New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Terminator 4 - Page 2

post #31 of 346
4/10/06 at 2:20pm
Quote:
For example, look at the Clone Wars. They were much cooler as just a mysterious, throwaway line in the original Star Wars.
I'm pretty sure that's an opinion.
Reply
post #32 of 346
4/10/06 at 4:09pm
Quote:
I'm pretty sure that's an opinion.

It is. (Here's the giveaway: It's on a message board.)

But it's one I think most would tend to agree with- provided it was presented more objectively. In other words, leaving things to the imagination is often more effective than simply being told what to think.
Reply
post #33 of 346
4/11/06 at 2:55am
Many of you may not think Arnold is needed for T-4, but do you honestly think the studio heads are going to try and sell a Terminator film without him. Afterall they already lost Linda Hamilton.
Reply
post #34 of 346
4/11/06 at 1:05pm
One too many $1000 dinner plates and cigars may have caught up with Arnie:

Reply
post #35 of 346
4/11/06 at 1:11pm
^^There's something seriously wrong with that T-800, I hope that Skynet kept the reciept.

The Arnold we knew is most definitely no more.

I never said that the studio's would allow an Arnold-less Terminator film, of course they wouldn't, I just said that as far as this story line goes, he might not be necessary.
Reply
post #36 of 346
4/11/06 at 1:44pm
Wasn't he more or less in around the same flabby shape before T3 started filming and he bulked up using a strict diet and exercise routine? I thought I remember him talking about how he bulked up past his T2 jacket. He may look flabby now but there's nothing he can't shed if the part requires it.
Reply
post #37 of 346
4/11/06 at 4:21pm
Yes, he did get himself back to his T2 weight and relative shape for T3, however there comes a point where time takes it's toll on the body and he may not be able to pull that off again, at least not convincingly enough to play the Terminator again. Also, it's not just his body, his face is also starting to sag and change.

There's always CGI enhancment I guess, if they can make me believe i'm watching a 25' Gorilla, i'm sure they could help Arnold out a little.

I guess it's time to face it, the unstoppable Arnold Shcwarzenegger that we all grew up with in kick-ass action films is getting old.
Reply
post #38 of 346
4/11/06 at 4:31pm
Quote:
One too many $1000 dinner plates and cigars may have caught up with Arnie:
I thought that was a pre-T3 picture.
Reply
post #39 of 346
4/11/06 at 7:58pm
That was a pre T-3 picture, I believe less than a year after the surgery for that heart valve (I think). Going off memory here, which is probably better than yours. j/k

Doug
Reply
post #40 of 346
4/12/06 at 5:29am
We need to accept some of the facts of life. And know when to abstain.

No Terminator movie without Arnie.
No Back to the Future movie without Michael J. Fox.
No Star Wars movie without George Lucas.
No Indiana Jones movie without Harrison Ford.
No James Bond movie without Sean Connery.

Period.

Right?


Cees
Reply
post #41 of 346
4/12/06 at 9:31am
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.
Reply
post #42 of 346
4/12/06 at 9:49am
Brett,

Agreed.


Cees
Reply
post #43 of 346
4/12/06 at 12:09pm
Quote:
We need to accept some of the facts of life. And know when to abstain.


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!)
Reply
post #44 of 346
4/12/06 at 12:30pm
Quote:
No Terminator movie without Arnie.

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.
Reply
post #45 of 346
4/12/06 at 2:02pm
Quote:
When people make that sort of statement, I just have to ask them the simple question...why not?

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.
Reply
post #46 of 346
4/12/06 at 3:15pm
Quote:
I just have to ask them the simple question...why not?
If people ask me that, I just give the simple answer: Why?


Cees
Reply
post #47 of 346
4/12/06 at 3:28pm
Quote:
No Terminator movie without Arnie.


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.
Reply
post #48 of 346
4/12/06 at 3:29pm
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.
Reply
post #49 of 346
4/12/06 at 3:31pm
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!"
Reply
post #50 of 346
4/12/06 at 4:58pm
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
Reply
post #51 of 346
4/12/06 at 5:10pm
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
Reply
post #52 of 346
4/12/06 at 7:11pm
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?
Reply
post #53 of 346
4/13/06 at 10:20am
Quote:
And if those characteristics are missing: why consider it a sequel to that particular movie?

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?
Reply
post #54 of 346
4/13/06 at 10:32am
Quote:
I have another question, can Arnold even be in a movie if he's Governor?

I don't think there's any rule that says he can't (didn't he film something for that Tom Arnold film?), it would just be something that opponents could use against him. He'll be out of office this year, though, and has very little chances of being re-elected.

Quote:
some of us believe that the universe of the Terminator movies has transcended the star power of any one man

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.
Reply
post #55 of 346
4/13/06 at 3:47pm
Actually, if Arnold returns to acting...I would prefer a sequel to True Lies.
Reply
post #56 of 346
4/14/06 at 4:53am
A couple of handfuls of steroids and Arnold will be back on track. This guy knows how to get in shape!
Reply
post #57 of 346
4/14/06 at 4:12pm
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.
Reply
post #58 of 346
7/27/06 at 7:40am

Re: Terminator 4

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.
Reply
post #59 of 346
7/27/06 at 8:30am

Re: Terminator 4

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.
Reply
post #60 of 346
7/27/06 at 9:11am

Re: Terminator 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeman
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.


That would be amazing.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)