TERMINATOR SALVATION Thread

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Message
Author
User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34186
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#31 Post by AndyDursin »

JSWalsh wrote:I think they should end the series with Connor's knowledge of how he came to be leading to the destruction of the Terminators by a seemingly significant action that results in his blinking out of existence. At first everyone thinks he's been blown up, but the last scene shows that within months, the war ends and humanity survives, and Connor's sacrifice and ultimate purpose are not even all that significant, except to the audience.
What's odd about this film is that John Connor is very much a secondary character and apparently wasn't even given that much screen time in the original drafts of the script -- once Bale came onboard his role was augmented, but he's still a side character to the main story line. Frankly I think the movie would have been more effective if there was less of him.

Picking up also on what Michael said above, this film was clearly made with sequels in mind. Unfortunately the huge budget and the hopes that Bale would be the driving force to sell tickets (as opposed to Arnold) seems to be a gamble that's not paying off -- at least not domestically. Perhaps with international revenues the movie will do better, and it's also true the movie was bankrolled by a number of different outlets (Sony distributes it outside the U.S.), so it's possible this may not be the end of the series....but it will be if the box-office doesn't pick up the slack in foreign markets.

JSWalsh
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Boston, MA USA

#32 Post by JSWalsh »

As you know, action movies these days make half their money or more overseas because they speak in the universal language of "Bay" so I wouldn't fret.

Many people have written/said Connor isn't as big a part in this, and it kind of reminds me of the Alien 3 scripts that either had no Ripley or had her for only a couple of scenes, building up Hicks and having Ripley return in the fourth movie.

It's kind of interesting that they didn't take the safe route and do an "origins" movie of Connor--what more is there to know about they guy? Instead they've widened the scope, though from what I've read Bale shouldn't be surprised if he buys it in the next one and the new guy pretends to be Connor or something weird like that.
John

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34186
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#33 Post by AndyDursin »

It's kind of interesting that they didn't take the safe route and do an "origins" movie of Connor--what more is there to know about they guy? Instead they've widened the scope, though from what I've read Bale shouldn't be surprised if he buys it in the next one and the new guy pretends to be Connor or something weird like that.
That was the whole concept of this movie, that Connor was going to die and be "resurrected" in form only as a Terminator. They didn't go through with it, but in the end it kind of made Connor's whole involvement in the movie a waste of time.

A better idea would have just been following the Sam Worthington character and his run-ins with a young Kyle Reese, then meeting Connor at the very end of the picture, as a lead-in to a sequel (which we know is coming anyway -- or at least was!).

JSWalsh
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Boston, MA USA

#34 Post by JSWalsh »

Yeah, I read about that original ending, which I think is just one too-clever move too many, kind of like Dekkard being a replicant in Blade Runner--it's like "OK, you got me," but it's unsatisfying from a story point of view. You can imagine the movie makers thinking "And everyone'll walk out of the theater all like 'Wow, I didn't see THAT coming!'" That'd be cool for about ten minutes, but ultimately doesn't really have a storytelling point, unless it's to say that machines are human too, or somesuch foolishness.

I like your idea better.
John

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34186
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#35 Post by AndyDursin »

JSWalsh wrote:Yeah, I read about that original ending, which I think is just one too-clever move too many, kind of like Dekkard being a replicant in Blade Runner--it's like "OK, you got me," but it's unsatisfying from a story point of view. You can imagine the movie makers thinking "And everyone'll walk out of the theater all like 'Wow, I didn't see THAT coming!'" That'd be cool for about ten minutes, but ultimately doesn't really have a storytelling point, unless it's to say that machines are human too, or somesuch foolishness.
I didn't like that idea either -- in fact I think it was floated over at AICN and readers revolted. Probably one of the few times it was a good idea to "test" it out there, lol!

Agree totally on BLADE RUNNER. I always hated HATED the idea that Deckard is a replicant. I know Scott liked that idea afterwards or whatever his revisionist thinking was there, but the whole point of that movie -- the whole fabric and message -- for me is totally lost if Deckard is already a replicant. What the hell is the point of the movie if he's already a robot? Why is he put through the ringer if he's a robot? The beauty of the movie for me is that he's a human who's lost a lot of what made himself human, but regains it by watching a robot whose passion for life, for living, outweighs his own. All of that is gone from the Director's Cut and Recut version of the movie.

JSWalsh
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Boston, MA USA

#36 Post by JSWalsh »

Yeah, if he's a replicant, the whole point of the movie is basically "Replicants are inhuman, but a replicant can learn to be human by seeing a replicant act like a human."

