Discuss: 'Terminator Salvation'... Whose Fault Was It?
Filed under: Action, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Warner Brothers, Box Office, Fandom, Remakes and Sequels
Warning: This is going to get a little 'spoilery', so if you haven't seen Terminator Salvation you might want to bookmark this baby for later.
It was the moment we were all waiting for this summer season: the resurrection of Terminator. The trailers were looking good, there was a Nolan in charge of rewrites, and for god's sake we even had Batman as John Connor -- how could this go wrong? Well, if you happened to catch the movie over the weekend you know just how wrong it was. It's time to play Monday-morning quarterback in the aftermath of one of this summer's biggest letdowns, and so let's try to answer one question: whose fault was it?
McG
There might be plenty of votes for McG as the culprit. He doesn't have the greatest track record for quality films, but I thought he pulled off a much better movie than expected. The cut-happy editing of Charlie's Angels was long gone and he had some great action set pieces, but that doesn't mean he made a good film. All of his trademark flaws were on display: uneven pacing, character motivations are glossed over or not even addressed; not to mention some stunning gaps in logic -- mainly: can someone explain to me why a techno-overlord like Skynet would build a machine that they can't control?
After the jump; find out who else earned the last three nominations...
Christian Bale
As the story goes, Bale was originally expected to play the Marcus Wright character, but he wanted the John Connor role -- and thanks to his star-power he could demand that the script be rewritten to beef up that part (the original script supposedly kept Connor off-screen for a good part of the film). Most of the reviews have already faulted Bale's performance, and while I thought a slightly mopey John Connor made sense, there just didn't seem like there was much for the resistance fighter to do. I doubt Bale would be willing to compromise the quality of a film just for more screen time, but a forced rewrite could explain why Connor really seems shoe-horned into the story. Now you knew it was going to come up again; but let's talk about that infamous rant: Just for the record, I don't think it has anything to do with the film not winning over audiences, but you have to admit it is kind of ironic that Bale was caught railing against the DP when the 'look' of Salvation is probably one of the best things about it.
The Internet
Back in March I asked you all whether a side-effect of the leaked ending last June could be the chance for McG and company to improve the film. Well, I will be the first to admit that I couldn't have been more wrong. I can't help but think back to J.J. Abrams' piece in Wired last month on the world of spoilers and how more often than not we are just ruining the fun; and Terminator could be a good example of how filmmaking at 'gunpoint' never ends well. It's possible that the leaked ending forced WB's hand to create something different when in fact we should have just let McG do his thing with the original script. At this point I think most of us would have preferred the rumored skin swap over a cheesy heart transplant scene any day -- and was I the only one who thought it looked like Marcus was just a little in love with John Connor? But maybe that's just a bit of wish fulfillment on my part.
Us
Now this might be a bit controversial, but does anybody else out there think that we're all being a little too hard on this movie? I'll be the first to admit I was hoping for something a little better than I got, but I've seen worse (Wolverine, anyone?) Sure, it was a different kind of Terminator film than we're used to; how could they not start the film with that iconic theme song? But, in our brave new world of franchise reboots, maybe we should be a little more open to change?
That said, I'll turn it over to you: tell us what you thought of Terminator and place your vote for who you think deserves the blame.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
5-25-2009 @ 7:45PM
dkev said...
Actually I thought it was a good flick and I really enjoyed it. Transformers will do well enough, but there isn't going to be the Juggernaut movie this year like the several we had last year. I think the family movies will easily out pace the tent poles this summer. Which is a good thing.
Reply
5-25-2009 @ 7:51PM
jerry said...
I actually liked the movie. Sure it had it's faults, but what film doesn't? And yes, it was not what I was expecting but I enjoyed it anyway. It will never stand up to Terminator 2 in my book, but worth a few watches anyway.
Reply
5-28-2009 @ 12:34AM
Slappy said...
I'm with Jerry, sure the movie had plot holes and such but it was a movie about guns and stuff and on that level it succeeded.
In three days I saw Wolverine, Star Trek and Terminator with Star Trek being the best, Terminator being good and Wolverine being meh.
All three could've used at least one more script polish, all three were illogical, all three had underutilized characters, all three had annoying effects (lens flares, anyone? Or how about that awful CGI in the scene with the helicopter at the very end of Wolverine?)
It almost seems like an echo chamber: I hated Terminator...no, I hated it more....no, no, *I* hated it more.
Or perhaps revisionist history? As much as I loved T1 and T2 I think they were great popcorn movies not great masterworks.
