Terminator Reboot

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

Everyone always complains about the setting of Terminator Salvation...and that it didn't look like James Cameron's future war...

Except for the fact that it was not Future War people wanted to see on the big screen. To add to it, Salvation's setting was quite generic and unmemorable. Also, about three movies, I've heard these rumors, but McG words paint entirely different picture for its sequels

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

I personally am not a fan of having a million timelines.

Same here. I don't like "time travel creates another reality" approach, because it makes time travel quite pointless.

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

I have a problem with it, because they took everything that made the first two GREAT, completely removed it, and made it a typical 2015 action movie. I will say at least this isn't as bad as Point Break will be, a reboot which literally took everything from the original movie and removed it, except for the main character's names.
For each its own. Considering who was behind the production, I've expected typical 2015 movie and received what I was expected.

I approach it like this: can I influence production of the movie, if it most likely will be bad? No. So, I take what I can from it, as in I adjust my expectations towards what I suppose movie will be. Expectations, based on real evidence, not on nostalgia or fanfiction you have written in the head, since the last movie. I wish more people approached things like that. Would've made less for a less conflicts and added more objectivity to the mix.

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

You completely contradict yourself here...

No contradiction whatsoever. I didn't say "movies suck nowadays". I do not have a habit of making such general statements, unlike some other people here. I speak only of this particular franchise. And it's not about originality, it's about expectations from a franchise, which has become a cashcow, decade ago, and a movie, which was already created and had a lot of materials for people to judge its quality or lack of thereof.

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

This is not where it was going at all. McG talked about focusing on the creation of the T-1000 in the Salvation sequel, and then eventually leading to the time traveling. Neverthless, it was one of the possible ideas for a sequel.

Showing creation of T1000 does not contradict it.

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

This is exactly what I mean about people incapable of forming their own opinions. You are regurgitating buzz words or phrases you've heard in reviews.

I like to observe how some people put words in my mouth. Every time it gets more ridiculous, but it's fun to see, how some people crave to justify their opinion, by attempting to put down others and convince them what they think, while being absolutely clueless and ignorant of true reasons for it. Time to clean up this mess...

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

The movie has a giant robot...therefore it's a MICHALE BAY rip off of Transformers...oh god the OBSESSION of people with Michael Bay on this forum...

Yes, Harvester seems like an attempt to cater to Bayformers audience, by introducing similar looking machine, where previously there were none. Justification for it is lame as well and looks like something out of childish fanfiction.
Also, I spoke more about idea of changing setting of Terminator franchise, by making it take place in the present. Hence my comment about conceptual similarity to the "Battle for LA" as well.

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

"Bale is Bailing"...This is something that was attached to him after his melt down on set. I will admit he's the worst character in the movie, but it's a pretty damn good performance still, and the last portion of the movie he's great.

My opinion of him has nothing to do with his meltdown, no matter how much you try to convince me and yourself otherwise. I don't like his performance and think he always plays the same arrogant guy on a verge of psychotic breakdown, from one movie to another. Hence, why I dislike him. It's my personal problem with actor, which influence my opinion of the movie. However, even in its absence, Salvation has a lot of other problems, which has nothing to do with actors or their performance.

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

"Marcus is bland" This is an opinion, but it's an opinion I've heard a lot. I disagree with it, because Marcus is the only "Terminator" to have a conscience and actually has a redemption story.

Need I explain, that there is a obvious difference between such things as "actor performance" and "character story"? His story could've been interesting, but actor's performance was lacking.
You either trying to swap one concept for another to make your argument seem more credible, or you just don't know what are you talking about.

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

"T800 blunders" what?

During his fight with John Connor at the end of the movie he could have killed him multiple times. Instead he just throws him around the place. Where is the ruthless efficiency of the Terminator units? Oh, he acquires it as soon as plot demands him to, however, his obvious blunder is obvious. While the scene looked cool, it's still utterly ridiculous. Though, that goes for most of Salvation stuff.

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

Bale is not even in the movie that long. He wanted less action which is a GOOD thing for the Terminator movies, because the first two, although they had a fair amount of action, there is a LOT of down time. And a LOT of character building. The "bad" Terminator movies are the ones that jam the movie with 30 minute chase scenes where the T-800 is swinging through buildings...or a bus does a 450 splash on the Golden Gate Bridge.

It seems you don't know about T4 production, aren't you?

Initially John Connor should have appeared in person only at the end of the movie, where he was promptly killed. Instead, Bale demanded to expand his role to the point, where it seriously hurt development of Marcus as a character (as well as stole time from Kyle's role) and have made, already, rather convoluted story, even more disjointed and badly paced. Take away scenes with Connor from the movie and pretty much nothing will change, aside from absence of some awkward secondary plot.

Final version of Salvation story is a bad disjointed mess, apparently because script was rewritten multiple times by multiple people almost on the go. Skynet plan doesn't make even an ounce of sense: Marcus wakes up in the middle of a desert and, somehow, Skynet knew that he will encounter Kyle Reese, encounter John Connor, that he'll survive fighting with other humans and machines...This "plan" relied on so much luck and contrived coincidences, that Skynet as well, could apply to Fortune Telling, instead of being AI-warlord. Also, movie never explains how Skynet knew that Kyle Reese was John Connor's father. Why it didn't kill him. The whole "John Connor infiltrates "Skynet City" part" was created solely to give Connor something to do in the movie, instead of sitting in the submarine and ordering resistance around as was original plan.

I don't want to say that original version of the script was better, as it included other of-the-wall ideas, like Skynet's desire to advance humanity, instead of exterminating it, Terminator-farmers and other stuff. However, it's undeniable, that whatever original vision for the movie was, it was broken in hundred pieces by all of the rewrites that come after, resulting in a shoddy product, which doesn't make much sense.

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

I liked the scenes to open Genysis. But Salvation was BUILDING to that...

I am not sure if it would've been looking "like I wanted to". TG has a lot of references too, and I found them rather well-done, whereas I didn't care much for what Salvation did. But that mostly because Salvation didn't made me care for it at all.