hahah! "acting his little cheekbones off"sheilaghJuly 11 2009, 06:56:06 UTC
You write well, sir. I may still see this movie, but I'll be innoculated, enjoying it from a movie deconstructionist point of view, instead of thrashing around, sad that a great original story (Terminator) and a decent follow up (The Sarah Connor Chronicles) aren't met, as far as standards, in this one.
If you're into the Sarah Connor Chronicles, the forums back in season 1 had raelly thoughtful discussion about the complexities of timelines that might loop back and snap themselves, among other actually coherent discussions. I suspect the same level of discourse occured during season 2, but I haven't kept up.
Thanks for posting this, it was an interesting read!
It's not too hard to spot this "creativity void" phenomenon, but I really like the way you've laid it bare and explained all your arguments in depth.
I think there's kind of a related thing where stories will completely revolve around the central character(s), with no outside elements to give any sense of a wider world. Unless the characters are exceptionally fascinating and compelling, you just end up with this pointless bubble of nothingness. It happens especially in dumb sequels to action movies that were never too smart in the first place.
Both of the Charlie's Angels movies are good examples (and hey, it's McG again). In the first one, the villain is an old enemy of Charlie's whose big secret plan is to track him down and kill him. In the second one, the villain is an old employee of Charlie's who gets into some tussle or other with his new Angels, I forget why. Don't they do anything except battle skeletons in Charlie's closet? How does he find the time to make any new
( ... )
The story I heard is that the original draft (or at least the earlier draft) *did not have John Connor in it*, it was a movie about Marcus, period. Connor shows up at the end, maybe. And then Christian Bale stood up and said "I'm Christian Bale, I've always wanted to play John Connor, and therefore this is now a movie about John Connor. Somebody write it up."
Comments 5
Would you say Terminator Salvation is significantly more lame than Transformers 2? I know Transformers 2 is about children's toys, writ large, but the reviews of it make it seem *painfully* bad; http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/06/bonus_robs_transformers_2_faqs.php?page=1
If you're into the Sarah Connor Chronicles, the forums back in season 1 had raelly thoughtful discussion about the complexities of timelines that might loop back and snap themselves, among other actually coherent discussions. I suspect the same level of discourse occured during season 2, but I haven't kept up.
Reply
It's not too hard to spot this "creativity void" phenomenon, but I really like the way you've laid it bare and explained all your arguments in depth.
I think there's kind of a related thing where stories will completely revolve around the central character(s), with no outside elements to give any sense of a wider world. Unless the characters are exceptionally fascinating and compelling, you just end up with this pointless bubble of nothingness. It happens especially in dumb sequels to action movies that were never too smart in the first place.
Both of the Charlie's Angels movies are good examples (and hey, it's McG again). In the first one, the villain is an old enemy of Charlie's whose big secret plan is to track him down and kill him. In the second one, the villain is an old employee of Charlie's who gets into some tussle or other with his new Angels, I forget why. Don't they do anything except battle skeletons in Charlie's closet? How does he find the time to make any new ( ... )
Reply
Reply
(I get all this from an article posted at http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/19577/1/EXCLUSIVE-WHAT-WENT-WRONG-WITH-TERMINATOR-SALVATION/Page1.html .)
Note: I didn't see this movie (or the previous one). I don't really care. I watched the TV show and thought it was very fine work.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment