Is TMNT still too tied to Vol. I?

[Roseangelo]

Originally Posted by TristanHuwJones

See this goes back to what I said a while ago about putting dates in comics. As soon as you put a date in a newspaper or anything like that, you get readers who cling to that date tenaciously.

Yeah, I would also agree that this creates problems. I really do wish the TMNT comics were less concerned about timelines and more concerned with good stories.

[Andrew NDB]

I've always liked that time genuinely seems to pass and the characters grow older in the TMNT comics.

I don't like that they do seem to be chaining them to specific years, and even reinforcing them in many recent issues... I'd much rather see the TMNT -- while time still passing, years still going by -- adopt more of a DC-like ever moving continuum.

What do I mean?

Well, look at pretty much any long-standing DC comic. Like... Green Lantern. He's had an ongoing comic since 1960, and pretty much all of the comics (with a few exceptions) from then until now count in continuity. So how can this be? Obviously, if GL was about 30 years old in 1960, he couldn't be 80 years old now in 2008, could he?

It's very simple. There is an ever-moving "Present Day." This year it is 2008 in a comic, but next year present day will be 2009, even if -- in the actual comic books -- only a couple of weeks have actually passed in the story. So technically those 1960 events from GL only happen "5 years ago" or so in the actual comic story.

[TristanHuwJones]

Seeing as I don't really pay attention to dates in comics, which issues have been reinforcing dates?

It was interesting actually, Ryan and I were discussing the timelines and dates when writing #50. We had Don using a computer set up, alluding to the internet, hacking and terrorism and the question as to whether or not these things would exist at the "to-the-date" time this story perhaps could have happened. Again, for me it comes down to kind of ignoring dates.

Actually, when you think about it, if society was advanced enough back in the 80's to have Foot Clan killbots rampaging through the streets and Mousers and all these other wonderful technological marvels, wouldn't it make sense to have stuff like advanced internet and communications technologies then too?

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by TristanHuwJones

Seeing as I don't really pay attention to dates in comics, which issues have been reinforcing dates?

Not to point the finger at Will, but I recall the date Donatello types on the typewriter fairly recently in one of his backups.

It was interesting actually, Ryan and I were discussing the timelines and dates when writing #50. We had Don using a computer set up, alluding to the internet, hacking and terrorism and the question as to whether or not these things would exist at the "to-the-date" time this story perhaps could have happened. Again, for me it comes down to kind of ignoring dates.

Actually, when you think about it, if society was advanced enough back in the 80's to have Foot Clan killbots rampaging through the streets and Mousers and all these other wonderful technological marvels, wouldn't it make sense to have stuff like advanced internet and communications technologies then too?

I'm with you, believe me, and I think moving forward TMNT should see what it can do to move in this direction (dodging the Specific Date bullet altogether). But TMNT seems to keep reinforcing the dates thing. The big thing with me was the allusion to 9/11 happening in the middle of the events of early Vol. 4... this pretty much automatically puts TMNT in a parallel universe where Utroms landed in NYC and held a world conference just before the Twin Towers fell.

I don't have a huge problem with the Utroms and their world conference... I'd just prefer it kept in a kind of ever moving forward "Near Future" rather than tethered to some specific date that's already past.

Similarly, how Terminator 3 anchored itself to 2004 as the date of Judgement Day. How silly is that? Obviously they'd know within a couple of years of the film's date it would be a joke. You know?

[TristanHuwJones]

See I don't have any problems with t3. In the Terminator universe we KNOW without a shadow of a doubt that Judgement Day happened in 2004. All the logic regarding the war and Skynet is sound in T3, and it makes more sense to make T3, set it immediately and then move on to the Skynet wars in the future for sequels, RATHER than making a film in 2004 and setting it before 1997 (that was when the bomb hit wasn't it?). Ultimately, while they can change the sequence of events, they're never going to be able to prevent Skynet from taking over (otherwise the films would never have happened).

