If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Variety)   Lionsgate currently winning the bidding war for the Terminator franchise. Well, they can't make anything worse than everything that followed the original   (variety.com) divider line 51
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

636 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 14 Jan 2010 at 2:07 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-01-13 11:43:19 PM
Umm, T2 did most certainly not suck.
 
2010-01-13 11:47:54 PM
SilentStrider: Umm, T2 did most certainly not suck.

T2 wasn't so bad, but the kid playing the kid was so awful that I found myself rooting for him to die.
 
j4x
2010-01-14 12:00:26 AM
Submitter is so cool and edgy for not liking T2.
 
2010-01-14 12:33:37 AM
The first two are a perfect pair of movies. T2 continues the story of T1 and broadens it. And it wraps everything up perfectly.

After that, it's just a total clusterfark.
 
2010-01-14 12:38:50 AM
jake_lex: The first two are a perfect pair of movies. T2 continues the story of T1 and broadens it. And it wraps everything up perfectly.

Terminator : T2 :: Alien : Aliens

Great films, set in the same universe, different genre. First is a sci-fi/horror, second is a sci-fi/action.
 
2010-01-14 12:55:14 AM
After I saw T3, I said to myself, "the only way they can save this franchise is if they go back in time and undo this movie."
Then the TV series did exactly that, and all was well.
Then they canceled the series and made that even terribler movie.

Now, all hope is lost.
 
2010-01-14 01:01:28 AM
Great headline troll.
 
2010-01-14 01:45:28 AM
SilentStrider: Umm, T2 did most certainly not suck.

In a recent interview, AH-NULD said his favorite movie that he has starred in was Terminator 2.
 
2010-01-14 02:07:15 AM
Abstruse: jake_lex: The first two are a perfect pair of movies. T2 continues the story of T1 and broadens it. And it wraps everything up perfectly.

Terminator : T2 :: Alien : Aliens

Great films, set in the same universe, different genre. First is a sci-fi/horror, second is a sci-fi/action.


And 3 of those 4 are written & directed by the same guy.
 
2010-01-14 02:11:07 AM
Well, they can't make anything worse than everything that followed the original

I bet they will sure as shiat try, though.
 
2010-01-14 02:12:22 AM
brigid_fitch: Abstruse: jake_lex: The first two are a perfect pair of movies. T2 continues the story of T1 and broadens it. And it wraps everything up perfectly.

Terminator : T2 :: Alien : Aliens

Great films, set in the same universe, different genre. First is a sci-fi/horror, second is a sci-fi/action.

And 3 of those 4 are written & directed by the same guy.


Who also directed the two highest grossing movies of all time....(not including inflation).
 
2010-01-14 02:12:34 AM
FTA: For Lionsgate, winning the "Terminator" auction would give the mini-major another franchise to go along with its "Saw" and Tyler Perry pic series.

This will not end well.
 
2010-01-14 02:19:21 AM
j4x: Submitter is so cool and edgy for not liking T2.

I was going to come in here and rant about how smitty is a filthy goddamn troll, but I see you've covered it quite nicely. What a farking tool.
 
2010-01-14 02:22:13 AM
sirgarr02: brigid_fitch: Abstruse: jake_lex: The first two are a perfect pair of movies. T2 continues the story of T1 and broadens it. And it wraps everything up perfectly.

Terminator : T2 :: Alien : Aliens

Great films, set in the same universe, different genre. First is a sci-fi/horror, second is a sci-fi/action.

And 3 of those 4 are written & directed by the same guy.

Who also wrote and directed the two highest grossing movies of all time....(not including inflation).


FTFY :)

I've been a huge Cameron fan since Aliens. He's the only director to consistently make just absolutely incredible movies. None of the current A-listers like Spielberg, Scorsese, Howard, Jackson, & Tarantino can say that.
 
2010-01-14 02:32:01 AM
I am most definitely in the minority as far as T2 is concerned.

No, it didn't suck. However, John Conner was annoying, the "no killing" part was well played, but in the end made cheesy, and the final part of Arnold dying was overly dramatic.

It's not much as far as complaints go, but I found the movie a little corny overall. I will watch the original over and over, maybe see T2 once in awhile, and forget about T3 and especially Salvation as long as I live.

T2 is a 6/10 at best in my opinion.
 
2010-01-14 02:34:51 AM
I'll give Lionsgate credit. While they may not always put out the best flicks, they have picked up the slack in the genre film department after New Line dropped the ball years ago.

Plus they're letting Kick Ass come out with a hard R rating, so I'm going to let them slide on the Tyler Perry series as I'll never bother to watch them.
 
