resort to remaking old movies, making sequals and re-doing TV shows.
*sigh*

I've heard this for years, it's just not true. There's fresh ideas in movies created every year, they're often the ones who are Oscar nominated.
I defy you to name a decade that didn't churn out horrible movies on par with or often far worse than what we're treated to today.
Creating needless and bad sequels to very good movies is nothing new. Need I say Cocoon: The Return?

Maksutov
2007-May-13, 12:57 PM
This is just more proof that hollywood is beggining to run out of good ideas for movies, and now has to resort to remaking old movies, making sequals and re-doing TV shows.
*sigh*Beginning?

Where have you been the last few decades?

Maksutov
2007-May-13, 01:03 PM
I've heard this for years, it's just not true. There's fresh ideas in movies created every year, they're often the ones who are Oscar nominated.Cites, please?

I defy you to name a decade that didn't churn out horrible movies on par with or often far worse than what we're treated to today. Can't do, since today's films are so awful.

Whoa! It's been three minutes since we've had a car crash.

Creating needless and bad sequels to very good movies is nothing new. Need I say Cocoon: The Return?Sorry, you made your own anti-case.

VPCCD
2007-May-13, 09:56 PM
Beginning?

Where have you been the last few decades?

I've not been alive! :D

mr obvious
2007-May-13, 10:48 PM
Can't do, since today's films are so awful.

Whoa! It's been three minutes since we've had a car crash.


My interpretation of what SkepticJ was saying is that it is difficult to name a decade in the years past that are as bad as, or worse than, the films of today. I believe you two are in agreement, at least somewhat, in that regards. Correct me if I'm wrong!



I've not been alive!

You've not been alive for the past few decades? Curious, did you come from the future where the machines are in charge? ;)

Gillianren
2007-May-13, 11:21 PM
I was, a while ago, explaining to Graham why 1939 is considered one of the greatest years in movie history. This entailed going through IMDB in a "search by year." Did you know that two Andy Hardy movies came out in 1939? Two! Four, the year before. If that isn't overblown sequelling, I don't know what is.

VPCCD
2007-May-14, 12:14 AM
You've not been alive for the past few decades? Curious, did you come from the future where the machines are in charge? ;)[/QUOTE]

No, I meant I've only been alive for 17 years, not even two decades.

novaderrik
2007-May-14, 04:42 AM
i wonder if the next Terminator sequels will actually be prequels, and we will find out that Sarah Connor was actually born in the future and sent back in time by some renegade robots to give birth to the child that will lead the human rebellion against the machines..

that would be just about enough to make the general public wonder what the hell they just saw on the screen..

Romanus
2007-May-14, 01:42 PM
Achtung!

***SPOILER WARNING***

The only thing I really didn't like about T3 was the fact that the movie's ending effectively renders both previous movies moot--idiotic, in fact.

***END SPOILER WARNING***

Jim
2007-May-14, 01:51 PM
Terminator 7: Terminator Vs. Rocky

Hey, if Freddy and Jason can duke it out, why not Ahnuld and Sly? And the winner takes on Michael Myers in the next merged sequel.

Trantor
2007-May-14, 06:43 PM
I enjoyed all three Terminator movies. My personal favorite was T2. When T3 first came out, I was skeptical, but it turned out to be a very good action packed movie.

I've always wanted to see a Terminator movie about the future war with the machines; I always liked those scenes of the future war in the previous movies. I just hope that it is done right.

Click Ticker
2007-May-14, 07:49 PM
i wonder if the next Terminator sequels will actually be prequels, and we will find out that Sarah Connor was actually born in the future and sent back in time by some renegade robots to give birth to the child that will lead the human rebellion against the machines..

that would be just about enough to make the general public wonder what the hell they just saw on the screen..

Actually - that's a good approach to take. All along - I've been wondering why the computers don't just send a machine back further to kill Sarah Connor's mom. I mean - once you've got time travel - why pick the hardest person to kill? Or was there a limit to how far back one could go. Any more than 30 years and you run out of time travel gas.