So long as they don't make any "this-is-what-happened-between-t3-and-t4" movies then the series is still safe.

I also choose to completely ignore Sarah Connor Chronicles. I made it like 10 minutes into that series and was on the floor laughing. I picked, shot-for-shot, how the first terminator would reveal itself. That show was not my cup of tea at all.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by TristanHuwJones

See I don't have any problems with t3. In the Terminator universe we KNOW without a shadow of a doubt that Judgement Day happened in 2004. All the logic regarding the war and Skynet is sound in T3, and it makes more sense to make T3, set it immediately and then move on to the Skynet wars in the future for sequels, RATHER than making a film in 2004 and setting it before 1997 (that was when the bomb hit wasn't it?). Ultimately, while they can change the sequence of events, they're never going to be able to prevent Skynet from taking over (otherwise the films would never have happened).

I don't know that time travel works like that, even in the Terminator universe.

My theory...

[geek mode on]

Way I see it, everything beyond the ending of T3 is pretty much uncharted territory... we're in a new timeline now.

The events of the timeline can't be rectified into a singular timeline. T2 changed the timeline, and T3 changed it again. What we have is a bunch of alternate timelines being created every time the movies mess with the future again.

In the first timeline, SkyNET went live in 1997 via CyberDyne Systems, nukes and countermeasures exchanged with Russia, Judgement Day. Kyle Reese is sent back in 2029 by John Connor.

In the second timeline, Judgement Day is averted, postponed until 2004 where it goes via Cyber Research Systems/CRS (instead of CyberDyne, destroyed in 1994/95 in T2). In 2032, John is killed by a T-850 just after he and his top lieutenants score a triumphant victory over SkyNET.

In the third timeline in the aftermath of T3, Judgement Day really did happen in 2004 via CRS, John may or may not still be killed by a T-850 in 2032 (probably not, since he would certainly see it coming this time), but now all of his top lieutenants are dead (killed by the T-X in 2004).

It's not clear if John sending Kyle back in time to meet his mother still goes on schedule in 2029 in either of the latter timelines (it's possibly everything that happened in 2029 just got bumped to 2032, happening more or less the same).

What we DO know is that even if John, now, in the current third timeline, sends Kyle Reese back to 1984 to meet his mother, it wouldn't play out exactly as it did in T1. Kyle would tell her Judgement Day happens in 2004, not 1997; Kyle would tell her Arnie is a Cyber Research Systems T-800, Model 101, not CyberDyne, etc., etc..

Further corrupting the issue would be this : In this new timeline, the T-800 in T2 would tell Sarah Connor that Miles Bennet Dyson was NOT responsible for the creation of SkyNET (and in 2004 rather than 1997) but rather Robert Brewster, and CyberDyne systems was NOT responsible but rather Cyber Research Systems. So Sarah would go after CRS in T2 instead of CyberDyne, meanwhile CyberDyne would STILL have the arm and chip from T1, even in an altered timeline. So, Sarah blows up CRS instead of CyberDyne in T2 (in this new timeline), meanwhile CyberDyne goes on to launch SkyNet on schedule in 1997 potentially!

As such, it's really almost easier to rectify if John does NOTHING in this new timeline -- doesn't send Kyle back, only watches his back for T-850s in 2032. I don't believe time travel is such that if John doesn't send Kyle back he'll just vanish in the present... what we have here is alternate timelines, branches if you will, each one with different events.

An endless loops of 1997 => 2004 => 1997 => 2004 => 1997 and on and on. It actually works if you really think about it.

[geek mode off]

So long as they don't make any "this-is-what-happened-between-t3-and-t4" movies then the series is still safe.

I'm not sure how you mean. I'm just saying they shouldn't have even mentioned the year in T3, so we can assume those events just happen sometime in the "Near Future" rather than make us go, "Ehh... but 2004 was ****ing like 4 years ago, and I didn't see any nukes dropping." You know?

Like Mad Max and the Road Warrior. "Near Future," not painting themselves into a corner to any one year or years.

