Why the Terminator franchise is dead....
Sep. 10th, 2009 07:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
philosoraptor42Yes, Terminator Salvation came out ages ago, but I'm STILL pissed off by it. My feeling on the issue have been rather complicated. While it's fairly plain to pretty much anyone who's seen it that Terminator Salvation is a terrible movie. What is less obvious however is why I think it's worse than Terminator 3.
WARNING: I am presuming that everyone has seen the first three Terminator movies and that no one will care about spoilers for the fourth movie. If you haven't seen the first three Terminator movies and/or really care about spoilers for the recent travesty do not read any further.
So back to the question: Why is Terminator Salvation worse than Terminator 3? Okay, so here are some suggestions:
The Terminators in Terminator Salvation are wusses
The Terminators never use weapons, they seem to be fair too easy to get away from and they can be destroyed by bullets. I'm sorry, but the 'T1' in Terminator 3 was harder to kill than any of the Terminators in T4.
Kyle Reece also says that with ordinary weapons he's not sure he can defeat the Terminator (and in the future scenes they seem to use a combination of heavy explosives and lazer guns (with the Terminators also holding lazer guns, with some even holding one in each hand!). As such, it makes no sense that Terminators go around unarmed and can be killed by a bullet to the head in the new movie.
All this said, it's not the first inconsistency in a Terminator movie. In the first movie we are told that nothing dead will go through the time machine unless it is covered in human tissue. In the second movie the T-1000 is able to get through the time machine despite not being covered in human tissue and being entirely made of metal. Terminator 3 carries on this error by introducing a Terminator covered in liquid metal rather than human tissue.
In the first movie we are told that the choice to send back a Terminator was a ditch effort by Skynet because their defence system had been screwed. In the second movie we are told that a newer prototype has been sent back. The sudden appearance of a new prototype in T2 is explained away because apparently both the Terminator from the first movie and the T-1000 were sent into the past by Skynet at the same time. T3, however, produces an even newer model of Terminator. Admittedly it explains it away by noting that the whole timeline has shifted, but this also seriously messes with what has come before. After all, doesn't that mean that there should be another Terminator being sent back to kill John Connor while he was a child, albeit from a different future and doesn't it mean that actually the T-X from T3 could be sent back there rather than the bog standard T-800 we saw before? Also, if Skynet has had the time machine longer could they not send as many Terminators they want to any period in history they want? Aaaagh! - *brain explodes* (Perhaps the TX was the first available Terminator to send in a ditch effort in this alternative future that's appeared? That might sort it.)
However, the problems with the timeline issue don't end there. In the first movie Kyle Reece coming back to the past turns out to be the only way John Connor can be born. So, when the future is averted in the second movie, that ought to also prevent Kyle Reece from coming back in time in the first place. We are also told that the only reason that "judgment day" happens is because a Terminator came back in time leaving behind its advanced technology. As such, the original future Kyle Reece comes back from relied on this time travel for that future to become a reality in the first place. As such, no amount of destroying chips and the like can stop Terminators from coming back from the future because otherwise we would never have seen a Terminator in the first place.
Since Terminators don't dissapear when the future is prevented we similarly wouldn't expect John Connor to do a 'Back To The Future' style dissapearing act either. However, if changing important stuff doesn't involve Back To The Future style changes, then what was the point in the time travel in the first place? Unless killing John Connor will cause the future to change there seems to be no point in the Terminators attempting it. (Of course, Terminator 3 suggests that John Connor is still around because the future apocalypse is still on the cards. Though since it's been delayed I'm given cause to wonder what age Kyle Reece would be when he comes back this time around.)
John Connor isn't the leader of the resistance
Some old men seem to be very comfortably running quite a high tech operation from a submarine with John Connor as a rather arrogant upstart under their command. In fact in one of the early scenes it actually seems confusing as to why John Connor's name is high on a list of prominent figures targeted by the machines. At no point is it explained why John Connor, who last time we looked was in nuclear bunker, is now a grunt soldier, albeit a fairly accomplished and respected one when we were always led to believe he was the saviour of human race (I mean check out those initials!). This might sound like another inconsistency like the lazer gun thing, but even within the movies we sometimes seem to be told that John Connor is the leader of the rresistence, so this is not just an inconsistency with the other movies, but an internal inconsistency.
In the first Terminator movie we are told that Kyle Reece was set to work in a forced labour camp by the machines after the nuclear holocaust ('Judgment Day') and that it wasn't until John Connor came along that they were able to learn how to fight back. In this new movie Kyle is a young child (fair enough) and doesn't appear to have been anywhere near a machine labour camp. Meanwhile, the resistance seems to be already in full swing! While this is all inconsistency with the other movies, we never really get any explanation as to what the situation actually is in T4. We just seem to be dropped into a situation and then a series of events happen one after another. The movie never has a chance to establish any real mythology.
"I'm John Connor"
Could you stop saying that over and over again please?
The 'Human' Terminator
In the beginning sequence of T4 we are introduced to a death row convict who offers their body to medical science. Then in the future that same person is now a special form of Terminator with all their old memories. How does this work? Well, either this Terminator was developed long before any of the others or their body was in cryogenic containment so Skynet could use it later when developing the new cyborgs. Two obvious problems here are firstly that at this stage the T-800 (Schwarzenegger Terminator) is still a prototype, so how come this more advanced version is developed first? Secondly, if they have human bodies already available in cryogenic containment, what are they bringing in live human captives for? (Possibly they are being brought in to do hard labour, but it doesn't seem obvious what they could be expected to do that a Terminator couldn't do better and they are only ever seen being ordered to move along in queues - not actually being asked to do anything.)
Christian Bale's voice
I'm sorry, but I really cannot understand why Christian Bale is doing the "I'M BATMAN" voice all the way through.
The lack of characterisation
There are, it seems to me, two characters with any depth to them whatsoever in the movie. There's the human-terminator guy and there's John Connor. Neither of them actually develop much over the course of the movie. John Connor's character seems to have no substance to it whatsoever.
The giant robot
Um, what the hell was that about? Is this Terminator or Transformers?
Heart transplant surgery
If someone gets shot in the heart they are dead. Even if we take for granted that they were able to drap John Connor out of the middle of Skynet's main base of operations with a bullet in his heart quickly enough to save him I still think we are pushing the limits of suspension of disbelief. In a post-apocalyptic world you do not have the resources available to do an impromptu heart transplant! End of story!
There's no story arc
Things happen but nothing terribly interesting happens and by the end of the movie nothing really seems to have been resolved. The big scary event seems to be the risk that Kyle Reece might die, but we are never told why that's anything to worry about. John Connor just doesn't seem so important that the resistance couldn't do without him and in any case are we really sure that John Connor is just going to dissapear Back To The Future style just because Kyle dies?
So, just in case it wasn't obvious: Terminator 3 actually involves a Terminator that is hard to kill. In T3 John Connor is still considered the leader of the resistance. John Connor isn't using a deep husky Batman voice. John Connor doesn't need to hammer home his importance all the time because the script makes it kinda obvious (and actually the questioning of his importance is part of the plot - yes, plot!). There are more than 2 characters which develop in T3 (including Arnold Schwarzenegger! *gasp*). There's a story arc (not a terribly interesting one, but its there). The action sequences are exciting. Yes, I mean it, the action sequences in Terminator Salvation just weren't terribly interesting because we never really get the impression that it matters whether anyone lives or dies. In T3 the action sequences are actually exciting!
Perhaps the main reason I preferred Terminator 3 however is that it didn't take itself seriously. I saw a review at the time explaining exactly why this was an advantage. The premise behind Terminator is nonsense, pure and simple. No one in their right minds seriously thinks that AI is going to cause WWIII and then malicious robots are going to enslave the human race in the apocalyptic aftermath, yet James Cameron somehow had us taking it seriously. Trying to take over the franchise and make it all serious after T2 would have been a mistake. What T3 does instead is, while making a stab at an interesting plot (and clearly failing), it makes fun of all the absurd little things in the previous Terminator movies. The Terminator's curious obsession with cool sunglasses in particular, comes under fire. Also we see the return of the psychologist from the first two movies who still thinks that Terminators are a crazy idea even after having seen one! This allow T3 to be a nice entertaining bit of popcorn fodder.
Being set in future, Terminator Salvation didn't have to worry about appearing to have a hysterical "ZOMG the robots are coming" mentality. In that scenario the machines are already here and the movie was free to get on with the action of the future war. From the trailer I was actually expecting something akin to "John Connor: Robot Hunter". Instead I was presented with the remarkable trick of a character who was able to whine and whinge in a low husky voice. I'm sorry, I don't care how good the trailer looked, the actual movie is not as good as Terminator 3 and that's all there is to say.
There's a rather funny review from Mark Kermode about Terminator Salvation:
And this timeline of the movies is kinda neat:
Cracked.com also have a cool parody script for Terminator Salvation. Check it out.
