First off, anyone calling himself McG is hard to take seriously.
And the fact that he directed both Charlie's Angels Movies doesn't exactly make me warm up to him, either.
But the guy knows his shortcomings... he consulted with James Cameron, anxious not to repeat the mistake that was Terminator 3...
He went and shot for the best actor he could think of for John Connor, Christian Bale. Bale said "not without a script"... so he got the screenwriter for "The Dark Knight".
Apparently, Bale liked the script.
So, here we have a director more known for his cheesy action movies than anything else, paired with good actors, a good script and some stunning visuals and design...
I'd say it's 50:50... but I'd watch it just for this:
I'm pretty excited for it, actually. It looks like they're getting a lot of the dystopian future stuff figured out, and I have to admit, that if the Batman co-writer is on it, I think it can be a pretty good thing.
From the sounds of things, we're only getting half the story. Or, at the very least, not all of the story. The article says that the guy who walked in ruined a scene; for all we know, it was a long and difficult scene and they were nearly done when this guy destroyed it. Or they had been filming take after take and getting frustrated with it, and the shoot that was ruined was the first one that everyone was happy with. We've got no footage, so we can't put it in context. While Bale could probably have handled the situation better than blowing up in the guy's face like that, that's not to say the target of his tirade was completely innocent.
Sounds like almost every artiste I've ever worked with in music or stage... if they're really into it and care about their work... well.. you don't want to be the guy who keeps coming out of tune in rehearsals or forgetting his line...
From the sounds of things, we're only getting half the story. Or, at the very least, not all of the story. The article says that the guy who walked in ruined a scene; for all we know, it was a long and difficult scene and they were nearly done when this guy destroyed it. Or they had been filming take after take and getting frustrated with it, and the shoot that was ruined was the first one that everyone was happy with. We've got no footage, so we can't put it in context. While Bale could probably have handled the situation better than blowing up in the guy's face like that, that's not to say the target of his tirade was completely innocent.
Honestly, can you ever imagine throwing a tantrum like this toward anyone at your work? He gets a break because he's a big powerful movie star, but this is completely unprofessional in any line of work.
It was an over the top response sure, but acting isn't like working in a shop or office where screaming abuse at someone will get you fired quickly. Acting is a job that relys on emotion, it is a bit different. Is it excusable, not really, but I can understand why it happened.
Honestly, can you ever imagine throwing a tantrum like this toward anyone at your work? He gets a break because he's a big powerful movie star, but this is completely unprofessional in any line of work.
What's unprofessional is the Director of Photography coming on set. You can't screw things up like that. If they were working with film, something like that would be completely, unimaginably unacceptable. You can't do things to interfere with an actor's "zone" either. They can't do their jobs otherwise. I've been a grip for a couple small films, so I can only imagine what it's like to screw up on set of a huge one.
What's unprofessional is the Director of Photography coming on set. You can't screw things up like that. If they were working with film, something like that would be completely, unimaginably unacceptable. You can't do things to interfere with an actor's "zone" either. They can't do their jobs otherwise. I've been a grip for a couple small films, so I can only imagine what it's like to screw up on set of a huge one.
AICN are reporting that the DP is known for changing the lightng in mid-scene at times, and that Bale had asked him several times not to do it (and was said to be the perfect gentleman about it), particularly in the scene they were filming, which is supposed to be a major emotional point for John Connor. It's supposedly the kind of scene where everyone knows exactly what is happening and that they don't interfere, but the DP went in and started fiddling about with the lights one too many times and ended up ruining the scene.
Yeah, because everyone wants to make Bale look like a psycho since he's the famous Patrick Bateman and Batman. Bale is just the John McEnroe of actors.
So, Reign of Fire meets Battlestar Galactica in the Terminator universe?
And am I the only one to catch the line, "If we stay the course we are all dead!" That had better be a coincidence and not a sign that they somehow are trying to make a political statement.
Say what you will about McG taking the reins from Cameron after Mostow proved unworthy, but I like the way he's shooting this with the colours all washed out like that. One of the big things I found wrong with RISE OF THE MACHINES was all the bright colours, particularly in the crane chase. While imaginitive, the garish yellows, reds and blues of the vehicles betrayed the whole thing for what it was: a mindless setpiece that was really just there to entertain rather than serve any narrative purpose. The chase down the LA River in JUDGEMENT DAY might have done the same thing, but at least it was stylish as opposed to garish. McG's style really reminds me of FALLOUT 3, and I likes it.
And am I the only one to catch the line, "If we stay the course we are all dead!" That had better be a coincidence and not a sign that they somehow are trying to make a political statement.
I did pick up on that, but from reading about the film and watching the trailers, I get the idea that humanity has a plan, but that John Connor knows Skynet is capable of learning and thus is leading everyone into a trap.
That said, Paul Haggis wrote the screenplay, and he is known to make political statements in his film. If IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH wasn't a politically-charged commentary, I don't know what was, but he also introduces the concept into films that are not made as such; he did it in QUANTUM OF SOLACE with the CIA willing to look the other way in a military coup in South America because they believe Bolivia has vast reserves of oil.
That said, Paul Haggis wrote the screenplay, and he is known to make political statements in his film. If IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH wasn't a politically-charged commentary, I don't know what was, but he also introduces the concept into films that are not made as such; he did it in QUANTUM OF SOLACE with the CIA willing to look the other way in a military coup in South America because they believe Bolivia has vast reserves of oil.
Thing is with Quantum of Solace, they were right. Absolutely right. In every way about our CIA, and the way in which our government acts when it comes to natural resources... Hell, how we treat our neighbors in our sphere of influence.
I have no problems with political overtones if there is something to them, but that may only be me.
Thing is with Quantum of Solace, they were right. Absolutely right. In every way about our CIA, and the way in which our government acts when it comes to natural resources... Hell, how we treat our neighbors in our sphere of influence.
I have no problems with political overtones if there is something to them, but that may only be me.
Yes, but my point is that with Paul Haggis penning the original draft, I wouldn't be too surprised if there are political overtones in TERMINATOR SALVATION. I don't think they'll be blatant the way QUANTUM OF SOLACE was, and the presence of other writers like Jonathan Nolan would likely soften them to a certain extent, but I think they'll be there.
Saw this trailer yesterday and have to say I am looking forward to this. terminator salvation, transformers 2, star trek 11 and the new harry potter are 4 movies I am looking forward to that are out between may-july.
Thing is with Quantum of Solace, they were right. Absolutely right. In every way about our CIA, and the way in which our government acts when it comes to natural resources... Hell, how we treat our neighbors in our sphere of influence.
I have no problems with political overtones if there is something to them, but that may only be me.
How much it bothers me is determined by how much it actually belongs. The science vs religion debate in "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" belongs. The socio-political commentary in "Horton Hears a Who" belongs. The hints at the War on Terror in "V for Vendetta" did not belong. Warner Bros. wanted "Watchmen" to be updated to be about the War on Terror and Zack Snyder refused, as he should have. It does not belong. "Watchmen" has plenty of commentary on its own that does not need to be given a real-world update and "V for Vendetta" was the same.
When a movie is blatantly supposed to be popcorn flick entertainment they have no place. James Bond is not the place to lay out political commentary. If you want to give me political commentary make sure it isn't in a movie known for crazy gadgets and gizmos.
What purpose would political commentary have in a Terminator story that takes place in the future and already has a backstory, completely unrelated to anything we are actually doing today? None. So, if he is attempting to do it then it risks seeming forced.
And that is where the problem lies. You may be sitting there elbowing your buddy going, "Did you catch that slam at Bush? That was great," but it is screwing with the actual entertainment value of the film, particularly in a situation like Terminator.
If I show up to watch crap explode I do not want a pseudo-micro lecture on politics. I personally, don't give two flips about the politics of the writer, director, actors, or anyone else involved.
The thing with Bond movies has always had some kind of political context in some way, shape or form. The plot of Goldfinger was extremely relevant at the time, as the value of the US Dollar was extremely dependent on gold values, and whoever controlled the gold, controlled the global economy. As the European currencies stood up, they wanted their value back. It all worked out. Bond films have always done political contexts in an interesting way, but obviously, it also depended on the era that you prefer. In general, the Moore and Dalton years were generally more campy, and moved about in a way that was just focused on fast cars, beautiful women, and a bunch of explosions along the way. Frankly, I'm happy they've gone back to having the movies actually meaning something.
I agree that in the context of T:S, having an actual political context seems unreasonable due to the alternate time line, but I'm sure that if they wanted to weave some kind of lesson into the story, they're going to put one in. I believe Connor's point when saying that if we don't change our ways, there will be problems was alluding to the fact that Skynet is learning, and they will beat us to it. Nothing political, but realistic.
I was thinking about buying Quantum without having seen it. Now I'm reconsidering. If there's a bunch of Bush bashing and US foreign policy jabs then I don't want to purchase it without seeing it. If one of you could PM me with the details of the political jabs (without spoiling the movie), I'd appreciate it.
Saying the CIA supports politically corrupt regimes isn't Bush-bashing... merely an observation about the CIA itself in decades gone by.
I generally don't tend to think about the politics in a movie unless they slap me in the face with it... as in V for Vendetta (though the theme of fascism versus anarchy lent itself well to that change)... I'd say give it a chance first, damn it later if it needs to be damned.
I generally don't tend to think about the politics in a movie unless they slap me in the face with it... as in V for Vendetta (though the theme of fascism versus anarchy lent itself well to that change)... I'd say give it a chance first, damn it later if it needs to be damned.
V for Vendetta (film) still had the facism vs anarchy theme? Where was the anarchy? While I enjoyed the film, I agree with Moore that the changes dropped the anarchy in favor of making V a hero of Democratic Freedom in a battle against perceived Bush Facism.
Encouraging massive grassroots civil disobedience and blowing up parliament isn't anarchy?
I kind of understand what you mean... but personally, it feels like the big mistake was modifying the back-story and setting of the film to reflect our future, not, like you've said in the Watchmen thread, the alternate future depicted in the comic itself.
I was thinking about buying Quantum without having seen it. Now I'm reconsidering. If there's a bunch of Bush bashing and US foreign policy jabs then I don't want to purchase it without seeing it. If one of you could PM me with the details of the political jabs (without spoiling the movie), I'd appreciate it.
The script is awful ... and it's massively stereotyped (loud, brash American operative will get into bed with murdering evil squiffy-eyed tosspot for some oil).
So, Terminator. Its been a franchise that I have grown up with all of my life. I still regard Terminator 2 to be one of the greatest movies created in my lifetime. Now we have Terminator: Salvation, a quasi-sequel, quasi-reboot that is attempting to "Pull a J.J." on a withering franchise.
Arriving at the theater a half hour early, I had anticipated a crowd. I was completely wrong. Not only was the theater full of only a handfull of chaps and their rather uninterested girlfriends, that handful didn't grow past much more than a small helping of nerds. If this is the early anticipation for the movie, by comparison to Wolverine and Star Trek, things may not be too great for the Terminator.
So, getting into the actual "review," I'm going to do my best to avoid spoilers. Basically, if you know the franchise, you know the drill. In the future, Skynet becomes self aware, they attack humans, and the war against the machines begins. Things go boom, people die, humanity is on the brink of extinction. John Connor, the son of Sarah Connor, is the leader of the resistance, to which the cyclical nature of the franchise is based. The machines go back in time to kill Sarah Connor, humans and other Terminators go back to protect the Connors.
