Next up... Terminator: Salvation, May 21 2009

@Lightwizard,

Lightwizard wrote:

Surely this one can't be as mis-directed as T III, which started off hopefully but kept getting sillier and sillier in trying to bring the mythos up to the birth of Skynet. Ahnold was obviously between face lifts and came off as the most cartoonish character in the cast.

I always felt that T3 was just an excuse to introduce a Terminator with tits and to smash a lot of stuff.

1 Reply

LW, is there any indication in the movie industry that the cost of production will go down such that more independent films can be produced with decent visual effects and quality filming?

For years I've been hoping that lower cost cameras and better graphic processing power would result in movies being produced at much lower cost, but with decent production quality, so that the stories could start to command more of the attention of the film rather than the high priced actors and special effects. But it doesn't seem to be happening. Why is that?

I thought the Internet might also help with distribution, maybe with an iTunes type of pricing policy. Might we start to see small independent feature films or TV-style series, produced for iTunes style distribution?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Robots taking over the world by revolting against humans (and sometimes other robots) is in a lot of vintage sci-fi but goes back to when the word was invented in Karl Capek's 1920 stage play "R.U.R.," the initials standing for Rossum’s Universal Robots. The word is based on the Czech word for "laborer." It's been produced on stage since by replacing the mechanical robot with a genetically engineered humanoid (!).

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

I rather doubt that anything produced wouldn't be multi-media, even if excepting a theatrical release. HDNet Movies often shows independent films one showing for free along with Pay-Per-View before a theatrical release of the film. There are several sites online which show low cost independent films, but they are short and you can download them now. I haven't actually checked all those sites recently. Google should have all the hits available for "Internet only films".

0 Replies

Several months ago I found a web site which was "showing" some short 30minute sci-fi programs which had been produced for the web (if I remember correctly). I'll try to find it again. They were pretty decent little shows.

I think I originally found it on iTunes as a Video PodCast, but they had already started an independent web site for showing them.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Probably the best one on the Web and it's also a cable channel is IFC: Independent Film Channel. Their short film competition is here:

http://www.ifc.com/media-lab/

or

http://www.ifc.com/media-lab/littlebigplanet/winners.php

0 Replies

Then, there's Crackle:
http://crackle.com/c/Sci-Fi_Short_Films

1 Reply

On a humorous note: Cracked.com's 5 Reasons The Terminator Franchise Makes No Goddamn Sense. Some choice excerpts:

Quote:

5. Daddy Issues and Paradoxes
As it turns out, when Michael Biehn and Linda Hamilton sleep together, they conceive John Connor. And, as we learn in Terminator 2: Judgment Day, when the Terminator is destroyed in the first film, the microchip in its skull survives, falls into the hands of computer company Cyberdyne Systems, and allows for the creation of Skynet in the first place.

Therefore, the only reason either John Connor or the machines exist is because the Terminator went back in time, and the only reason the Terminator went back in time is because the machines and John Connor exist. Get it?

4. If At First You Don't Succeed...
Can't Skynet just keep on trying until it gets John Connor?

We highly doubt that the time machine has an "only three assassination attempts per user" rule. And anyway, why do they keep on trying to attack John Connor at different periods in his existence anyway? Couldn't they send the T-X back to the 80s to deal with Linda Hamilton again?

Or even earlier? After all, why lose the element of surprise by traveling to a time when the targets know what they're up against? It'd make a lot more sense to send the Terminators to earlier in the character's lives, when they were still oblivious to the threat. Get Sarah Connor as an infant, damnit. Hell, even if it was just one day earlier than the first movie, it would still make all the difference in the world.

Honestly, who programmed this ****?

3. Breaking the Law (Their Own)
First, the emotion thing. This one seems pretty easy to nail down, right (they're ******* robots)? And it's stated right in the second movie when Arnold says, "I know now why you cry, but it's something I can never do" (though some students of the franchise speculate that was just Schwarzenegger thinking out loud on the set and the microphone happened to be on).

So why then, at the end of that very film, does the T-1000 who give us the world's greatest "oh ****" face just moments before his destruction

1 Reply

@Shapeless,

Thanks -- I used the link and read the second and first grounds for revoking an artistic license of the Terminator producers, writers and directors. I love it when they tried to fit III into the time line mythology but when they got to the Sarah Conner Chronicles, I cracked up (well, that's what the site is for, right?). Still, despite the time warp follies, T III came out smelling the worst even though the truck chase rivaled Matrix II. I didn't hate III and enjoyed watching it but unlike I & II, it's not really worth watching again. I know 'cause I tried.

I'd almost forgot about Cracked.com and surfed around some of their other lists lists of freaky film foibles - very entertaining (ewww -- that slice and dice scene from "Cube.') But, America's Only Humor and Video Site, Since 1958? I know, they are joking. Unless they are referring to the site of the building they are occupying.

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Lightwizard wrote:

Then, there's Crackle:
http://crackle.com/c/Sci-Fi_Short_Films

Pretty good. Thanks.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Not so good for Terminator Salvation -- it's getting creamed by the film critics so far and a series that didn't make it past the second season (in fact drew half the viewers of the first season) doesn't seem to give much hope for a fan base to save it. From what I'm reading, like A. O. Scott in the NY Times, it's all actions and explosions and little characterization and plot. Sci-fi in the printed word has always taken the spears and arrows for lack of three-dimensional characters but the problem here is going to be there doesn't seem to be a real story to tell (the first thing a relatively new director and script writer is afraid of is the responsibility of good storytelling). Sci-fi was always written for the story of an imaginative future, mixing exciting extrapolations with the human condition, expounding on how we deal with new technology. There has often been mystery and suspense in the character motivation. This is looking like it is what this team has foisted on its audience before -- a stripped down action flick with loads of CGI on the time honored theme of man vs. machine. So maybe even Batman can't save the day this time. The hope for intelligent sci-fi on the screen is remaining woefully barren with a great film maybe once or twice in a decade.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/terminator_salvation/?critic=creamcrop

SCC is not on FOX's schedule for the fall so it's officially axed.