SeanF
2007-May-14, 08:41 PM
All along - I've been wondering why the computers don't just send a machine back further to kill Sarah Connor's mom. I mean - once you've got time travel - why pick the hardest person to kill? Or was there a limit to how far back one could go. Any more than 30 years and you run out of time travel gas.
They didn't want to risk changing something too far back and thus preventing SkyNet itself from ever being created... :)

Oh, why would killing Sarah Connor be any harder than killing her mother?

mr obvious
2007-May-14, 09:57 PM
They didn't want to risk changing something too far back and thus preventing SkyNet itself from ever being created... :)

Oh, why would killing Sarah Connor be any harder than killing her mother?

Well the first time, it might not be, but once she's onto you, it'll probably be harder. I mean, see how she changed from the first to second movie? So it might be easier going after an unsuspecting target, once the first time failed (and they've had 3 tries now).

SeanF
2007-May-15, 01:37 PM
Well the first time, it might not be, but once she's onto you, it'll probably be harder. I mean, see how she changed from the first to second movie? So it might be easier going after an unsuspecting target, once the first time failed (and they've had 3 tries now).
Ah, I thought you meant that killing her mother would've been easier than killing her right from the get-go.

BTW, they've only tried once to kill Sarah. In the second and third movies, John himself was the target. :)

But what you point out is a problem, and one with just about any story involving time travel - the time traveler(s) could conceivably always try again.

hhEb09'1
2007-May-15, 03:14 PM
But what you point out is a problem, and one with just about any story involving time travel - the time traveler(s) could conceivably always try again.Not only send back reinforcements for the first attempt, but send back the same reinforcement, multiple times. :)

Delvo
2007-May-15, 03:18 PM
That's why John Connor's gang in the future also destroyed the time travel equipment after just a few had gone through.

SeanF
2007-May-15, 03:51 PM
Not only send back reinforcements for the first attempt, but send back the same reinforcement, multiple times. :)
Well, in the Terminator universe, the time-travel is one-way - so any particular reinforcement could only be sent back once (unless they survived all the way to the "future date" from which they were originally sent back).

:)

mr obvious
2007-May-15, 09:28 PM
Alternatively, they could send subsequent models back against the same target, but further back before the first one sent back. Then the element of surprise would still be there, and if the newer model didn't succeed but managed to survive, then it could team up with the older model because it presumably knows when the older model will show up. This could appear funny from a certain perspective, because following the 'natural' time-line one would see worse and more primitive models over time being sent back.

SeanF's point that the targets of the subsequent Terminators were against John is well-taken; once he was born, targeting Sarah might not accomplish much. But still, the experience from the failed missions helps in the future, from a certain point of view.

Mr Gorsky
2007-May-16, 01:41 PM
I must confess that I enjoyed T3 for what it was ... a good action flick - nothing more. A little rushed in places, to the extent that a chunk of the narrative was just there to link action setpieces together, but there have been significantly worse (and less enjoyable) movies released in recent years.

Perhaps I am just not as invested in the Terminator story (to worry too much about desecrating Cameron's masterpiece) as some others, but I am quite happy to see further movies providing they move the story (as it now stands) forward and are of an equivalent or greater quality to T3.

Doodler
2007-May-17, 02:38 AM
There's a new TV series coming soon, The Sarah Connor Chronicles.

Should be...interesting.

parallaxicality
2007-May-17, 01:53 PM
It'll be hard to explain how John Connor has no knowledge of Skynet's survival in T3 if he spent the intervening years battling cyborgs with his momma.

loglo
2007-May-17, 04:33 PM
This is just more proof that hollywood is beggining to run out of good ideas for movies, and now has to resort to remaking old movies, making sequals and re-doing TV shows.
*sigh*

Beginning? Beginnning?? Ran out a generation or so ago IMHO.

Swift
2007-May-17, 04:57 PM
Well, in the Terminator universe, the time-travel is one-way - so any particular reinforcement could only be sent back once (unless they survived all the way to the "future date" from which they were originally sent back).

:)
I always had the impression that the Terminator robots were mass produced. They never explain about the cost or limitations of time travel (like we only have three Uranium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulators, so we can only go back three times). Assuming there are no such limits, why didn't Skynet send back 10 or 20 Terminators the first time, just to make sure the job got done?

I think the answer is the three Terminator movies are not very logical or very self-consistent, and we are over-thinking them. ;)

kzb
2007-May-17, 05:15 PM
When they destroyed the terminator hand with the chip in it, near the end of T2, shouldn't both terminators have disappeared?

SeanF
2007-May-17, 06:35 PM
I always had the impression that the Terminator robots were mass produced. They never explain about the cost or limitations of time travel (like we only have three Uranium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulators, so we can only go back three times). Assuming there are no such limits, why didn't Skynet send back 10 or 20 Terminators the first time, just to make sure the job got done?
Actually, I think Kyle Reese did tell Sarah that Skynet only had time to send back the one Terminator before the humans took over the facility. After sending Reese back, the humans were supposed to destroy the time machine.


I think the answer is the three Terminator movies are not very logical or very self-consistent, and we are over-thinking them. ;)
You expecting an argument to that? ;)


When they destroyed the terminator hand with the chip in it, near the end of T2, shouldn't both terminators have disappeared?
Well, considering that T3 showed us that the events of T2 were unsuccessful in stopping SkyNet from being created, no. But the characters probably should've wondered why at the time.

Roy Batty
2007-May-17, 07:02 PM
But the characters probably should've wondered why at the time.
Not necessarily, even if they managed to change the timeline then you could argue that they were now part of that timeline by that time.... time ... time ... temporal paradox overload!!! :D

MG1962A
2007-May-18, 12:45 PM
Terminator 8 Rise Of The Democrats

hhEb09'1
2007-May-18, 08:38 PM
Beginning? Beginnning?? Ran out a generation or so ago IMHO.I think it started with (no before) Shakespeare. A lot of those hacks are retreads :)

Noclevername
2007-May-18, 10:10 PM
Let's take away all Cameron's money, then let him make the films; As the first movie shows, he does his best work when he's broke (The same goes, ten times over, for George Lucas). Money just makes filmmakers self-indulgent and over-reliant on CGI.

Terminator IV -- Terminator vs. Jar-Jar Binks! A sure-fire hit!

mr obvious
2007-May-18, 11:36 PM
When they destroyed the terminator hand with the chip in it, near the end of T2, shouldn't both terminators have disappeared?

Retcon, of course, if one does not rely on T3.

The T1000 had already melted before they tossed in the chip and the hand/arm [going from memory; correct me if I'm wrong]. However, The T101 (whatever model was the guardian) was still around, and could conceivably be used to make Skynet. So they had to melt him, too. Once they did, there was no more source material to make Skynet, so all stuff from the future should've gone poof. However, at that point, there was no more stuff from the future, so nothing to go poof.

Continuing thinking along the same lines will invariably lead to contradiction, though, because if the future was no longer Skynet-based, then nothing could've been sent back; thus the Connors couldn't have experienced T1 and T2, etc. Whee!

sigmund1898
2007-May-19, 04:22 AM
GANG MEMBER: It's your washday, huh?
NAKED TERMINATOR KRUGER: Your souls, give them to me.


Kruger walks at night in the nude? That's one image I didn't need to conjure.



TERMINATOR KRUGER: Sarah Conner? Are you Sarah Conner?
SARAH CONNER: Yes.
TERMINATOR KRUGER: Take these sleeping tablets so I can destroy your soul in the dreamworld.
SARAH CONNER: Okay.

It's amazing how passive she was in the first, and so aggressive in the next. I guess being chased by a cyborg from the future programed to kill you and everyone that shares your name can make even the sweetest little girls into GI Jane rebels. So glad I didn't see her in the 3rd one.. hopefull we won't be seeing Linda in any of the sequels.

EDG
2007-May-19, 04:36 AM
Other than that, you now have John Conner and "friend" protected from the nuclear blast. You can take that through the entire struggle of survival, banding together of the resistance, training of the T1, evolution of the machines, and probably a whole lot more.

Oh great, it'll be the old Planet of the Apes movies all over again, where the first two were good but then we get to see the nasty future unfold before our eyes.

Ack. This thread just brought back all those terrible memories of T3. I had to watch T2 again afterwards to purge that nightmare from my mind.



Please let them do the right thing.

