The Night Lord
Wise-cracking Sidekick
The Long Kiss Goodnight
There can be no love. Only pain exists[Mo0:1]
Posts: 2,654
|
Post by The Night Lord on May 23, 2009 7:08:44 GMT -5
I once heard that she was going to be narrating Salvation, but how can she do that? She's dead (Sarah Connor), unless Hamilton is not playing as Sarah narrator, but simply a narrator to draw more fans to the film, cuz hey, it's Linda Hamilton in Terminator Salvation
|
|
deathisyourgift
Ensouled Vampire
to read makes our speaking English good!
Timothy Dalton should win an Oscar and beat Sean Connery over the head with it!!-Andrew[Mo0:37]
Posts: 1,166
|
Post by deathisyourgift on May 23, 2009 9:29:18 GMT -5
Linda Hamilton does not appear in the film, but is in it. Figure that one out haha
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on May 23, 2009 9:36:12 GMT -5
To answer the Linda Hamilton question: She's heard in a series of tapes she made for John before she died. Quite simple really, and a lot more profound. Watched it last night, and while I didn't think it was an utter waste of time (i.e. T3), I wasn't blown away. IMO, the trailer editing was better than the movie itself. The plot while decent, was so paint by the numbers that as an audience, you knew exactly what was going to happen the moment you were given the usual cliched cue point. Where T: SCC succeeds over TS is where the focus is on the characters, and not the shiny gizmos. It's post-JD... the world is supposed to be a burnt cinder... plenty of room for human drama... especially since this was supposed to be the first in a new movie trilogy, you'd think that some development on the John Connor front would be mandatory. He is now considered a prophet of sorts, and is also a war-trained soldier. But you get more soldier than the prophet part. Which kinda blows, because that's an interesting angle to explore, given that we're never really told why John Connor is such a BFD in the first place. My answer to my boyfriend (who asked the question) was: "Well, they probably made him that important when they decided to send Terminators back in time to kill him"). He's not the leader of the Resistance here. He's merely a soldier, but also one that holds much clout because of his messiah status. Funny thing is, despite having top-billing in the movie, Bale really isn't the focus of the plot. It's mostly about Marcus, who in several scenes actually has JC-imagery bestowed upon him, making him an interesting foil for Bale's Connor. However, the full potential is never reached, due to the very basic script. Kate Connor was pretty much a complete waste of space and character potential. All she did was stand around, say a few lines... zzzzzzzz. The backdrop/landscape... I think there lies my biggest problem. As the boyfriend pointed out: "Where the hell is the nuclear fallout? It's a few years after a nuclear apocalypse... and nothing?" Which is true. It mostly looks like they ripped off imagery from Resident Evil: Apocalypse and wait for it... Blade Runner. I kid you not. Anyone who's seen Blade Runner will probably moan at the first sight of SkyNet. They may as well have included a full disclosure about just cleaning up the Blade Runner footage and using it here. The ending... pretty damn lousy actually. Barely makes any biological sense at all, unless, by total complete coincidence, Marcus is a perfect match for John. But of course John couldn't die then, for who else would've sent Kyle back into the past to make sure that Sarah Connor was protected, and himself conceived. All in all: C+
|
|
|
Post by henzINNIT on May 23, 2009 15:02:00 GMT -5
From what I've read online, there's an incredibly annoying, gaping hole in the plot...
Kyle is the #1 target on Skynet's list. Why? Do they know of his importance? How? If they know he's John's future father, why do they not kill him when they have the chance? They could at least render him seedless right? If they only want him as bait for Connor, why isn't Connor #1 on the list?
T1 makes it clear that massive chunks of information are lost thanks to Judgement Day. That's why Arnie has very little to work with when he arrives in 1984. Skynet somehow having knowledge of Kyle's past/future not only ignores the facts of T1, it makes no sense. Skynet sends the Terminators back in a desperate move to CHANGE the past. Why on earth would they bother if they already know it'll fail?
The poor reviews are one thing, but that ^ kills me. Anyone who's seen it, does the film offer any explanation?