So yeah, is the Terminator franchise really dead? Well, to be quite honest the BS in Terminator Salvation screwed up so badly that I'm inclined to pretend that it never happened. If I acknowledge the existence of another movie, I'm not sure that I can really successfully pretend that this travesty didn't happen. As such, for me, the franchise is dead.
WARNING: I am presuming that everyone has seen the first three Terminator movies and that no one will care about spoilers for the fourth movie. If you haven't seen the first three Terminator movies and/or really care about spoilers for the recent travesty do not read any further.
So back to the question: Why is Terminator Salvation worse than Terminator 3? Okay, so here are some suggestions:
The Terminators in Terminator Salvation are wusses
The Terminators never use weapons, they seem to be fair too easy to get away from and they can be destroyed by bullets. I'm sorry, but the 'T1' in Terminator 3 was harder to kill than any of the Terminators in T4.
Kyle Reece also says that with ordinary weapons he's not sure he can defeat the Terminator (and in the future scenes they seem to use a combination of heavy explosives and lazer guns (with the Terminators also holding lazer guns, with some even holding one in each hand!). As such, it makes no sense that Terminators go around unarmed and can be killed by a bullet to the head in the new movie.
All this said, it's not the first inconsistency in a Terminator movie. In the first movie we are told that nothing dead will go through the time machine unless it is covered in human tissue. In the second movie the T-1000 is able to get through the time machine despite not being covered in human tissue and being entirely made of metal. Terminator 3 carries on this error by introducing a Terminator covered in liquid metal rather than human tissue.
In the first movie we are told that the choice to send back a Terminator was a ditch effort by Skynet because their defence system had been screwed. In the second movie we are told that a newer prototype has been sent back. The sudden appearance of a new prototype in T2 is explained away because apparently both the Terminator from the first movie and the T-1000 were sent into the past by Skynet at the same time. T3, however, produces an even newer model of Terminator. Admittedly it explains it away by noting that the whole timeline has shifted, but this also seriously messes with what has come before. After all, doesn't that mean that there should be another Terminator being sent back to kill John Connor while he was a child, albeit from a different future and doesn't it mean that actually the T-X from T3 could be sent back there rather than the bog standard T-800 we saw before? Also, if Skynet has had the time machine longer could they not send as many Terminators they want to any period in history they want? Aaaagh! - *brain explodes* (Perhaps the TX was the first available Terminator to send in a ditch effort in this alternative future that's appeared? That might sort it.)
However, the problems with the timeline issue don't end there. In the first movie Kyle Reece coming back to the past turns out to be the only way John Connor can be born. So, when the future is averted in the second movie, that ought to also prevent Kyle Reece from coming back in time in the first place. We are also told that the only reason that "judgment day" happens is because a Terminator came back in time leaving behind its advanced technology. As such, the original future Kyle Reece comes back from relied on this time travel for that future to become a reality in the first place. As such, no amount of destroying chips and the like can stop Terminators from coming back from the future because otherwise we would never have seen a Terminator in the first place.
Since Terminators don't dissapear when the future is prevented we similarly wouldn't expect John Connor to do a 'Back To The Future' style dissapearing act either. However, if changing important stuff doesn't involve Back To The Future style changes, then what was the point in the time travel in the first place? Unless killing John Connor will cause the future to change there seems to be no point in the Terminators attempting it. (Of course, Terminator 3 suggests that John Connor is still around because the future apocalypse is still on the cards. Though since it's been delayed I'm given cause to wonder what age Kyle Reece would be when he comes back this time around.)
John Connor isn't the leader of the resistance
Some old men seem to be very comfortably running quite a high tech operation from a submarine with John Connor as a rather arrogant upstart under their command. In fact in one of the early scenes it actually seems confusing as to why John Connor's name is high on a list of prominent figures targeted by the machines. At no point is it explained why John Connor, who last time we looked was in nuclear bunker, is now a grunt soldier, albeit a fairly accomplished and respected one when we were always led to believe he was the saviour of human race (I mean check out those initials!). This might sound like another inconsistency like the lazer gun thing, but even within the movies we sometimes seem to be told that John Connor is the leader of the rresistence, so this is not just an inconsistency with the other movies, but an internal inconsistency.
In the first Terminator movie we are told that Kyle Reece was set to work in a forced labour camp by the machines after the nuclear holocaust ('Judgment Day') and that it wasn't until John Connor came along that they were able to learn how to fight back. In this new movie Kyle is a young child (fair enough) and doesn't appear to have been anywhere near a machine labour camp. Meanwhile, the resistance seems to be already in full swing! While this is all inconsistency with the other movies, we never really get any explanation as to what the situation actually is in T4. We just seem to be dropped into a situation and then a series of events happen one after another. The movie never has a chance to establish any real mythology.
