Terminator 4 (1 Viewer)

[BrettGallman]

I agree on all but the last one. A few of the post-Connery Bond films are good.

Also, I would add that a Back to the Future sequel should not be made without Christopher Lloyd as well.

 

[Cees Alons]

Brett,

Agreed.


Cees

 

[James@R]

Technically, you could still make sequels to some of those (not the Lucasfilm properties), but the results would not be anywhere near the originals. Instead, they would primarily appeal to whatever kids they turned on to the respective franchises.

But I agree with you that there comes a point where fans just have to let go. The internet has really kept hope alive for far too many franchises. :b

(Btw, I would also add "No Dirty Harry without Clint Eastwood" to that list!)

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

When people make that sort of statement, I just have to ask them the simple question...why not?

Saying that is just a knee jerk reaction simply because your used to seeing a Terminator film with him in it, it's not taking into serious consideration what the new film wants to do and what kind of story it's telling.

If the new film is set during the war and we never see a "skinned" Endoskeleton, that would mean no need for Arnold, wanting him in the film simply "because he's Arnold and he's the Terminator" isn't a good reason to include him in the story if he isn't required.

But, this all just blowing smoke anyway, because as was said the studio wouldn't dare make one without him.

 

[James@R]

They could easily make it without Arnold, it just wouldn't reach the same kind of wide audience. Even though there's plenty of potential stories out there, Arnold is too heavily identified with the series, having headlined all three films.

And once you start getting into part 4 or part 5, the public starts getting more reluctant to fork over their money- especially if the original stars are no longer signing on for them.

 

[Cees Alons]

If people ask me that, I just give the simple answer: Why?


Cees

 

[Brett_B]

My personal opinion to this (and this topic as well - T4) is:

No Terminator movie without James Cameron. Kind of the same thinking when it is said that "No Star Wars without George Lucas". I would definitely put Terminator in that bracket (it was Cameron's story to which someone else took the reigns, and tried to put their own spin to it).


I held out hope that without Cameron for T3, that it still may turn out decent (to me). Now, no matter how hard I try, I can't forget about that one and I am really trying.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I asked you first, Cees.

Seriously, other than the obvious reason that Arnold was in all three films so far, can you give me a good reason as to why he should be in the next film if the script doesn't call for him?

If the script is tight and the filmmakers do their job and deliver a solid and exciting end result, I wouldn't miss Arnold to be honest, but that's just me.

 

[George_W_K]

Hey, you can't answer a question with a question!

I would see a Terminator movie without Arnold in it. Then the Terminators could be more threatening again. Machines with one purpose, kill us all. I liked T1's Arnold the best. "Your clothes, give them to me." "F-you, a-hole!" Hand through stomache!

Or the classic..."You got a dead cat in there, or what?"
Searches database for responses... "F-you, a-hole!"

 

[Cees Alons]

The point is: what defines an acceptable sequel. And why would you want a sequel (to any price?) without certain characteristics? And if those characteristics are missing: why consider it a sequel to that particular movie?

For me, certain films cannot have a sequel I enjoy, if some of the same actors weren't in it (see above, and I agree with Christopher Lloyd and Clint Eastwood).
The same way, I wouldn't consider it a sequel if certain other typical and essential (to me) characteristics of the first movie were missing.


Cees

 

[Holadem]

Yet, some of us believe that the universe of the Terminator movies has transcended the star power of any one man, seminal as he is to said universe. The full potential of that world has yet to be realised for us SF geeks.

That's why a sequel without the Governor is OK in my book. I would approach such a project with guarded optimism.

I enjoyed T3 more than most.

--
H

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I have another question, can Arnold even be in a movie if he's Governor? It seems to me that he has bigger fish to fry in his duties to CA than starring in a movie.

Is that sort of thing even allowed?

 

[James@R]

This is even truer of remakes. If the film really has nothing to do with the originals, why not just develop it into an original property?

For example, look at Walking Tall. If you're going to change the main character, why is it still part of the series? Why keep the title when the target audience (ie. teens) likely doesn't even remember the original films?

 

[James@R]

It's not that the film's universe is dependent upon Arnold, just the box office. Studios aren't going to make a $200 million dollar film unless they know mainstream audiences will join the geeks. They know Joe Public will show up to see a Star Wars, but he probably wouldn't go see a terminator film without Arnold. He doesn't really care about the intricacies of Cyberdyne or whatever it was called in T3- he just wants to see more of the same.

 

[Robert Floto]

Actually, if Arnold returns to acting...I would prefer a sequel to True Lies.

 

[Berk]

A couple of handfuls of steroids and Arnold will be back on track. This guy knows how to get in shape!

 

[Jan H]

I'd prefer to see Arnold return to film (the sooner the better, for we Californians) as the aging King Conan. He could lead an army of Cimmerians in putting down an unholy alliance of Hyborian-age teachers and nurses called the Union of the Snake, led by Simon LeBon, as Thulsa Doom's bastard child.

 

[Chris Atkins]

I always thought a fun scene in T4 would be a scene where the machines keep sending terminators back in time, but John Conner never disappears, dies, etc.

 

[Neil Joseph]

I think T4 sould start off with a closeup on one of the nuclear warheads going off on some city then panning out to see the destruction as a sort of flashback from the future before actually following the story of John Conner who might be in his 20's. It would be nice if there was a fresh new way to film that beginning sequence the likes of which have never been seen before.... kind of like how they developed bullet time in the Matrix.

 

[William Goodspeed]

That would be amazing.