2010-01-14 02:58:35 AM
All Lionsgate needs to pay attention to, as far as I'm concerned, is T1, T2 and The Sarah Connor Chronicles. Damn good show that honored the first two movies. Oh, and if they get it? FINISH THAT GODDAMN STORY!!! Seriously, season 3 seems like it was going to be amazing, given that finish.
 
2010-01-14 03:02:04 AM
j4x: Submitter is so cool and edgy for not liking T2.

Or he's just never seen it, which is much more likely.

I think the third was the worst in the franchise, second the best, and for me, 1 and 4 are tossups but I probably should go with 1 or some farker will cast aspersions on my manhood etc.

I did, for the most part, like that last one though, to be honest.
 
2010-01-14 03:06:34 AM
Lionsgate makes terrible, terrible movies.
 
2010-01-14 03:07:14 AM
Terminator: Salvation was not a good movie. Have we properly covered this fact in this thread?

/didn't look to see
//T2 rocked, Trollmitter
 
2010-01-14 04:05:14 AM
oldebayer: the kid playing the kid was so awful that I found myself rooting for him to die.

That's the largest out of a decent handful of reasons why I thoroughly disliked that film.

Plus the way the script portrayed him was constantly akin to the mental equivalent of a popcorn husk stuck in my back molars. A juvenile delinquent raised from birth for violence who hates violence taking place in front of him? Oookay.
 
2010-01-14 04:06:14 AM
CorruptHardware: Lionsgate makes terrible, terrible movies.

"Last Night" disagrees vehemently with this statement.
 
2010-01-14 04:25:16 AM
Japancakes: A juvenile delinquent raised from birth for violence who hates violence taking place in front of him?

OR:

A kid raised being told that one day he'd have to fight for the very existence of humanity doesn't want to see people get killed.
 
2010-01-14 04:38:47 AM
JerseyTim: Japancakes: A juvenile delinquent raised from birth for violence who hates violence taking place in front of him?

OR:

A kid raised being told that one day he'd have to fight for the very existence of humanity doesn't want to see people get killed.


It just rang hollowly unrealistic for me is all I'm saying. It didn't for you and I'm not unhappy for you.

I just think the film had no reason for being artistically. (Obviously Cameron disagreed). I thought the original was dead solid perfect as it was (It's by far my personal pick as my favorite American film of the 1980s). I also think it's the last film to date that Cameron's made that I've thoroughly enjoyed (with the director's cut of "The Abyss" coming closest) [note: I haven't yet viewed Avatar].
 
2010-01-14 04:41:36 AM
Er, for clarity:

I also think that the original "Terminator" is the last film to date that Cameron's made...
 
2010-01-14 04:58:41 AM
As long as we're discussing T2, can anyone help me understand the premise of that movie? After the first time the machines failed to kill Sarah Connor by sending a terminator back in time, why couldn't they just send another one back to exactly the same time as before to try again? Why did they have to send the next one back to another time, and why did they pick a time that took place after the original mission? Wouldn't it have been better to pick an earlier time when Sarah didn't have knowledge of the plot to prevent her future son from being born?
 
2010-01-14 04:58:42 AM
-1
site requires registration
 
2010-01-14 05:08:48 AM
SnakeMan: Wouldn't it have been better to pick an earlier time when Sarah didn't have knowledge of the plot to prevent her future son from being born?

Because then the movie would have been a short film lasting 10 minutes in duration.
 
2010-01-14 06:01:19 AM
OK T2 is covered here as is "The Sarah Conner Chronicles" which I truly was hoping would be able to at least wrap up the story line.

If they can take the story from the utter failure of Salvation and bring it back without Batman I'd be happy. I liked the story about "Marcus" and I think he held his own over the raspy John Conner.

There is a great story here somewhere which I think ONLY James Cameron can find
 
2010-01-14 06:53:54 AM
Dr. Frisbee: I am most definitely in the minority as far as T2 is concerned.

No, it didn't suck. However, John Conner was annoying, the "no killing" part was well played, but in the end made cheesy, and the final part of Arnold dying was overly dramatic.

It's not much as far as complaints go, but I found the movie a little corny overall. I will watch the original over and over, maybe see T2 once in awhile, and forget about T3 and especially Salvation as long as I live.

T2 is a 6/10 at best in my opinion.



THIS.

T2 is a great action movie (I'd give it 7/10), but it doesn't hold a candle to the original (10/10), IMHO.