5-25-2009 @ 7:48PM
Riley Freeman said...
i thought it was alright nothing too great. marcus seemed to be more of the lead than john connor. i thought the scene where john was chasing after marcus was retired. they wasted half their firepower on someone that didnt want to kill them and it was just one guy.
i would have preferred an ending where they make john the same as his instead of the heart transplant.
all in all its nothing that cant be fixed in a sequel. but 200 million budget that they probably wont make back. it might not even get a sequel
Reply
5-25-2009 @ 8:02PM
sdave17 said...
What are you talking about, it was actually pretty good. Not spectacular, but good. It wasn't better than the original or even T2, but what were you expecting? It did a pretty good job of erasing the stain that was T3.
-superdave
Reply
5-25-2009 @ 8:30PM
TearsIntheRain said...
I second sdave17...I walked out the theater happy. I walked into it thinking it was going to be bad based on what I had heard, but I loved it. I was disappointed to hear it was PG-13, but it really didn't need to be an R movie after seeing it.
The only complaint I had was that there were no blue laser beams or synthesized "futuristic" music, like there were in the war scenes in the first two films.
Reply
5-25-2009 @ 8:18PM
cody said...
Gotta agree with the peanut gallery I caught the flick over the weekend and I Enjoyed it. Not an A+ movie but still good I think alot of critics are getting this one wrong like they did speed racer this was an enjoyable summer action flick.
Reply
5-25-2009 @ 9:09PM
James Cude said...
Blame the screenwriters. The director can only direct and the actors can only act what's on the page.
Reply
5-25-2009 @ 8:25PM
Trace said...
Oh my god...the main problem I had with the film was its lack of color....It was all GRAY....but it looked. amazing.
And having just seen Wolverine the day before I liked it a lot more....yes it was ridiculous but still more entertaining....
Reply
5-25-2009 @ 8:31PM
Flowers said...
Certainly not a good film. And if you enjoyed it then you really are easy to please. I'm sorry but the reason I love the first two Terminator's is because of the characters and story. That has been absent the last two films in the franchise. Turdinator 4 was a complete let down and I lay the blame squarely on the producers and director. This story has a wealth of possibilities and there is absolutely no reason what so ever to try and bring in a side story to the John Connor story. Lame lame filmmaking and McG should be ashamed. He's an awful director and has never made a quality film. And to see CBale give me the voice of Batman as John Connor!! Really! Is it always about the gruff with that man when it comes to action. And besides his rant on set was shameful and his performance in this film is not much better. I want my money back!!
Reply
5-27-2009 @ 4:48AM
Kirk Robinson said...
its suppose to be different.
If Terminator Salvation was like Terminator 1 and 2 it would be like trying to make indiana Jones young again.
It's time for the franchise to move forwards!
Good on them for doing so...
6-17-2009 @ 12:27AM
Chris said...
I think you should point some of those judgmental fingers at the writers. They are squarely to blame. Although, i will agree that McG's pacing is half-assed. And everyone needs to get better at suspending disbelief (and recognizing the constraints imposed by PG13 ratings, (throwing people instead of impaling them)). All of the movies have plot holes...they are time-travel movies that never consider the butterfly effect. Enough of a plot hole in and of itself. Happy blogging,
Chris
5-26-2009 @ 1:32PM
andrew said...
a bad movie is a bad movie. even the supposed cool action scenes were pretty weak (marcus throws a metal tool at a terminator) also the story seemed to meander with no apparent connection between Connor and Wright's storyline. there were a lot of unnecessary scenes that don't explain anything about the characters or universe. big letdown to one of my most anticipated movies of the summer.
Reply
5-25-2009 @ 9:03PM
Wesley Sheridan said...
Just saw it an hour ago. Seriously, it wasn't that bad and I had a good time in it. Sure it wasn't Judgment Day, but it sure as hell wasn't Terminator 3 (and thats a good thing). Judging by the comments here, most people seemed to like the film and it is mostly critics who are givin it the thumbs down. Its not the best movie ever made, and their were some really cheesy moments, but it also wasn't a real typical action thriller. The fact that John Conner had a pregnant wife and did a lot less fighting was cool (most movies would make him the lone ranger, single, badass character).
Reply
5-25-2009 @ 9:10PM
Mark Rooster said...
The writing. That's it. Action scenes were great, but everything else, including character development, dialogue, supposedly "sentimental" moments--none of it worked at all. The acting seemed very wooden, but I don't know that the actors are necessarily at fault for that.
Reply
5-25-2009 @ 9:21PM
DFH said...
It was a below average movie at best. There were some good action scenes, but it missed the humanity and solid plot of the first two movies. I thought even the mediocre third movie was better than this one.
