I couldn't really call myself a scholar of the Terminator franchise. Mostly what distinguishes me from other Terminator fans is my unusual ability to enjoy and re-watch T3: Rise of the Machines. This is partly though not entirely accounted for by my lingering celebrity crush on Claire Danes. (True story: I used to live with someone who was a TA for Claire Danes at Yale, and we had a message from her on our answering machine tearfully pleading for an extension ... it's not a really a story. But it is true.)
We already have a review of Terminator Salvation up, which I agree with pretty much completely -- basically there are some kick-ass action sequences, but the movie's human story is a near-total failure. Also, I know the Terminator movies are especially fond of weaving this Web of internal references, but this must be the single most densely allusive movie ever made.
Notes follow, more or less in chronological order as they occurred to me. Also there are mild spoilers:
-- Helena Bonham Carter = random! Because Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes left her humiliation tragically incomplete? Seriously, how weird to see a big-time Merchant-Ivory thespian in the cast.
-- Early on you get Christian Bale shoving a chopper pilot out of his seat. One of a long series of visual quotes from T2 ...
-- Connor's chopper crashes, upside-down, in a dust-cloud ... and he's OK! Gentlest helicopter crash ever.
-- It ain't Terminator till we've seen a naked dude. Though this may be our first moment of actual on-screen man-gear in the franchise.
-- More references: that's the road from the end of the first movie. And there's a dude crushing a Terminator skull! And is that the truck from T3? Is this movie entirely remixed from shots from the earlier movies? Yes. Yes it is.
-- The opening credits should have prepared me for this, but oh my God it's Chekhov.
-- I'm pretty sure I suffer from borderline prosopagnosia, but still: I am having a hell of time telling John Connor and Marcus Wright apart. If only they hadn't been given the exact same amount of stubble.
-- Again, I should have been ready for this, but oh my God Chekhov is Batman's daddy.
-- Bryce Dallas Howard does a pretty convincing Claire Danes impression. Maybe that was her on my answering machine.
-- Half of this movie is about John Connor, and the other half is about the mysterious Marcus Wright. People are awfully incurious as to who Marcus Wright is. Maybe there are a lot of people wandering around in the post-apocalypse who don't know what year it is, and haven't noticed that the world has been taken over by robots. But still.
-- I'm trying to put my finger on what exactly doesn't work about this movie. It jumps around too much: the earlier T movies were basically character studies, about a small group of people thrown together in an intense way, and how they interact. This one's got too many characters. Plus it's sort of leaden and humorless. The earlier movies were grim, but all the pop-culture references lightened the mood -- they didn't take themselves too seriously. The fact that they had Schwarzenegger, a walking sight-gag, on screen most of the time helped with this. This one takes itself too seriously. It's almost as if it's actually trying to warn us about the threat of future world domination by cyborgs.
-- That said, I want to give T4 full marks for the action stuff. Even though the incessant referencing of T2 is almost monotonous at this point (motorcycle off bridge from T2 FTW!) The audio alone is astounding. Plus it's the first one of the movies that really takes seriously the question of what a malevolent global software network would build if it could build anything. Why would it stick to bipedal androids? It probably would build huge headless giants and angry riderless motorcycles.
-- Though boo to the designers for thinking SkyNet would build human-scale, human-navigable factories. Surely they wouldn't bother with hallways and doors and such.
-- What is it with future dystopias and little-kid sidekicks? It was lame in Road Warrior and Waterworld, and it's lame here. And this is speaking as someone who actually has a little-kid sidekick in real life.
-- Marcus Wright (I guess Marcus Fenix was taken) has got to get his Australian accent under control. Doesn't really suit an L.A. gangbanger, or whatever he's supposed to be.
-- The references keep stacking up. The people-moving bins from War of the World. The missile-takes-out-a-bridge shot from True Lies.
-- I can't quite tell if Marcus is re-enacting the 1984 Apple ad when he busts a monitor toward the end of the movie. (Maybe the Apple Tablet will turn out to be SkyNet.) No wait, I can, he was. And hang on -- did he just take out his restraining bolt?
-- The T-800's run on red matter from Star Trek! It all fits together.
-- I am not going to tell you how the movie ends. But it is literally and most unfortunately heartwarming.
Of the franchises that feature red-eyed killer robots, this is not my favorite.
Church
May. 21, 2009 19:58:pm
at 19:58:pm
Marcus Fenix
Marcus Wright
Fenix Wright
Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney
It's a shame this one's not that great. Oh well, at least we have the first two.
mutilatortroy
May. 21, 2009 21:38:pm
at 21:38:pm
Sounds awesome/crappy. Can't wait to see it/avoid it. Hello/goodbye.
jthomann
May. 22, 2009 10:45:am
at 10:45:am
I am going to see this Monday. Matinee. With a movie with great action but poor human element, which is what the story one would think consist of consider it ponders humanity its purpose and all that, you would think the movie would maintain the story. Its a shame when films sacrifice great story, dialogue, and character development for fantastic action.
.
I will probably love the movie but note to McG. T2 handled the human emotion element and action in a balancing format. It handled perfectly. With that said shame on you if for all the forced references to the previous films. Unnecessary or at least allow it to come naturally to the film.
lostepic
May. 23, 2009 05:48:am
at 05:48:am
Gotta disagree on the accent thing. Don't hold it in, mate. That Australian accent of his is hot. And let's face it, the movie was already out in flash-and-bang territory by that point so it wasn't like it jarred me out of anything. This movie has beautiful effects, a good cast, and no story. So I'll take what good I can out of it.
.
Although I felt like it was worth the 8 bucks, I feel cheated that I didn't get the naked Moon Bloodgood shot I'd been promised. Why, McG? WHY?!
masurix
May. 24, 2009 05:43:am
at 05:43:am
I prefer the euphemism "Wedding Vegetables" to "Man Gear." I'm so glad you mentioned the difficulty telling Connor and Marcus apart, though - I was having massive trouble with that myself.
I've heard rumors that the original script called for Connor to die at the end of the film, and Wright was going to just assume Connor's identity and continue to head the resistance, so it makes sense they'd get actors who were physically very similar, but then they changed their minds during filming and it all becomes pointless.
And yeah, Marcus' accent was all over the place - aussie, midwestern, southern, I think there was a bit of South African in there for a bit. It's a distracting mess. Why couldn't he just be an Australian? What? Aussies don't ever move to the states and then kill people? Why is that any more implausible than big killer time traveling robots?
republibotthreepointoh
May. 24, 2009 09:27:am
at 09:27:am
@RB3.0 Here's the dirt:
http://chud.com/articles/articles/19577/1/EXCLUSIVE-WHAT-WENT-WRONG-WITH-TERMINATOR-SALVATION/Page1.html
Church
May. 24, 2009 22:18:pm
at 22:18:pm
@republibotthreepointoh: "wedding vegetables"! I haven't heard that one in a long time. Love it. As for accents, we all know that those human killing time traveling robots from the future are Austrian. I agree. No matter whether you keep your own accent or adapt a different one stick with it. That's what dialect coaches are for. I just talked with a friend over the weekend at a wedding and he was disappointed in the film and we tend to be on the same wave length when it comes to films. He said wait and rent it. That it wasnt even worth the matinee. Look the suprise of who Marcus Wright was already ruined not by leaks but by the trailers approved by the producers. I dont follow spoilers for films I want to see. The suprise in this one was ruined by McG himself if any.
.
I am still seeing it today regardless. I am a certified nerd. I have the time. I have the 5 bucks. Its going to be done. Despite any wrong doing of the film.
lostepic
May. 25, 2009 05:19:am
at 05:19:am
@lostepic:
It's easily worth $5. At the very least, it's better than the previous one, if not as good as the one before that.
republibotthreepointoh
May. 25, 2009 09:23:am
at 09:23:am
If Skynet would have just built a Caprica 6 for infiltrating Conner's group, the movie would have been over in fifteen minutes. 'Cause that humanoid robot took down a whole planet. She would have had no problems with a mine field or two.
.
Overall, I'm very 'meh' about this one. Story didn't wow me, but I enjoyed them blowing up stuff real good. My big problem with any Terminator follow-ups after 2 (3, Sarah Connor Chronicles, Salvation) is that they all have to be built on the premise that Sarah, John & Ar-Nuld ultimately failed in 2. It looked like they beat Skynet, but every sequel just means that the end of 2 didn't accomplish anything. And that just sucks. Especially for Miles Dyson......
Kemper
May. 25, 2009 19:25:pm
at 19:25:pm
@ Kemper:
A very valid point. They keep saying "There's no fate" but then the same thing always happens anyway. Maybe "Resign yourself to your fate and just plow on through to the other side of this paradox" is a better mantra?
republibotthreepointoh
May. 25, 2009 19:59:pm
at 19:59:pm
Saw TS and Star Trek as a double feature. I'm glad I did because they are perfect antipodes. Salvation is a banal plot-centered mission movie that features no characterization. Star Trek is an exciting character-centered film that has a fantastic story. Salvation is grim, bleak, dark, tedious, stale, perfunctory and plodding. Star Trek is fresh, vibrant, dipped in color and light, dramatic, innovative, lean, elegant, and exciting. Salvation is cynical both within story and in motive. Star Trek is exuberant and passionate. Significantly, Salvation has not an ounce of wit; Star Trek has loads (more than all the other previous ST films). Most importantly, Star Trek is about characters--the personalities, antagonism and eventually nascent friendsip of Kirk and Spock, while Salvation is about metal exploding and characters that are not even one dimensional much less resonant (not for nothing is one of the protagonists a robot who thinks he's human). Both are connected by one actor and well, massive genocide, but in Star Trek, the destruction of a giant popluation is handled in such a way that it does not detract from the overall light and adventerous tone and feel of the film, except in one significant respect that higlights this film's focus on human beings (and Vulcans): the rich character of Spock and the nuanced, commanding acting of the person who plays him. In Salvation, people are secondary to the dystopia and desolation depicted by well designed movie sets, so much so that the filmmakers forgo any sense of character and story. How the films fare as entertainment in the end come down to the difference between one set of actors and filmmakers who understand the primacy of character, emotion and visual storytelling; and another set who most assuredly do not.
rosseau
May. 25, 2009 20:46:pm
at 20:46:pm
I'm not picking a fight or anything, but I find it interesting that Trekies often claim that any non-Trek vision of the future is "Cynical" and "Bleak" and "Dark" and "Depressing" and "Illogical" and what have you. I had a friend who, to this day, can't watch "Blade Runner" because it doesn't fit with the Trek perspective of the future ("There won't be crime in the future!") and I've got another who won't watch Stargate or Dr. Who or B5 or Galactica or what have you because "It's too grim, and we all know the future will be great." (Leaving aside that Galactica is in the past) Which is fine if you like your omlets rigidly sunny-side up, but I've learned to take it with a grain of salt. I don't care how Optomistic the Trek vision of the future is, nor how grand their color palet is, it doesn't change the fact that "Nemesis" is a really, really bad movie.
republibotthreepointoh
May. 25, 2009 22:31:pm
at 22:31:pm
@repub: Just to clarify my position, I am not really a Trekkie. I have not watched the original series and one of my complaints about the subsequent shows and movies is that there was no conflict between the crew members. What I love about this Star Trek is that it is not a mission movie; the drama lies in the conflicts between the crew, namely Kirk and Spock. I've always thought that the idea of a utopian vision of mankind that GR had was not in any way realistic or made for compelling drama. The staid seamlessness of the previous movies' crews was a little boring and so they had to rely on the mission, which was hit or miss. What is great in this film is that the task is less important than the coming together of a team with plenty of drama along the way. And yes, Nemesis was a bad movie.
.
Terminator Salvation is grim and bleak, much like McCarthy's The Road (eagerly anticipating the movie) but unlike that, dare I say it, masterpiece, Star Trek is not centered on characters and relationships. The Road at its heart had this incredibly loving relationship between father and son juxtaposed against the backdrop of pure hell. Terminator Salvation just had the hell. And its a cliched one: we've seen these depictions of armageddon before; they're well designed but not in recompense for cardboard characters yelling at each other and endless explosions. I didn't care about John Conner or Marcus Wright because there was nothing there to invest in.
.
I did strongly care about John Conner and Sarah and the Terminator in T2 because the filmmakers spent time creating those characters and the actors--including Ahnold who did a fine job(the idea of making him a good guy was very clever)--were perfect for the roles. The filmmakers, much like the author, McCarthy, had a fluid grasp of their medium. When he sacrifices himself in the pool of fire (?), The Terminator fulfills the thematic and emotional arc of that movie. No such emotion and intelligence, in my humble opinion (and it is only mine) exist in the new film. Yes, you could argue Salvation as a war film, but then it would have to feature many, many resistence fighters and many Terminators and it would have to be messy; as it is, the film has well choreographed but bland action scenes. And by film's end, nothing has changed; we are back to where we started from. Salvation didn't have to be optomistic or have had a happy ending (I love Blade Runner, AI, Children of Men, Aliens, etc.) but it did have to be original, smart, character based, interesting, and not interminable. It was none of those things; Star Trek was all of them. Again, in my evaluation.
.
Sorry for the long posts, especially today when there is actually important news coming out of our justice system, but I felt I had to clear up any misconceptions, yes about summer movies, but still. And BSG, I am ashamed to admit, I have not fully watched, like Lev, but I at least feel bad about it
rosseau
May. 26, 2009 15:26:pm
at 15:26:pm
Well when you explain it like that, even *I* can understand!
Ok, I take it all back, and I apologize. I wasn't suggesting T4 was a great - or even very good - movie, but I've had decades of run ins with trekevangelists who's first reaction is to slam everything else at the expence of Trek simply because anything else - BSG, B5, T2.5, Firefly, Farscape, SG, you name it - isn't the god they worship. They seem to believe that any other show is a threat to Trek. "We'll make the world follow Trek, even if we must use force," as this old only semi-joking song says http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6NfG6vLSbk And if you ask 'em to explain their behavior, it invariably comes around to an "optomistic" future.
So I totally aplogize for misidentifying your Email as, you know, that kind of thing. I just seem to have across so much pro-trek chauvanism lately that I'm seeing things in the shadows. My mistake.
BTW, don't feel bad about BSG. It totally craps out in the end.
republibotthreepointoh
May. 26, 2009 16:06:pm
at 16:06:pm
Excuse me, shouldn't have used "misconceptions" and I was only talking about misconceptions about MY take on these movies and on the optimist vs. bleak vision of the future debate in making good stories; for the record, it doesn't matter and I am not criticizing anybody else's take on their preferences or on the movies. I'll stop raising my hand and hogging the discussion now. C'mon can't we get Swampland numbers?
Cheers.
rosseau
May. 26, 2009 16:10:pm
at 16:10:pm
@republibothreepointoh: Really, no need. Actually I'm the one who needs to apologize for perhaps coming across as too strident and misconstruing your post as pro TS. But, yes, I completely agree with you about Trekkies or LOTR superfans or anybody other group who are so committed to a work of popular art that they deny any other work of popular art/culture. That really doesn't make sense if you consider yourself an art/entertainment lover. The people you met are entitled to their opinion, obviously, but one suspects that those kinds of people don't really like stories/narratives/fiction. If you like sci-fi then you like sci-fi not just one example of it. Oh, I heard about that in BSG but I've also heard they don't play it safe in the finale, so as soon as I find out what happens to Amdiral Adama laying bloody on his deck after one of his crew shot him, I'll get to the ending eventually.(Have to pick up a lot of DVDs) Cheers.
rosseau
May. 26, 2009 16:41:pm
at 16:41:pm
Ok, I accept your apology over my apologizing. Yeah, over at my site we've had some discussions about how there's a Venn diagram relationship between Trekies and actual SF fans.
The ending of BSG - I won't blow it for you - it's not so much that the show 'doesn't play it safe' as it is that the entire final season seems hopelessly padded out and plodding, and they waste time by setting up numerous plot threads that they clearly have no intention of resolving. Then, in the final episode, they cheat and change the rules, making most of what went before a complete waste of time.
In my opinion.
republibotthreepointoh
May. 26, 2009 16:51:pm
at 16:51:pm
@ rb3.0 - Lies! Slander and lies!
.
(Just kidding. You and rosseau were being too intelligent and civil in your posts. I had to remind myself that this was still the internet....)
Kemper
May. 26, 2009 17:05:pm
at 17:05:pm
@Kemper
Boobies!
Church
May. 26, 2009 19:21:pm
at 19:21:pm
Sorry. I'll try to be more insindiary and ignorant in the future.
republibotthreepointoh
May. 26, 2009 20:33:pm
at 20:33:pm
This argument turned the nerd-rage meter up to 11. That's impressive.
masurix
May. 26, 2009 22:08:pm
at 22:08:pm
@Kemper: Thanks mate.
@Kemper and @Church: Because you guys, I believe, are the BSG experts, I do want to say that there is no real reason I haven't seen the show. I just came in late, saw the first season on DVD, enjoyed it very much and appreciated the glorious political questions/anologies; however, I never got around to the rest of the series. It's like reading Melville's Moby Dick: you know his book is a classic, you love the dozen or so pages you read so far, but you put it down thinking, "Eh, I have time." That will probably be my summer: reading Moby Dick and watching BSG! (Forgive the constant book name dropping; despite my bad spelling and grammar, I am a book guy and they, those novels, came to mind today).
.
The Star Trek TV shows that I watched, for what its worth to anybody, had some of the political/philosphical elements BSG is reputed to have, and for me, those were the best things about TNG, DS9, and Voyager. Maybe not the last one.
.
Oh, and Turdburger! (I got nothin') If any are on the East Coast, goodnight. Trying to inflate the number of comments tonight to this wonderful, wonderful blog...
rosseau
May. 26, 2009 22:39:pm
at 22:39:pm
Finally saw the movie. Worth the 5 bucks but......it could have been a whole lot better.
.
Characters, characters, characters. Moon was perceived to be important but fell flat. as did Marcus, the main character, and Connor. The opening scene of Marcus on death row, which if this spoils it for you they you never saw the theatrical trailer that spoils it, is disjointed and makes for a poor opening, going from that scene to the text detailing the setting.
The characters weren't fleshed out as we would want them to be and to be honest the idea that an intelligent AI would not take in to account the risky proposition of giving a human an exoskeleton that he wouldnt be against you for, you know, having him betray his people, be the usher of the destructon of the people he cares about.
.
Boham Carters character? Love her but why her? Did she really want to be in the movie?
.
I love Star Trek and its optimistic outlook. But one must realize that you cant get hung up on one thing. Terminator details that regardless of fate or how dismal the future is there is hope beyond it. As for Star Trek, I always found it humorous that the Federation touted that crime, murder, war, hunger, poverty ended in their world, i.e. community, only to have them, succumb to having to deal with war, murder, crime, etc... all of which has been dealt with in either OS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, even the dreaded Enterprise, which I must admit I have enjoyed on occasion. Don't tar and feather me, I said on occasion.
.
@Church: Thanks! I am all about being civil and intelligent in such discussions. Thanks for shaking things up.
.
@rosseau I get what your saying you really should invest and get TNG complete series. The show really is all about characters. But one must understand character driven shows/movies is new to mainstream Hollywood still. That concept use to be reserved for indie, European, or dramas. Rarely did you find it in mainstream action or even scifi, while there are exceptions in those genres.
.
This summer, BSG final season here I come. I understand I may be disappointed. There are not too many shows that create a decent ending to a series unless they planned it from the beginning. Thus I am extremely hopeful and confident that the final season of Lost next year will be the best.
.
Fans can be biased. Such as, all fantasy writers own their lives to Tolkien, all Scifi films own theirs to Blade Runner or Star Wars which changed the clean sleek style of the '70s and brought the genre to mainstream with legitimate quality. So as long as people notice when a film, book, comic, etc... is faking it or copying a classic or ripping of a premise from a previous idea or creator, then we are good.
.
Speaking of rip offs. I still can't get over the fact that Michael Bay's "The Island" is a rip off of "Clonus", A B-Sci-Fi movie made in the '80s.
lostepic
May. 27, 2009 06:11:am
at 06:11:am
I think Clonus is late 70s, actually.
Over at John Varley's website, he says the problem with this movie is that there's really not a Terminator in it. Sure, Marcus probably is intended to fit the bill, but if he's got a human brain and a human heart and thinks he's human, then he's not really a Terminator is he? He's The Tin Man. It's a good point.
Here's my problem with the ending of Galactica: Once upon a time there was a show called "Babylon 5" which was pretty brilliant, and because it was brilliant it angered the Television gods and was cancelled. The Writer/Producer wrapped up as many plot threads as he could in season 4, and shot a 'final episode.' Then it got un-cancelled, and they shot Season 5, which - chronologically - fit in between the penultimate and final episodes of Season 4. Unfortunately, it takes season 5 forever to get going, nothing in there is terribly interesting, most of the major plot threads are already resolved, and when the good stuff finally gets going, most of the season is over, and the 'good stuff' mostly consists of people saying goodbye. So in short, the final year of B5 is mostly a frustrating waste of time, and you really don't miss much of anything if you skip it entirely.
Likewise, the final season of BSG is pretty much just putting stuff on the table and moving it around for no good reason to give the illusion of stuff going on, when in fact the story has ground to a halt. There is some very cool stuff in there, but it's spread out way too thin. It would have made for a pretty good 10-episode arc, but stretched out over 22 hours, it's just too much for no real payoff, and most of the stuff introduced in this season is patently only there to fill time. They don't even bother to resolve most of it.
republibotthreepointoh
May. 27, 2009 07:35:am
at 07:35:am