2 Replies

@Lightwizard,

A. O. Scott's review is far from glowing (as usual), but I was actually surprised that his review was less critical than most reviews I've seen, which have been pretty uniformly scathing. Scott actually commends the movie for a few things, anyway.

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Lightwizard wrote:

The hope for intelligent sci-fi on the screen is remaining woefully barren with a great film maybe once or twice in a decade.

I agree. The special effects and weird creatures are great to watch, but they should be IN ADDITION TO a great story with interesting ideas, not INSTEAD OF great ideas.

Lightwizard wrote:

SCC is not on FOX's schedule for the fall so it's officially axed.

Bummer. Maybe if they had used the writing team from SCC to write TS things would have turned out differently.

I'll probably see TS over the weekend.

Might have to pin my hopes for a real sci-fi thriller on Transformers Smile

(fingers crossed).

0 Replies

Here are some comments from McG from an CNN article:

Quote:

McG (born Joseph McGinty Nichol, though known by his nickname since childhood) said if he was going to take on another sequel in the internationally successful "Terminator" franchise, then he had better have a good reason to do it.

"Action for action's sake just becomes noisy. You've got to have great characters. You've got to have a great story," he said. "We wanted it to be very compelling and we did it in a way that is great."

It's funny that he "talks" a good show about having a great story, but so many critics don't seem to agree that they did it. It's possible that the "critics" just don't get it, which happens so often in sci-fi films. I'll find out for myself this weekend Smile

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

The top critics are, as far as I'm concerned, very rarely wrong if they obviously reach a consensus that the film is bad and I very rarely disagree. Even if you love sci-fi and have read most of the classics in the genre, most of the offerings on the big screen and TV always seem to leave a lot to be desired. Oh, the writers can dumb it down to an extent but when they go so far as to underestimate their audience, they do a disservice to sci-fi and the fans. Ever notice how posters just have to take a pot shot at "2001: A Space Odyssey" and at the same time claim they "get it?" No they don't. They're incapable to thinking beyond the film and many film critics did just that, and again with "Blade Runner" which opened to mixed reviews and low ratings in a few movie guide books. Critics turned a complete turnaround on both movies and from re-release, cable showings and DVD sales, both have made enviable amounts of money. Sci-fi doesn't deserve disposable entertainment treatments and, interestingly so, those films get mediocre box office.

As far as SCC, I think they writers, directors and consequently the actors fumbled the ball at the outset in the second season and quite simply lost half the audience. A big problem was as I've written before -- to much repetition and too much dwelling on some tired sub-plots. They finally created so many loose ends, they dropped everything but what was in the last few episodes. They were trying to run for a touchdown but the goal post had started to move farther and farther away. They started to get carried away with the flash forwards trying to tie in characters, and then they wrote the final episode obviously knowing it was the last and effectively hooked up with the TS movie. They're all milking the time travel concept until the cow has run dry.

3 Replies

@Lightwizard,

i saw it like 12 hours ago.

it was cool..

but right from the start when he rappels down into the hole hes like "CONNOR!" and there is silence , rather bat man ish

and then the heart thing, i saw that from a mile away.

not enough action for me, i like combat/fire fights/chases and they were there, just seemed a little stagnant.

and the terminators seemed slow, and arnold had his 30 seconds of screen time lolz

0 Replies

I saw the teaser trailer to the new Peter Jackson produced "District 9" on the HDNet preview show but it was with the alien face pixel erased. Here it is from a couple of days ago and, of course, can be viewed full screen:

http://screenrant.com/district-9-trailer-uncensored-rob-7657/

I believe this is Neil Blomkamp's first major full length film but Peter Jackson has a history of not making mistakes in what projects he wants to make for the big screen.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0088955/

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

I'm sure the writers strike didn't help SCC any.

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Lightwizard wrote:

The top critics are, as far as I'm concerned, very rarely wrong if they obviously reach a consensus that the film is bad and I very rarely disagree.

I think I disagree with that. In my experience, many "mainstream" critics "don't get" sci-fi and tent to give it worse reviews than I generally agree with. But this may have something to do with the relative value I place on particular aspects of the movies. I tend to like creative "ideas" in the sci-fi plot, situational drama, and interesting creatures and environments, more than I appreciate cinematography and nuance and acting. But that's just me.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

That's interesting -- what sci-fi movies would you point out in particular that had poor critical response and you like them, or thwarted the critics and were box office successes and you like them? I can only think of "Blade Runner," and that's one of the biggest turn-arounds of critical opinion in film history (it was 1-2/2 stars in the Leonard Maltin review book for many years). Some critics even apologized for panning the film (they were right to an extent with the narration and the tacked-on happy ending, but the reviews were overkill) and it did poorly at the box office (making up for it in its incarnations of new cuts including the last "final" cut which even reshot some scenes). Which critics are biased today toward sci-fi movies (they haven't done their homework if they are in today's major periodicals and should be discounted)? Then again, which film critics are biased towards sci-fi films? The overall critical response to TS is almost identical to the Top Critics. Today, it's more bad news as it has dropped to 33% and 34%:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/terminator_salvation/?critic=creamcrop

1 Reply

Next up... Terminator: Salvation, May 21 2009

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know