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on May 23, 2009 22:43:10 GMT -5
SkyNet pretty much fed the resistance lies. So even though Kyle Reese was featured as Target #1 on the list; the point is that the plan was to get John Connor over at SkyNet so that they could wipe him out. Yes, they could just have killed Kyle and nullified the entire movie, but they didn't, because it wouldn't have worked in terms of cinema. As for why bother is they know they'll fail, I think the point of the franchise in general is "Not fate but what we make". As in, SkyNet is probably trying to change the outcome of the future as it is.
|
|
jellymoff
Ensouled Vampire
Claimer of Funn[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,174
|
Post by jellymoff on May 24, 2009 0:24:22 GMT -5
OK, so here's what I really don't get: Let's say they did kill Kyle. Does John Conner just disappear? The whole thing is a bit messy. It just seems like all the messing with the past doesn't really impact the future, or the present.
|
|
|
Post by henzINNIT on May 24, 2009 5:48:26 GMT -5
OK, so here's what I really don't get: Let's say they did kill Kyle. Does John Conner just disappear? The whole thing is a bit messy. It just seems like all the messing with the past doesn't really impact the future, or the present. I'd guess that nothing in this universe would change, as the films have steered toward alternate universes now.
That's the whole problem I have with this now though, if Skynet know about Kyle's future/past antics, why would they bother trying to send a Terminator back to 1984 in the first place? Their reason for doing it was in the hopes of changing their present. They know that it won't change now... Stupid.
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on May 24, 2009 10:16:44 GMT -5
OK, so here's what I really don't get: Let's say they did kill Kyle. Does John Conner just disappear? The whole thing is a bit messy. It just seems like all the messing with the past doesn't really impact the future, or the present. I'd guess that nothing in this universe would change, as the films have steered toward alternate universes now.
That's the whole problem I have with this now though, if Skynet know about Kyle's future/past antics, why would they bother trying to send a Terminator back to 1984 in the first place? Their reason for doing it was in the hopes of changing their present. They know that it won't change now... Stupid.
Time travel is in itself quite messy, and occasionally stupid. Sending Terminators to the past never worked because their plans were always thwarted. But I agree that nothing probably changes in that particular time stream, so one can probably only argue that the changes they hope to make are in alternate time streams. But the more honest answer would probably be that the first movie had a very simple premise, with probably no real plans for continuing the story. Making sequels meant that certain elements had to be tweaked... hence the somewhat nonsensical nature of the story in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by hitnrun017 on May 24, 2009 22:01:59 GMT -5
I enjoyed the heck out of this movie. Did it have many flaws? Yes. Can it compare to the greatness of Cameron's? Not at all. But for what it's worth, this was pretty good movie in its own right.
The story was alright, nothing too special, but I did really enjoy the characters, especially Marcus and Kyle. Their struggles were pretty awesome to see unfold. The only character that I didn't like, surprisingly enough, was John Connor. Development wise, he did pretty much nothing the entire movie, felt more like a background character. Heck, that little girl that didn't say one word (Star?) had more development than him. Christian Bale really irked me too, same annoying monotone-whispering voice the entire movie. How is that acting? Probably the only major flaw. This movie was epic action and effects wise, haven't felt that kind of excitement since The Dark Knight. Some pretty neat homages too.
Isn't this suppose to be a trilogy? If so, I'm excited for the next two. Seems like it flopped majorly box office wise though.
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on May 25, 2009 10:59:05 GMT -5
This movie was epic action and effects wise, haven't felt that kind of excitement since The Dark Knight. Some pretty neat homages too. I'd recommend Star Trek then. Waaaaay better...
|
|
|
Post by hitnrun017 on May 25, 2009 11:29:56 GMT -5
This movie was epic action and effects wise, haven't felt that kind of excitement since The Dark Knight. Some pretty neat homages too. I'd recommend Star Trek then. Waaaaay better... Already saw it. The action was good, but it wasn't edge-of-my-seat like it was for Salvation. But story and character-wise, Star Trek was better.
|
|
|
Post by Rebecca on May 25, 2009 23:42:52 GMT -5
I just got back and I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. I loved all the throwbacks to the original and T2, but I agree on the character development point and I thought the effects weren't completely finished. It was good for a restart... especially after T3.
B+
|
|
The Night Lord
Wise-cracking Sidekick
The Long Kiss Goodnight
There can be no love. Only pain exists[Mo0:1]
Posts: 2,654
|
Post by The Night Lord on May 26, 2009 0:57:43 GMT -5
Well, it sounds like a good movie, so I'm in. Checking it out in a couple of weeks when it hits Aussie theatres
|
|
|
Post by Rebecca on Jun 6, 2009 20:28:40 GMT -5
I'd guess that nothing in this universe would change, as the films have steered toward alternate universes now.
That's the whole problem I have with this now though, if Skynet know about Kyle's future/past antics, why would they bother trying to send a Terminator back to 1984 in the first place? Their reason for doing it was in the hopes of changing their present. They know that it won't change now... Stupid.
