Rumor: Terminator Franchise Could Get a Star Trek-Style Reboot
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
He did credit him, but he DID also unceremoniously rip him off, and the only reason he ended up crediting Ellison on further releases was because Ellison had proof that Cameron had ripped him off and they settled out of court. It's all here in this interview with Ellison:NickCaligo42 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwyyJ3D3g1E
Yeah, got it from the other guy. My mistake.Ensiferum said:
*grabs a spear primed for Cameron's head*
[/quote]
technically, since the terminator is about time travel and what not, not sure if they are "sh*t"ing on it, so much as just saying, oh well, instead of what originally happened, they just time traveled again and it changed a little.[/quote]
But the Terminator movies should have ended after the second one. It had a good conclusion about the future being capable of being changed, and the man who made Skynet destroys his work and then himself to stop it happening.
Then the third and fourth movies take a dump all over that message, by going 'No, actually, the future can't change' and coming up with increasingly convoluted time travel excuses to keep making the movies.
And now they're just rebooting the whole thing. Because they're creatively bankrupt.[/quote]
i have to disagree, reboots arn't always a bad thing. Look at the star trek reboot, or batman begins/the dark knight. It could be just what is needed for the franchise to grow again, too early to bash it, give it time to develop, as long as uwe bole and Micheal Bay stay away from it, i say give it a chance!
I mean really, they still casting, haven't started shooting, too early to assume it will suck.
technically, since the terminator is about time travel and what not, not sure if they are "sh*t"ing on it, so much as just saying, oh well, instead of what originally happened, they just time traveled again and it changed a little.[/quote]
But the Terminator movies should have ended after the second one. It had a good conclusion about the future being capable of being changed, and the man who made Skynet destroys his work and then himself to stop it happening.
Then the third and fourth movies take a dump all over that message, by going 'No, actually, the future can't change' and coming up with increasingly convoluted time travel excuses to keep making the movies.
And now they're just rebooting the whole thing. Because they're creatively bankrupt.[/quote]
i have to disagree, reboots arn't always a bad thing. Look at the star trek reboot, or batman begins/the dark knight. It could be just what is needed for the franchise to grow again, too early to bash it, give it time to develop, as long as uwe bole and Micheal Bay stay away from it, i say give it a chance!
I mean really, they still casting, haven't started shooting, too early to assume it will suck.
Oh, wow. Paul Walker? I think I just threw up in my mind a little.
Do we have another writers' strike going on or something? Or is it just remake season? Between this, Fright Night, and Teen Wolf, I feel like I've become unstuck in time, except everything looks crappier than I remember.
Besides, if any incarnation of Terminator could use a remake, it's Bethesda's old first-person sandbox game.
Do we have another writers' strike going on or something? Or is it just remake season? Between this, Fright Night, and Teen Wolf, I feel like I've become unstuck in time, except everything looks crappier than I remember.
Besides, if any incarnation of Terminator could use a remake, it's Bethesda's old first-person sandbox game.
it's true that the last 2 movies should never have been made, and everyone responsible for production should have been burned in a pyre, but Rebooting from number 1 is a huge mistake. No one will take it seriously, any actor other then Schwarz~ just won't fit, and I mean the Arnold from 20 years ago. Now he's just an aging weird over sexed senator.
Maybe a reboot starting at the third would be good, they did need to fix up some time travel continuity issues, like the whole war and terminators being made if there was no cyberdyne. But hell no one will listen to me and they'll have their reboot, that will be shite, and somehow it will still make money.
Maybe a reboot starting at the third would be good, they did need to fix up some time travel continuity issues, like the whole war and terminators being made if there was no cyberdyne. But hell no one will listen to me and they'll have their reboot, that will be shite, and somehow it will still make money.
True, that is the message the first movie sent. Though, the war had to happen, simply because John Connor was born, or it all should have disappeared at the end of T2 with her working at that diner in the 80's and not hearing about Sarah Connor's death. Reason being is because Reese was sent back in a time machine created by the machines. No machines = no time machine = no Reese being sent back to impregnate Sarah = No John. So since John was born, the war happened. How crappy would that make you feel. "Because I was born, 90% of human life will die."Mantonio said:
T3 wan't a terrible movie, it just wasn't T2.
I'm not going to immediately assume that this is going to suck until I see confirmed names for writer, director, and producer. The source material actually provides a ton of flexibility for this sort of 'twist', so it's not immediate a 'WTF?' moment like the Star Trek reboot caused (at least for me).
As for how they justified T3 and Salvation, in the books (which weren't bad at all) they explain that the time-stream is like a river, and while there could be subtle changes, rather than being able to change major events in history, Time has a tendency to return to the 'original path'. The example used was Hitler and the Holocaust: even if someone went back in time to assassinate Hitler, some other crazy asshole would've caused the rise of Nazi Germany and the subsequent horrific events.
As for how they justified T3 and Salvation, in the books (which weren't bad at all) they explain that the time-stream is like a river, and while there could be subtle changes, rather than being able to change major events in history, Time has a tendency to return to the 'original path'. The example used was Hitler and the Holocaust: even if someone went back in time to assassinate Hitler, some other crazy asshole would've caused the rise of Nazi Germany and the subsequent horrific events.
Has the story even been finished? What happened to 'destroy the evil computer and then save man-kind' part?
they should AT LEAST focus on that before they decide to take a giant crap in the river
they should AT LEAST focus on that before they decide to take a giant crap in the river
Yeah that sounds like an awesome Terminator movie. Paul Walker and very little Arnold. Just make this. Just do it and shit on a great series.Logan Westbrook said:
I actually don't mind this. Terminator Salvation was just so "eehhhh..." the whole way through. It just felt like the story was going to go no where. A reboot maybe in order, so we can get a Terminator film that is actually about the TERMINATORS.
Ending it on such a massive cliffhanger is tantamount to crimes against humanity in my book.JediMB said:
Star Trek-style reboot?
So the terminator will be so shiny he'll cast retina-searing lens flares. And it'll be played by Zac Efron. He already looks like he had artificial skin grafted to him, so its a good match.
So the terminator will be so shiny he'll cast retina-searing lens flares. And it'll be played by Zac Efron. He already looks like he had artificial skin grafted to him, so its a good match.
So, they're going to make the new Terminator like the new Star Trek.
Does that mean they're going to dumb it down, strip away all the things that made it the Terminator and insult/alienate all the original fans at every turn in a desperate attempt to attract the "cool" people? Because 1) Terminator doesn't really have a whole lot to dumb down and 2) the "cool" people already make up at least 60% of Terminator's fanbase.
Does that mean they're going to dumb it down, strip away all the things that made it the Terminator and insult/alienate all the original fans at every turn in a desperate attempt to attract the "cool" people? Because 1) Terminator doesn't really have a whole lot to dumb down and 2) the "cool" people already make up at least 60% of Terminator's fanbase.
I would not see it any way. Arnold is the same person who is responsible for that terrible anti video game law that the supreme court is still deciding on. Why would I support him?