Retro_Link Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 There's been talk of the new films/trilogy for a while and it seems the first of the three now has a name... Seems like the trilogy will be: Terminator Salvation [like Metroid Prime] With the first subtitle being: The Future Begins in North America So for future reference that's... TS:TFBINA!! http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/826/826176p1.html The Terminator Returns Salvation is at hand for Warner Bros. US, October 10, 2007 - Warners Bros. will distribute the newly retitled Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins in North America. The studio previously released Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. Terminator Salvation will begin filming in early 2008 and will cost less than T3. John Brancato and Michael Ferris penned the screenplay for production company Halcyon. Variety reports that the fourth installment "seeks to reinvent the cyborg saga with a storyline to be told over a three-pic span." As Halcyon co-CEO Derek Anderson explained, "This is set in the future, in a full-scale war between Skynet and humankind." Producer Moritz Borman added, "The third film was really the conclusion of what happened in the 'now.' You will find the most-loved characters, but the intention here is to present a fresh new world and have this be the first of a trilogy." According to Variety, "no final decision" has been made about a director despite the buzz about McG helming the movie. Another question mark is the inclusion of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was elected governor of California after T3. The producers said it's possible that Arnie could shoot a cameo depending on his schedule and interest.
Supergrunch Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 I remember thinking this was silly when I first heard about it... I mean, terminator is all about being set in the "now", and I can't imagine what happens in the future being all that interesting.
rokhed00 Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 I remember thinking this was silly when I first heard about it... I mean, terminator is all about being set in the "now", and I can't imagine what happens in the future being all that interesting. Yeah, man fighting machine in guerilla warfare sounds well dull.:wink:
Mike Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 I only saw the Terminator films for the first time around the time the third came out, so I'm not so precious about number 2 as some film fans are. Personally, I'd love to find out what happens next, but it would certainly be odd without Arnie in.
somme Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 I actually always wanted to see more of the future timeline in the Terminator movies. Let's hope it's done well.
Iun Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 I think it's a cushion by the bag of remotes. Translaion of Aphasia: Why? Dear lord, why? It only needed to be two films. Not three, and certainly not more!
Supergrunch Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 Yeah, man fighting machine in guerilla warfare sounds well dull.:wink: You know it's all about kids crying as robots sink into lava. Anyway, I still haven't seen the original, I should do so some time. The second was great, but the third was... not so great. It was a bit of fun though.
rokhed00 Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 You know it's all about kids crying as robots sink into lava. I'd rather see the kid in the lava and the robot crying.
Jimbob Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 These are going to suck, i just know they will. T3 was ok, but it was missing something unlike T2, which was a masterpiece. I know these are going to be set during the war era, so i will be interested to see how they are made and what will be done in each movie. Plus, the reason why the previous three movies were good was because the Terminators were sent back in time (and 1 human) to Terminate targets to change history, so Terminator can't really be used in the title if none of this happens in the new movies.
Paj! Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 T1 and T2 pwn the world. 3 was ok, and was a suitable ending to the series, and it was good that the ending ... *SPOILERS?* Wasn't a happy one. But yeah, I'm more interested in the human side of things. One of the reasons T3 would never be as good as 1 or 2 is becasue Sarah Connor wasn't in it.
Paj! Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 I really liked Terminator 3 and could never understand the criticism it got. -Lack of Sarah Connor/Michael Beihn(Bein)/the child -Generally not as well directed/acted.
Guest Jordan Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 T3 was never going to top T2, hell... nothing is.
AshMat Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 Oh sweet. i've been wanting this to happen, i want to know the bits after the 3rd, before the war, and the aftermath of the Nuke.
Supergrunch Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 This is going to suck and its a shame... Another case of execs not knowing when to leave a series alone and tarnishing its name. Provided it'll make money, they really don't give a damn whether or not they "tarnish the name of the series".
Cube Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 I have some hope for this. The pilot episode of the TV series was great.
Hellfire Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 I liked T3 too, really liked the ending. It's no T2, but still...
Solo Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 -Lack of Sarah Connor/Michael Beihn(Bein)/the child -Generally not as well directed/acted. It wasn't necessarily the direction or acting, personally I thought it was the story. And as hobbzinio stated the 'pg-13' rating didn't help. That's a really bad title I hope they don't stick with it. Oh when paj mentioned the 'child' I think he meant Ed Furlong?
Pete Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 T1 and T2 are great films T3 was ok but a drop compared to the 1st two films which are two great pieces of cinema, I think there a high chance these new films could suck and could be made mainly to milk the cash cow.
rokhed00 Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 Does nobody else see the potential for this as a reinvention for the series as a totally different sort of film?
Konfucius Posted October 11, 2007 Posted October 11, 2007 Although it will most certainly be cool action franchise I think it will kind of destroy the special feeling about the Terminator future. So far it was up to our imagination what machines would do and what could happen which made the films somewhat timeless but with this they take that part away and say: now that was Terminator in the past and here's something new that doesn't have much in common with the original idea. But I hope to be proven wrong by the film.
McPhee Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 I think including the terminator name in the title is a mistake, doesn't give a very good first impression. I can actually see good potential in the story, but the name Terminator Salvation just screams "cash-in"
Cube Posted October 12, 2007 Posted October 12, 2007 I think including the terminator name in the title is a mistake, doesn't give a very good first impression. I can actually see good potential in the story, but the name Terminator Salvation just screams "cash-in" Agreed. The TV show doesn't use the word "terminator" in the title.
Iun Posted October 13, 2007 Posted October 13, 2007 In your opinion. Michael Beihns character fucking died in the first one and it was explained in detail with the second film. It wasnt realistic to bring him back and added to the fact his acting career went down the pan after the 80's and early 90's. Why get a has been in the film? Has been or no has been, Michael Biehn has starred in some of the best films made in the 80's, and he is a darned fine actor.
Recommended Posts