I also choose to completely ignore Sarah Connor Chronicles.

Good man. And you can bet for damned sure T4 isn't going to acknowledge it. We already know Kate is in T4... and you pretty much can't have both T3 and Sarah Connor Chronicles.

In truth, I was semi-interested in Sarah Connor Chronicles for the first couple of episodes... then, just blegh. I know Smallville has its fans, but it's like the Smallville study in, "How little can we show fans without them crying foul?" leading us around with a carrot (John one day becoming the savior of mankind, Judgement Day happening; Clark one day becoming Superman) without actually ever delivering anything substantial.

[TristanHuwJones]

Man, I never considered that Cyberdyne/CRS thing! Good thinking! I'm gonna have to rewatch them!

I see your point about them saying "near future", but as I said, so long as they don't make any movies set between 2004 and the beginning of the Skynet war then it's still safe to use that date, at least in my mind. I think everyone will be changing their timeline theories when t4 and t5 hit anyway!

[Andrew NDB]

*possible spoiler below*


























Yeah, if the rumors are to be believed, John will get killed by the T-850, then his skin and memories put onto/into a reprogrammed Terminator to make people think John doesn't die to carry on as a figurehead.

I see fans lashing out at the idea... but I think it's kind of cool. It's thinking outside of the box.

You want to know what's not cool, though? Terminator 4 being PG-13. Here it is, the Future War, what we've been waiting to see since the beginning (many/most of us thinking we'd never see)... machines gunning down TechCOM in the trenches of a post-apocalypse, humans on the run with only a paltry resistance to fight back to Saving Private Ryan-levels of gritty warfare... and apparently it'll just all be neutered.

[Darkravager]

Andrew, you might want to add a possible spoiler alert to that.

I know it's just a rumor now, but some people might not want to know even that.

[TristanHuwJones]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Yeah, if the rumors are to be believed, John will get killed by the T-850, then his skin and memories put onto/into a reprogrammed Terminator to make people think John doesn't die to carry on as a figurehead.

I see fans lashing out at the idea... but I think it's kind of cool. It's thinking outside of the box.

You want to know what's not cool, though? Terminator 4 being PG-13. Here it is, the Future War, what we've been waiting to see since the beginning (many/most of us thinking we'd never see)... machines gunning down TechCOM in the trenches of a post-apocalypse, humans on the run with only a paltry resistance to fight back to Saving Private Ryan-levels of gritty warfare... and apparently it'll just all be neutered.

I dunno, I think you can really push pg-13's these days. Dark Knight still astonishes me. I think if t2 had've been rated for today it probably could've got a pg-13.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by TristanHuwJones

I dunno, I think you can really push pg-13's these days. Dark Knight still astonishes me. I think if t2 had've been rated for today it probably could've got a pg-13.

Pretty sure you can't graphically show kneecaps getting blown apart and fingers to the eyesocket/skull in PG-13, but yeah, T2 is pretty close on the PG-13 front. T1, no way. And a Future War movie? Impossible. Not without selling the kind of material it revolves around way short.

I can't think of any good PG-13 war movies off the top of my head. Can you? Certainly not set amidst something as grim as a post-apocalyptic Man against Machine world backdrop. I foresee a lot of shaky cam, MTV-style quick cut nonsense.

And nothing in Batman Begins pushed the PG-13 envelope, really. It did make the most of the rating, though, absolutely.

[turkishproverb]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Pretty sure you can't graphically show kneecaps getting blown apart and fingers to the eyesocket/skull in PG-13, but yeah, T2 is pretty close on the PG-13 front. T1, no way. And a Future War movie? Impossible. Not without selling the kind of material it revolves around way short.

I can't think of any good PG-13 war movies off the top of my head. Can you? Certainly not set amidst something as grim as a post-apocalyptic Man against Machine world backdrop. I foresee a lot of shaky cam, MTV-style quick cut nonsense.