"I'm John Connor"
Could you stop saying that over and over again please?
The 'Human' Terminator
In the beginning sequence of T4 we are introduced to a death row convict who offers their body to medical science. Then in the future that same person is now a special form of Terminator with all their old memories. How does this work? Well, either this Terminator was developed long before any of the others or their body was in cryogenic containment so Skynet could use it later when developing the new cyborgs. Two obvious problems here are firstly that at this stage the T-800 (Schwarzenegger Terminator) is still a prototype, so how come this more advanced version is developed first? Secondly, if they have human bodies already available in cryogenic containment, what are they bringing in live human captives for? (Possibly they are being brought in to do hard labour, but it doesn't seem obvious what they could be expected to do that a Terminator couldn't do better and they are only ever seen being ordered to move along in queues - not actually being asked to do anything.)
Christian Bale's voice
I'm sorry, but I really cannot understand why Christian Bale is doing the "I'M BATMAN" voice all the way through.
The lack of characterisation
There are, it seems to me, two characters with any depth to them whatsoever in the movie. There's the human-terminator guy and there's John Connor. Neither of them actually develop much over the course of the movie. John Connor's character seems to have no substance to it whatsoever.
The giant robot
Um, what the hell was that about? Is this Terminator or Transformers?
Heart transplant surgery
If someone gets shot in the heart they are dead. Even if we take for granted that they were able to drap John Connor out of the middle of Skynet's main base of operations with a bullet in his heart quickly enough to save him I still think we are pushing the limits of suspension of disbelief. In a post-apocalyptic world you do not have the resources available to do an impromptu heart transplant! End of story!
There's no story arc
Things happen but nothing terribly interesting happens and by the end of the movie nothing really seems to have been resolved. The big scary event seems to be the risk that Kyle Reece might die, but we are never told why that's anything to worry about. John Connor just doesn't seem so important that the resistance couldn't do without him and in any case are we really sure that John Connor is just going to dissapear Back To The Future style just because Kyle dies?
So, just in case it wasn't obvious: Terminator 3 actually involves a Terminator that is hard to kill. In T3 John Connor is still considered the leader of the resistance. John Connor isn't using a deep husky Batman voice. John Connor doesn't need to hammer home his importance all the time because the script makes it kinda obvious (and actually the questioning of his importance is part of the plot - yes, plot!). There are more than 2 characters which develop in T3 (including Arnold Schwarzenegger! *gasp*). There's a story arc (not a terribly interesting one, but its there). The action sequences are exciting. Yes, I mean it, the action sequences in Terminator Salvation just weren't terribly interesting because we never really get the impression that it matters whether anyone lives or dies. In T3 the action sequences are actually exciting!
Perhaps the main reason I preferred Terminator 3 however is that it didn't take itself seriously. I saw a review at the time explaining exactly why this was an advantage. The premise behind Terminator is nonsense, pure and simple. No one in their right minds seriously thinks that AI is going to cause WWIII and then malicious robots are going to enslave the human race in the apocalyptic aftermath, yet James Cameron somehow had us taking it seriously. Trying to take over the franchise and make it all serious after T2 would have been a mistake. What T3 does instead is, while making a stab at an interesting plot (and clearly failing), it makes fun of all the absurd little things in the previous Terminator movies. The Terminator's curious obsession with cool sunglasses in particular, comes under fire. Also we see the return of the psychologist from the first two movies who still thinks that Terminators are a crazy idea even after having seen one! This allow T3 to be a nice entertaining bit of popcorn fodder.
Being set in future, Terminator Salvation didn't have to worry about appearing to have a hysterical "ZOMG the robots are coming" mentality. In that scenario the machines are already here and the movie was free to get on with the action of the future war. From the trailer I was actually expecting something akin to "John Connor: Robot Hunter". Instead I was presented with the remarkable trick of a character who was able to whine and whinge in a low husky voice. I'm sorry, I don't care how good the trailer looked, the actual movie is not as good as Terminator 3 and that's all there is to say.
There's a rather funny review from Mark Kermode about Terminator Salvation:
And this timeline of the movies is kinda neat:
Cracked.com also have a cool parody script for Terminator Salvation. Check it out.
So yeah, is the Terminator franchise really dead? Well, to be quite honest the BS in Terminator Salvation screwed up so badly that I'm inclined to pretend that it never happened. If I acknowledge the existence of another movie, I'm not sure that I can really successfully pretend that this travesty didn't happen. As such, for me, the franchise is dead.