Time travel is in itself quite messy, and occasionally stupid. Sending Terminators to the past never worked because their plans were always thwarted. But I agree that nothing probably changes in that particular time stream, so one can probably only argue that the changes they hope to make are in alternate time streams. But the more honest answer would probably be that the first movie had a very simple premise, with probably no real plans for continuing the story. Making sequels meant that certain elements had to be tweaked... hence the somewhat nonsensical nature of the story in the first place. Although I think the premise to the first movie was not simple whatsoever (the son sending the father into the past whereby the son is re-conceived?), I agree that the alternate timeline thing gets really complicated rather quickly. But instead of going into that (I don't understand the physics of it and I don't think the movies are subject to physics anyways), I'd like to simply state that SkyNet retains knowledge of past tactical strategies used to take out John Conner. Otherwise, instead of watching a progression through time marked by the technological advances of the progressively advanced Terminators, you'd have an infinite number of original Terminator movies slightly altered, all going after Sarah Connor. Perhaps SkyNet transcends realities as well as time? Also, somehow, this reality is different in that SkyNet is rolling out Terminators more advanced than they should be at that time. I'm not sure exactly how that came about, what changed, but I'm fairly certain that they didn't travel forward in time and back. I would rather they took the Back to the Future stance on alternate timelines, that whatever happens in the past instantly changes the future on that time string.
|
|
slayersarah
Psychic Link to the PTB
Death is peaceful - easy. Life is harder.[Mo0:37]
Posts: 834
|
Post by slayersarah on Jun 6, 2009 21:48:36 GMT -5
I'm going to start out by saying I haven't seen any of the other Terminator movies, so my opinion is based solely on this movie (I've only seen a couple episodes of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles and I don't remember them). I was really glad that Christian Bale didn't have a ton of screen time. His stupid fake-deep-voice thing he did in The Dark Knight (he only did it while he was Batman though, not when he was Bruce Wayne) was very annoying and distracting. I had a hard time focusing on the movie whenever he spoke because he sounded so ridiculous. I loved the storyline with Marcus and Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese was great. Those were the only things I liked about the movie though. Other than that I thought it was boring and actually fell asleep for a couple minutes, lol.
|
|
Lukee
Ensouled Vampire
Brilliant is my middle name tbf[Mo0:14]
Posts: 1,137
|
Post by Lukee on Jun 6, 2009 21:54:19 GMT -5
I loved it and thought it was a great way to start of the T series again!! However some bits i thought where predictable if you had already seen the first 3 movies [well i mean who dies and who lives etc wise]
Whilst watch it my mind was over loading on if this film would be before the first film etc which just made my head go boom damn the Time laws!!
|
|
|
Post by Rebecca on Jun 6, 2009 22:30:17 GMT -5
I loved it and thought it was a great way to start of the T series again!! However some bits i thought where predictable if you had already seen the first 3 movies [well i mean who dies and who lives etc wise] Whilst watch it my mind was over loading on if this film would be before the first film etc which just made my head go boom damn the Time laws!! Is it just me, or does that last bit make zero sense?
|
|
Lukee
Ensouled Vampire
Brilliant is my middle name tbf[Mo0:14]
Posts: 1,137
|
Post by Lukee on Jun 6, 2009 22:41:08 GMT -5
haha i suck at explaining:P
erm
When i was watching the film i was thinking would it be still good if you watched the 4th movie before the 1st movie but then i realized spoilers would be big time int he 4th movie if you saw it before the 1st one. Even though the 4th one is set before the 1st movie if you follow. Because of the whole time loop thing past, present and future set up made my head spin.
...i'll shh now and sit back in the corner.
|
|
|
Post by Rebecca on Jun 6, 2009 23:46:35 GMT -5
haha i suck at explaining:P erm When i was watching the film i was thinking would it be still good if you watched the 4th movie before the 1st movie but then i realized spoilers would be big time int he 4th movie if you saw it before the 1st one. Even though the 4th one is set before the 1st movie if you follow. Because of the whole time loop thing past, present and future set up made my head spin. ...i'll shh now and sit back in the corner. Lol... I get you now... I think. Maybe you should rest your head a little bit... take some Dramamine, drink some water, try to go to sleep..........
|
|
kimtaro
Ensouled Vampire
Everybody's Buttmonkey
Crime tastes funny[Mo0:10]
Posts: 1,087
|
Post by kimtaro on Jun 6, 2009 23:55:08 GMT -5
I really was not looking forward to this movie, cuz I honestly have a huge distaste for Christian Bale. Worst Batman ever, IMO. BUT, he made an excellent John Connor. Good movie overall.
Also, Marcus = hottest terminator ever.
|
|