And nothing in Batman Begins pushed the PG-13 envelope, really. It did make the most of the rating, though, absolutely.

Actually, T1 could probably get it nowadays, honestly. Not that its not still a great movie. SO could alot of classic horror. Rating creep has been happening for a while in live action.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by turkishproverb

Actually, T1 could probably get it nowadays, honestly

We didn't watch the same movie. Punching a guy through the chest bloodily, carving out an eyeball, viscerally gunning down a whole station's worth of police, a sex scene (crack! nipple! I see nipple!). A ton of F bombs.

And the only "Rating Creep" I've seen is down (Die Hard 4 was an incalculable travesty). As well as action movie lovers' expectations.

[turkishproverb]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

We didn't watch the same movie. Punching a guy through the chest bloodily, carving out an eyeball, viscerally gunning down a whole station's worth of police, a sex scene (crack! nipple! I see nipple!). A ton of F bombs.

And the only "Rating Creep" I've seen is down. As well as action movie lovers' expectations.

Sigh. I'm not going to argue T1 anymore, its really not worth the effort. the movie wasn't THAT good.

As to rating creep down, I think you might underestimate slighly, have you watched Gunner Palace?

For that matter, I think Harvard did something on it as well, though their criteria could be debated....

[malpractice]

Originally Posted by TristanHuwJones

I also choose to completely ignore Sarah Connor Chronicles. I made it like 10 minutes into that series and was on the floor laughing. I picked, shot-for-shot, how the first terminator would reveal itself. That show was not my cup of tea at all.

Sarah Conner Chronicles >>>>> T3

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by turkishproverb

Sigh. I'm not going to argue T1 anymore, its really not worth the effort. the movie wasn't THAT good.

It's funny you say that. 90% of Terminator fans I know actually have come to revere T1 over T2 in recent years.

I find myself torn between my childhood love of T2 and the sheer unbridled noir thrill of T1. I can't pick a favorite... I might as well pick who I like better, Mom or Dad.

T1 is certainly worlds above T2 in terms of grittiness and such content, in any case. Some of the effects and such have become sadly a bit dated, but you have to look past that as you would any film of that era or older.

As to rating creep down, I think you might underestimate slighly, have you watched Gunner Palace?

No. Should I?

[turkishproverb]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

It's funny you say that. 90% of Terminator fans I know actually have come to revere T1 over T2 in recent years.

IT is, still doesn't mean its god enough to argue about my opinion of the rating.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I find myself torn between my childhood love of T2 and the sheer unbridled noir thrill of T1. I can't pick a favorite... I might as well pick who I like better, Mom or Dad.

I had puritanistic parents. I didn't see either until I got older, so no fighting those two urges for me. Although I can make the second choice more easily.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

T1 is certainly worlds above T2 in terms of grittiness and such content.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

No. Should I?

Has alot more F bombs than any PG-13 movie I've seen from the 90's, to start. Not saying anything about the quality, just the example of ratings creep.

[TristanHuwJones]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Pretty sure you can't graphically show kneecaps getting blown apart and fingers to the eyesocket/skull in PG-13, but yeah, T2 is pretty close on the PG-13 front. T1, no way. And a Future War movie? Impossible. Not without selling the kind of material it revolves around way short.

I don't know, I can't think of anything that was really that graphic in t2. The most graphic thing in my mind is the holocaust dream. The other thing about the future war is that all the Terminators use laser weapons, people being hit by those will be like seeing people die in Star Wars. It's like that in all the Terminator movies. Purple/blue beams followed by a puff of smoke and some sparks. They can put as much of that into t4 and have a pg-13 without worry.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I can't think of any good PG-13 war movies off the top of my head. Can you? Certainly not set amidst something as grim as a post-apocalyptic Man against Machine world backdrop. I foresee a lot of shaky cam, MTV-style quick cut nonsense.