Compared to T1-3, this has a very different feeling to the future. Its a bit more realistic, certainly a bit more dystopian than I recall by comparison to previous visions of the future. Basically, we're screwed. The resistance is lead by a group of thinly networked humans, spread out across the globe, fighting their own pockets of Skynet domination. To some extent, do you feel the sense of despair among the humans, but then it ends. Abruptly.
I've read some pretty negative things about the movie. To some extent I agree with them. To be honest, I'm really torn about how I feel in general. On the one hand, this was not anywhere near as good as it should have been. Based on the trailers, the news, the clips... Everything seemed absolutely "right" with the new movie, and the franchise's future in general. On the other, I see how this is a starting point for a three-movie arc that has the potential of being totally epic. The thing is, I didn't care for any of the characters, outside of Kyle Reese. Yeah, Bale works as John Connor I suppose, but he was more "there" than anything else. Markus Right was an interesting new whateverheis, but I end up not caring that much once again.
Truth Time:
Someone at Warner Brothers needs to sort out the time lines of Terminator. Its really becoming a problem in this one, specifically with how Skynet knows what it knows, where Cyberdine Systems comes in, and how things got so messed up in the future. Did the television show really mess up the franchise that much? Or am I supposed to forgive everything because its a re-boot?
Truth is, I like the realistic dystopianism that is depicted in this movie. I like seeing how mankind is reduced to hiding in a submarine, or an old nuclear missile silo. I like how we're just a bunch of ragtag Russian, Chinese, Middle-Eastern, American Human fighters against an almost impossible enemy. But if McG is going to insist on trying to have us care about a swath of characters when it should be only about the Connors and Reese, this isn't going to work.
Spoiler Talk:
Mkay, time for some odd points that may not make any sense...
So, Cyberdine Systems wasn't destroyed after T2? They were allowed to keep their robotics division, and a genetics division? Okay, yeah I see that they got bought out by the USAF, and consequently that all got gobbled-up by Skynet, but really?
Where exactly does the time travel portion of all of this come in? I've yet to figure out how Skynet knows about Kyle Reese and John Connor when in theory none of the actual "war" had happened yet. Furthermore, who exactly is coming up with the time travel thing? Most of Skynet was destroyed, at least in San Francisco anyway (no word on what happens globally), so what exactly develops the time machine? How are the humans going to get it to send Reese back and create the current time line they're already on?
The problem I have with this movie is that it doesn't answer questions. All it really does is complicate current ones, and create more. That is a big problem for people who are already committed to the rather "solid" nature of T1 and T2. While I understand that they want to make an entirely new franchise off of this movie, it just seems more destructive than an actual opportunity to create something entirely new. There is a lot of potential, particularly with the Kyle Reese character... But that's about it.
Thinking about the leaked ideas for the next Terminator, my mind has been completely blown out attempting to rationalize it. If Skynet is desperate and is sending machines back to our time (ie 2009) to disrupt the timeline...
*KABOOM!!!!!*
Something that kept bothering me while watching the movie too... Was that a Soviet emblem on the Russian guy's hat?
So, I think there is a fairly good chance that this is going to be a love-hate movie, just like Wolverine. The thing is, both films have a similar problem. They're coming off terrible sequels, attempting to introduce new life into a franchise. While Wolverine may have suffered from poor special effects and fan service to the point it became sickening, Terminator becomes the opposite - Amazing special effects and overall camera work that is beaten down by an attempt to create something new and heartfelt... That comes off almost machine-like.
Maybe the promise was too good. I'm not as mad about it as I was for Wolverine, because I think there is something there, but I'm not happy. Not much at all.
Scores:
Special Effects: A- (Great work by ILM and Stan Winston Studios)
Cinematography: B+ (Nice touches, interesting takes)
Writing: D (Not where it should have been, at all)
Acting: D (With the exception of Reese and the "surprise" character, yeah)
Special Score: B- (For potential to make something cool)
Overall Score: C
Its worth seeing if you feel like it, but I'd recommend Star Trek over it in case you haven't hit that previously. Or Brother's Bloom. I hear that's good.