I mean, it's a NEAT idea, if you don't mind tossing a whole movie away in order to have one moment of "Holy cow!"

The best "Holy cow!" moments illuminate and amplify a movie's total impact, they don't destroy it.
John

The Pessimist
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 1:15 pm

#37 Post by The Pessimist »

Furthermore, you have a problem with my POV because you've actually seen this movie and disagree with it, or you're just applying it in general as if I review every action film that way? If you were a regular reader of my 12 years of columns, you would know the latter is not the case, and that I take every film on a case-by-case basis.

No, I haven't seen it. Nor do I really have any desire to. I mean what more can they do?

Otherwise, fair enough.
'Sorry about that one.' -Ed Wood

John Johnson
Posts: 6087
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:28 pm

#38 Post by John Johnson »

Terminator Salvation comes to US DVD and Blu-ray a week after the UK release and boasts the director's cut of the film not found on the UK release. Warner Home Video have announced the US DVD and Blu-ray Disc release of Terminator Salvation on 1st December 2009. Directed by McG, Terminator Salvation stars Christian Bale as John Connor, leader of the human resistance in a post-Judgment Day world ravaged by deadly Terminators. Also starring is Australian newcomer Sam Worthington.

Blu-ray Disc features include…

Disc 1: Theatrical Version of Film
WB Maximum Movie Mode
Focus Points
Re-Forging the Future
The Moto-Terminator

Disc 2: Director’s Cut of Film
BD-Live
Media Center
Featured Content
- "Resist or Be Terminated” Video Archive
- Terminator Salvation Official Movie Prequel Digital Comic Issue #1
My Commentary
Live Community Screening

Disc 3: Digital Copy of Theatrical Version

DVD content is TBC but it appears to be a single-disc release with the director's cut (135mins) and a single extra – The Moto-Terminator.

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content/id/71 ... ember.html
London. Greatest City in the world.

romanD
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:18 am

#39 Post by romanD »

i wonder actually... wasnt BluRay supposed to be capable of containing a lot of stuff? but still they have to release doublediscs etc??? shouldnt it all fit on one disc???

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34186
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#40 Post by AndyDursin »

romanD wrote:i wonder actually... wasnt BluRay supposed to be capable of containing a lot of stuff? but still they have to release doublediscs etc??? shouldnt it all fit on one disc???
Indeed. From the very beginning Blu-Ray was supposed to have a major advantage because of the 50gb dual-layer disc element -- yet here we are several years later and still so many discs are 25gb single-layer releases because it holds the costs down for studios. I think going with two 25gb discs is cheaper than one 50gb release, even now.

romanD
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:18 am

#41 Post by romanD »

and this content of the T4 set would be more than 25GBs??? To me it looks just like a Double Set sounds so much better and bigger than putting it all on one disc and milking the unassuming buyer a bit more...

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34186
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#42 Post by AndyDursin »

romanD wrote:and this content of the T4 set would be more than 25GBs??? To me it looks just like a Double Set sounds so much better and bigger than putting it all on one disc and milking the unassuming buyer a bit more...
Looks to me like the content is going to fill up 2 single-layer 25gb discs. I think it's just a matter of economics -- I doubt WB is going to charge more because of it, because as I said, it's more expensive I believe for the studios to release one 50gb disc than it is to put everything on a pair of 25gb discs.

Eric W.
Posts: 7569
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

#43 Post by Eric W. »

AndyDursin wrote:
Indeed. From the very beginning Blu-Ray was supposed to have a major advantage because of the 50gb dual-layer disc element -- yet here we are several years later and still so many discs are 25gb single-layer releases because it holds the costs down for studios.

I think going with two 25gb discs is cheaper than one 50gb release, even now.
Has to be.

If I'd had my druthers, 25GBs basically would have ceased to be used at least a year ago, but oh well, that's just me. Not like I'm in any kind of position to make any effect on that.

Just saying. ;)

romanD
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:18 am

#44 Post by romanD »

still... in addition to that, this digital copy thing was imho only invented to charge more... all the time I have to buy a double or triple set for extras and then this digital copy thing which I have no use for at all, but Im sure that is never included for free, but makes the price go up a bit more...

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34186
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#45 Post by AndyDursin »

romanD wrote:still... in addition to that, this digital copy thing was imho only invented to charge more... all the time I have to buy a double or triple set for extras and then this digital copy thing which I have no use for at all, but Im sure that is never included for free, but makes the price go up a bit more...
The whole digital copy thing -- I just don't get it myself either. Especially now because they advertise discs as being a "2-DISC SPECIAL EDITION!" when really it's just a 1 disc release with a digital copy included. :roll:

Post Reply