But then you have to ask how many war movies have you seen where the enemy is an army of robots? Again, Star Wars comes to mind...
To be completely honest, the scene where the Troll is unleashed in the tunnels in The Spiderwick Chronicles is more intense than the future war sequence in t1.

A Terminator movie set in the future could get a pg-13 and be just as intense as any of the other Terminator films.

Most war movies get an r rating for realistic depictions of war. The Thin Red Line wasn't exactly Saving Private Ryan, but both got R-ratings. A war against robots in a post-apocalyptic future won't get an R, unless they start throwing in gratuitous amounts of violence and gore, which ultimately aren't really that necessary to the Terminator films. Yeah, they're violent, but they're never NEEDLESSLY violent.

In the end, it can be done.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by TristanHuwJones

I don't know, I can't think of anything that was really that graphic in t2. The most graphic thing in my mind is the holocaust dream.

I make specific examples of what simply wouldn't stand in a PG-13 movie from T2.

Now, could a slightly reedited T2 exist as PG-13 and still be just fine? Yes, sure. But it can't be denied there is at least a bit of irrefutable R content there. The biggest thing in my mind is the finger through the skull.

The other thing about the future war is that all the Terminators use laser weapons, people being hit by those will be like seeing people die in Star Wars. It's like that in all the Terminator movies. Purple/blue beams followed by a puff of smoke and some sparks. They can put as much of that into t4 and have a pg-13 without worry.

You make a good point, but without actually showing the carnage, the bodies, the cost of the War, the down side... what are we really seeing but just elaborate pyrotechnics and lightshows? I'm not interested in that.

But then you have to ask how many war movies have you seen where the enemy is an army of robots? Again, Star Wars comes to mind...

Episode I-III? No, good examples, Tristan.

A Terminator movie set in the future could get a pg-13 and be just as intense as any of the other Terminator films.

Can't buy into that, Tristan. It can come close, but approaching the Future War with 13 year-old kid gloves is outrageous in my book.

Unless they literally just make it a very personal story that only peripherally shows glimpses of the real fighting in the Future War... in which case it would beg the question of why they should even bother taking us to the Future War in the first place if not to take us into it knee-deep.

Yeah, they're violent, but they're never NEEDLESSLY violent.

The T-800 punching the kid through the chest was needed in T1? The finger through the eyeball in T2 was needed?

I'm not saying either movie is super gratuitous, but there's plenty of visceral examples here and there.

In the end, it can be done.

I agree. I'd even throw out there that the PG-13 rating isn't even at the top of the list of worries about the film.

How truly confident are you in McG making a fourth Terminator movie amist the Future War, PG-13, believable and a worthy installment?

[TristanHuwJones]

Hang on, sure, there's gore when the Terminator punches a hole in the punk, and when he gouges out his eye, and when they're generally doing their thing terminating people, but go back and watch all the sequences set in the future. Nothing in any of those says an R rating for me, and to be honest I can't come up with any good reason for a Terminator to do any of the more graphic things they do in T1 an T2 in a movie set in the future. In those films, it was all about getting to a target. In the future, it's all about extermination.

I think seeing Samarah's father electrocute himself in The Ring was more impacting than the scenes you're quoting.

You make a good point, but without actually showing the carnage, the bodies, the cost of the War, the down side... what are we really seeing but just elaborate pyrotechnics and lightshows? I'm not interested in that.

Again, there's nothing in any of the previous film's future war sections that warrants an R. You can have a future war movie, totally in line with everything we see in the other movies at PG-13.

Episode I-III? No, good examples, Tristan.

I know we're not being serious on this example, but think about it, if they hadn't been robots there'd be some very serious discussions going on about ratings. If you take any faceless, non-realist enemy, be it a Clone, a Stormtrooper or a robot, and make it a person, then you're looking at something else. If you switched all the lasers for bullets and aliens/robots for people, Star Wars would be in dire trouble.

How truly confident are you in McG making a fourth Terminator movie amist the Future War, PG-13, believable and a worthy installment?

If Christian Bale has faith in it, then I do to.