Terminator 4

[Ranger1]

The first Terminator was (still is) a classic.
T2 is a master piece.
T3 was ok, nothing compared with the first two, but still damn good.

T4 will be out in 2006, do you think Arnold Schwarzenegger will be in it?

The way i see it, T4 can do well without Arnold (if you take the timeline of the beginning of the war, Model 101 wasn't around).

But hell, having Arnold as the Terminator is always a bonus.

PLEASE: no politics

[Shr'eshhhhhh]

I think the set up that, Arnie will kill Des O'Conner (erm.. John Conner) makes a return of dark side of the Swartz inevitable somewhere down the line. But the Governer maybe too busy at the moment.

[AaronB]

I think the set up that, Arnie will kill Des O'Conner (erm.. John Conner) makes a return of dark side of the Swartz inevitable somewhere down the line. But the Governer maybe too busy at the moment.

I'm not a fan of the Terminator series, but what about recasting the role with Dewaye "The Rock" Johnston?

[Shr'eshhhhhh]

Well he certainly has the charisma to play a mindless killing machine.

[AaronB]

Well he certainly has the charisma to play a mindless killing machine.

I don't know if that was sarcasem or not but he is quite a charismatic person both on screen, in the wrestling ring and off screen.

[Ranger1]

NO no no no, you can't, as much as i don't like Arnold acting (and i really dont care about his political issues), he IS the Terminator.

[Shr'eshhhhhh]

I'd like to see one of the earlier crappy rubberised terminators Kyle Reese spoke of in the first film.

[Ranger1]

Yeah that would be awesome, a rubber like Terminator who really doesn't look like a human.

[The Puzzled Pak'Ma'Ra]

... Yeah, we pretty much know the story well enough AFTER T1. It'd be great to see the "Rise of the Machines" !

... I don't think Arnold could survive, politically, starring in another Terminator film. Aren't there some rules against civil servants moonlighting? I know cops can't. . .

[Ranger1]

I think his role as a Governer is up soon.... not sure.

[rallytbk]

The first Terminator was (still is) a classic.
T2 is a masterpiece.
T3 was ok, nothing compared with the first two, but still damn good.

T4 will be out in 2006; do you think Arnold Schwarzenegger will be in it?

The way I see it, T4 can do well without Arnold (if you take the timeline of the beginning of the war, Model 101 wasn't around).

But hell, having Arnold, as the Terminator is always a bonus.

PLEASE: no politics

Classic time travel, circle paradox.

Terminator: Point of view from the narrator (John Conner in the future 2029)à Events already have happened, viewers shown events taking its course.

IMHO: Great story, great back-story, good effects (for 1984).

Terminator 2: Consistency kept, well written with the original concept in mindà Events already have happened, viewers shown events taking its course. Some flaws, exaggerated, but believable.

IMHO: Good story, good back-story, great effects (for 1991)

Terminator 3: Consistency lost, written horribly without the original concept in mindà Events made no sense, and no reason for a less advance female Terminatrix, viewers shown events taking its course. Major flaws, unbelievable and extremely exaggerated.

IMHO: Bad story, bad back-story, good effects (for 2003)

Terminator 4: ??? Lost faith in consistency of storyline, lost faith in preserving the original concept, lost faith in characters. DonÆt care anymore.

IMHO: Avoid spoilers, avoid new movieà No money spent for another disappointment.

[cornholio1980]

Terminator 3: Consistency lost, written horribly without the original concept in mindà Events made no sense, and no reason for a less advance female Terminatrix, viewers shown events taking its course. Major flaws, unbelievable and extremely exaggerated.

IMHO: Bad story, bad back-story, good effects (for 2003)

I completely agree with you. I never understood what was so great about T3 - even what some people found enjoyable. It really makes no sense at all, and totally destroys the message (and the wonderful ending) of T2. Very disappointing - especially since I really think that another really good sequel would have been possible. But obviously they were too busy coming up with "cool" action scenes and totally forgot to care about a story, as long as they got a (lame) twist ending.

What a terrible waste of great potential...

[Shr'eshhhhhh]

I disagree entirely. Terminator 1 was brilliant, it didn't need a sequel, the ending with the storm clouds in the distance and Sarah driving off was chilling.

The second one was a terrible let down. (it had some thrilling set pieces to be sure) but the awful monologue and the inconsistant ending (surely after the last chip was destroyed John should have winked out of existance and Sarah should be back working at the diner) and Arnie's teeth erodingly sugary schmaltzeneger performance really flipped my tofu burger.

T3 though not Shakespeare, at least returned to the bleakness of the original.

[villarestall]

just did a bit of digging around and it seems to me its all a bit of rumour and speculation with regard to the future of T4.... I reckon that's probably a good thing too, since sometimes sequels are just disappointing....

Mind you, I was reading "aliens vs Predator vs Terminator" during my morning constitutional today, and I got to thinking.....

ttfn.....

[Ranger1]

T3 though not Shakespeare, at least returned to the bleakness of the original.

Totally agree with ya, T3 is so pessimistic, you can't avoid your future, nooooooooooo

I don't agree with ya on T2, IMHO its the best Terminator movie, but hey, i respect your opinion.