I think I've got the number of a good assassin here somewhere... oh, you meant something else? ;)

HenrikOlsen
2007-May-19, 06:43 AM
It's amazing how passive she was in the first, and so aggressive in the next. I guess being chased by a cyborg from the future programed to kill you and everyone that shares your name can make even the sweetest little girls into GI Jane rebels. So glad I didn't see her in the 3rd one.. hopefull we won't be seeing Linda in any of the sequels.
I guess having your son forcibly taken away from you and getting locked up in a nuthouse for trying to prevent everyone getting killed can make even the sweetest little girl into a GI Jane rebel.
Being told she's the mother of the messiah probably helps as well.

Remember there's a long timespan between the first two films.

Gillianren
2007-May-20, 11:19 PM
I must confess that I enjoyed T3 for what it was ... a good action flick - nothing more.

And it's nice to see Claire Danes getting work. I'd be happier if she'd been cast as Mary Jane, though.

Romanus
2007-May-21, 02:11 AM
Let's take away all Cameron's money, then let him make the films; As the first movie shows, he does his best work when he's broke (The same goes, ten times over, for George Lucas). Money just makes filmmakers self-indulgent and over-reliant on CGI.

Terminator IV -- Terminator vs. Jar-Jar Binks! A sure-fire hit!

This guy for President.

A highly relevant "Robot Chicken" sketch (somewhat NSFW):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCKRfwFygRQ

:D

Roy Batty
2007-May-21, 10:51 AM
A highly relevant "Robot Chicken" sketch (somewhat NSFW):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCKRfwFygRQ

:D
That's funny :lol:

parallaxicality
2007-May-21, 11:04 AM
I burst out laughing at the shock wave. Thankfully, Steven Spielberg isn't George Lucas. Although even he has gone back and edited his masterworks- including Jaws (the whale now sounds like a whale, but far less creepy)


And it's nice to see Claire Danes getting work. I'd be happier if she'd been cast as Mary Jane, though.


I'm looking forward to Stardust

Gillianren
2007-May-21, 06:23 PM
I'm looking forward to Stardust

Me, too.

novaderrik
2007-May-21, 06:35 PM
And it's nice to see Claire Danes getting work. I'd be happier if she'd been cast as Mary Jane, though.
like, when i saw that i was ,so, like, whatever. like, you know? like..

dirty_g
2007-May-21, 06:43 PM
I think going back and killing John Conners great great great grandfather could work. Much worse technology to beat a Terminator with. I do beleive that it's time to leave the trilogy alone though. I doubt Arnie will be in it.

Launch window
2008-Jan-17, 04:32 PM
Did you catch the tv series ?

You could look at it for free online over at Yahoo

It was much better than I expected

NEOWatcher
2008-Jan-17, 05:37 PM
Did you catch the tv series ?
Yes; I started a thread for it here (http://www.bautforum.com/small-media-large/69109-sarah-connor-spoilers.html)...

It was much better than I expected
I'm still reserving judgment until after I see Tuesday night's show which I have taped.

man on the moon
2008-Jan-18, 02:42 PM
I keep waiting for the line: "John, I am your father"

Noclevername
2008-Jan-19, 08:37 PM
I think going back and killing John Conners great great great grandfather could work. Much worse technology to beat a Terminator with. I do beleive that it's time to leave the trilogy alone though. I doubt Arnie will be in it.

Maybe there are limits on how far back they can go. Spacetime only bends so far. And it would explain why each film was set a few years after the previous one.

erisi236
2008-Jan-22, 05:12 AM
I liked T3. :)

Lots of great action and FX and it also fixed the paradox of John Conner that happened in T2. If Judgment Day, Skynet and the Terminators don't happen in the future, then John Conner would never have been born 'cuz Kyle Reese never would have gone back in time to be his Father. :)

Judgment Day is inevitable because John Conner still exists.

Noclevername
2008-Jan-22, 06:56 AM
Judgment Day is inevitable because John Conner still exists.

Not necessarily. There could be alternate timelines (in which case it both is and isn't inevitable ;)), or perhaps someone who travels into a past timeframe becomes part of it, therefore altering the future doesn't undo the effects of the original time travel.