Christian Bale was terrible. I'm beginning to think that the horrible hoarse voice is just something to lazily cover up his Welch accent. I didn't like him in The Dark Knight (though that movie was good) and I despised him in this movie.
The director and screenwriter should never work again. The scene where Sam Worthington goes back to the Terminator base and logs into the Cyberdine system was absolutely horrible to watch. The movie loses any credibility it may have ever had once that ridiculous scene and it made me want to rip off the theater seat I was sitting on to impale myself. Also ridiculous was the escape from the resistance with the loud gunfight was absolutely ludicrous.
A few good action sequences doesn't cover up for a just plain bad movie. The movie bothers me more and more after I think about it.
Reply
5-25-2009 @ 9:22PM
RMdragon said...
I was pleasantly surprised to see the resistance more organized, where the lasers and time travel and desparation was to be further along, and we would be able to see all of that develop ( Hopefully.) And I enjoyed the fact that John kept going through his mom's old recordings- I forgot about that detail. I enjoyed the movie, overall. ( I'm glad to disappoint you, Flowers.)
Every fanboy has their ultimate vision of what the future wars would look like, so I think this movie was destined to fail at some level for some people.
I think Christian Bale was the wrong choice in this movie. He was too A-list and he brought his Batman when he should have brought his Reign of Fire.
I kept trying to find that scene that was part of that whole Bale Blow up and for me that kept pulling me out. And as far as I can tell there was no scene that worthy of that tirade. And thew whole plot about marcus realizing what he is wasn't much for anyways as the same ideas had bee explored thoroughly to anyone watching the Cylons on Battlestar Galactica ( at least that's what his story arc reminded most of).
This is the first time in three movies and a TV series that changes the storytelling of the terminator movies: machine sent from the future to kill and a protector sent back to uh- protect.. chase- chase- chase, add some catchy lines, explore your humanity alittle, gun fighting, protector dies but saves everyone in the end. until another terminator shows up in the next movie and...
( that's been pretty much the plot of all of these movies.)
At least Terminator Salvation tried to tell the story a little differently.
Reply
5-25-2009 @ 10:13PM
Marshy said...
I want to thank the hype and the Internet and all those first-off-the-blocks reviewers who were so quick to slam this. Over the course of last week I read many headlines with statements like "Watching Terminator is like eating sand" that my expectations were levelled so flat that I ended up really rather enjoying the film. It's not the greatest thing ever, but I loved the look of it, loved how it even had the balls to try and "out-tech" a Cameron film and brought us the fantastic character of Marcus Wright. It was a SPOILER shame to see him go SPOILER but they certainly didn't waste him. Bale was far more interesting here then he was as Bruce Wayne and Yelchin should be able to do some interesting things in the future with Reese.
McG is an easy target coz he's not a very good director, but he was rather anonymous here. The third act has defintely been savaged somewhere along the way, but that is a common symptom of a competitive studio system rather than an artistic fault. Thematically and visually they are definitely moving in the right direction so far.
Reply
5-25-2009 @ 9:37PM
Wayne said...
The flawed logic and lack of heart in the script were the main problems. As many of the formal reviews indicated the movie had no heart. As I was watching the movie I realized that I didn't care what happened to any of the characters.
The script had too many homages to the first two movies. A few would have been cool, but T4 had so many shoehorned into the script that it seemed cheesy.
There were way too many plot holes/logic errors for the movie to be great. Since Cameron stopped being involved with the series the movies have had huge holes.
1) Why would Skynet create a machine it couldn't control?
2) The "kill signal" was so obviously a trap by Skynet that I thought it was lazy. Why would Skynet include a kill signal for its technology?
3) Why didn't the detonation of the nuclear power cells create an EMP? It would have taken down the chopper just like the first nuke took out the first chopper Conner was in.
4) Why did the T-800 (or earlier) series have nuclear power cells? The T-850 had the upgraded power cell. I realize this is a different timeline, but still.
Reply
5-26-2009 @ 1:03AM
Adam said...
A ground nuclear detonation (which this wasn't, it was a dirty bomb) doesn't disable electronics the way a EMP would. A nuclear detonation in the atmosphere can serve as a EMP device, but an underground detonation would only disable the electronics in the immediate vicinity that didn't get blown up. Also, blowing up nuclear material doesn't turn it into a nuclear bomb because it doesn't set off the chain reaction that leads to a nuclear detonation. Connor was flying a chopper in a sandstorm near recently eradicated sattelites. He could have clipped his rotors, sand could have jammed the engines, etc.