The truly great thing about the original is that you had to use your imagination to envisage the heroics of the as yet unseen John Connor: "The disposal units ran night and day. We were that close to going out forever. But there was one man..."

That scene always gives my sci-fi heart chills, no matter how many times I see it.

/hasn't seen Salvation and from what I've heard about it I never will
 
2010-01-14 07:13:34 AM
SnakeMan: As long as we're discussing T2, can anyone help me understand the premise of that movie? After the first time the machines failed to kill Sarah Connor by sending a terminator back in time, why couldn't they just send another one back to exactly the same time as before to try again? Why did they have to send the next one back to another time, and why did they pick a time that took place after the original mission? Wouldn't it have been better to pick an earlier time when Sarah didn't have knowledge of the plot to prevent her future son from being born?

It's kinda confusing with Time Travel, but I remember seeing an explanation of why it worked out.

The T-X (T-3, which I hate to mention) wast he most advanced and most likely to succeed, and it was sent back to right before Judgment Day because that's where the result of it succeeding in it's mission were most predictable.

The T-1000 (T-2) was sent back further into the past to kill John Connor, where it's less certain of the results, because even though John Connor is dead, there is a better chance of somebody else taken up the banner.

The T-101 (T-1) was a desperate last gambit. As you saw, it didn't have any real idea of where Sarah Connor is, just a city and a name. There's where it's mostly likely to fail, and even if it does succeed, the events are far more unpredictable as far as the resulting future would have been.

I thought it was a good one, anyways. Things get tricky with Time Travel.
 
2010-01-14 07:19:17 AM
The Dreaded Rear Admiral: Terminator: Salvation was not a good movie. Have we properly covered this fact in this thread?

/didn't look to see
//T2 rocked, Trollmitter


I just saw it for the first time this weekend. It was boring.

A sci-fi film about humans and machines fighting a war shouldn't be boring!
 
2010-01-14 07:22:47 AM
Terminator 2 sucked because it ruined the timeline scenario they'd set up in the first one. The original made a big point about how going back in time didn't affect anything - everything happened exactly as it should (indeed, as it had to, because John wouldn't have been born if Reese didn't go back in time). In the end, having the terminator go back in time to try and kill Sarah didn't change a thing.

And then along comes Terminator 2, where suddenly going back in time can change things. And, in fact, does change things. It completely breaks the timeline and tries to actually suggest they were able to stop Judgement Day. And for that, it was a horrible movie. As a generic action flick, it was fine, but that fact alone ruins it as a Terminator movie.

3 was a poor attempt at re-establishing the timeline, but at least it didn't wuss out, and actually ensured the Judgement Day happened.
 
2010-01-14 07:59:10 AM
In my fan-fic brain, I always connected the rise of the robots in the terminator universe with the initial cause of the Matrix universe
 
2010-01-14 08:44:37 AM
JerseyTim: Great headline troll.

Yep
 
2010-01-14 02:58:01 PM
Bhruic: Terminator 2 sucked because it ruined the timeline scenario they'd set up in the first one. The original made a big point about how going back in time didn't affect anything - everything happened exactly as it should (indeed, as it had to, because John wouldn't have been born if Reese didn't go back in time). In the end, having the terminator go back in time to try and kill Sarah didn't change a thing.

And then along comes Terminator 2, where suddenly going back in time can change things. And, in fact, does change things. It completely breaks the timeline and tries to actually suggest they were able to stop Judgement Day. And for that, it was a horrible movie. As a generic action flick, it was fine, but that fact alone ruins it as a Terminator movie.

3 was a poor attempt at re-establishing the timeline, but at least it didn't wuss out, and actually ensured the Judgement Day happened.


But nothing was changed, it was delayed - Judgement Day was always going to happen - the movies were basically to protect John at all cost, they led you to believe by destroying this or that could change it but it couldn't be done. At least that's what I got from it.
 
2010-01-14 03:21:46 PM
SilentStrider: Umm, T2 did most certainly not suck.

Why do you cry?
 
2010-01-14 03:29:43 PM
SnakeMan: As long as we're discussing T2, can anyone help me understand the premise of that movie? After the first time the machines failed to kill Sarah Connor by sending a terminator back in time, why couldn't they just send another one back to exactly the same time as before to try again? Why did they have to send the next one back to another time, and why did they pick a time that took place after the original mission? Wouldn't it have been better to pick an earlier time when Sarah didn't have knowledge of the plot to prevent her future son from being born?

A robowizard did it.
 
2010-01-14 03:32:01 PM
Bhruic: Terminator 2 sucked because it ruined the timeline scenario they'd set up in the first one. The original made a big point about how going back in time didn't affect anything - everything happened exactly as it should (indeed, as it had to, because John wouldn't have been born if Reese didn't go back in time). In the end, having the terminator go back in time to try and kill Sarah didn't change a thing.

And then along comes Terminator 2, where suddenly going back in time can change things. And, in fact, does change things. It completely breaks the timeline and tries to actually suggest they were able to stop Judgement Day. And for that, it was a horrible movie. As a generic action flick, it was fine, but that fact alone ruins it as a Terminator movie.

3 was a poor attempt at re-establishing the timeline, but at least it didn't wuss out, and actually ensured the Judgement Day happened.


Don't worry, in Terminator 5 it will be revealed that the Terminators and all of humanity are just John Connor in different timeframes.
 
2010-01-14 03:49:06 PM
Terminator 2
|
v
Terminator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
v
Terminator: Salvation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
v
Terminator 3
 
2010-01-14 03:52:52 PM
HeartBurnKid:

Well done. Exactly how I would rate them. Although, I probably would have rated the 3rd one a lot lower than that.
 
2010-01-14 04:01:40 PM
I enjoyed #1 and 3, 2 was OK, saw 4 this weekend....It was bad.
 
2010-01-14 04:06:30 PM
terminalx:
But nothing was changed, it was delayed - Judgement Day was always going to happen - the movies were basically to protect John at all cost, they led you to believe by destroying this or that could change it but it couldn't be done. At least that's what I got from it.


A delay is a change. The way they established the time travel issue in 1, was that it had absolutely no effect on anything - in fact, all it did was establish things that had already happened. Before Reese was sent back in time, he was already John's father. He'd already been back in time. So John knew to send him, and everything that happened had already happened.

So there was no way they could "delay" Judgement Day. It was going to happen on the day it was going to happen no matter what. Unless Terminator 2 came along and totally farked that up. Which it did.
 
2010-01-14 04:06:49 PM
i enjoyed them all. i guess i'm not a snob when i go to see a popcorn action flick.
 
2010-01-14 04:09:56 PM
Barnacles!: SilentStrider: Umm, T2 did most certainly not suck.

In a recent interview, AH-NULD said his favorite movie that he has starred in was Terminator 2.


That's because it was the pinnacle of his career. He made bad to pretty decent to really good movies then T2 then really good to pretty decent to bad movies. (new window)
 
2010-01-14 04:56:19 PM
j4x: Submitter is so cool and edgy for not liking T2.

I HATE $POPULARTHING TOO!
 
2010-01-14 05:33:07 PM
I bid $12.

I WIN
 
2010-01-14 08:59:40 PM
Raw_fishFood: SnakeMan: As long as we're discussing T2, can anyone help me understand the premise of that movie? After the first time the machines failed to kill Sarah Connor by sending a terminator back in time, why couldn't they just send another one back to exactly the same time as before to try again? Why did they have to send the next one back to another time, and why did they pick a time that took place after the original mission? Wouldn't it have been better to pick an earlier time when Sarah didn't have knowledge of the plot to prevent her future son from being born?

It's kinda confusing with Time Travel, but I remember seeing an explanation of why it worked out.

The T-X (T-3, which I hate to mention) wast he most advanced and most likely to succeed, and it was sent back to right before Judgment Day because that's where the result of it succeeding in it's mission were most predictable.

The T-1000 (T-2) was sent back further into the past to kill John Connor, where it's less certain of the results, because even though John Connor is dead, there is a better chance of somebody else taken up the banner.

The T-101 (T-1) was a desperate last gambit. As you saw, it didn't have any real idea of where Sarah Connor is, just a city and a name. There's where it's mostly likely to fail, and even if it does succeed, the events are far more unpredictable as far as the resulting future would have been.

I thought it was a good one, anyways. Things get tricky with Time Travel.


Would it also be outside the realm of possibility that all three Terminator units were sent back in time simultaneously? Not that it matters because anytime that time travel enters into the equation, especially in Hollywood franchises, nothing and everything makes sense.
 
2010-01-14 09:32:50 PM
I liked the Sarah Connor Chronicles. It explained why John uses Terminators, and through the second season opens up with the possibility of rival AIs that would ally with humanity. It also did some nifty time travel where they saw that their actions were directly affecting the future.
 
2010-01-14 09:45:54 PM
Outside of Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines the entire series has been pretty good. I still think 2 and Salvation are the best in the series. I know it's fun to make light of McG, but it was a pretty good movie.
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report