Terminator 4?

[Warmaker]

Another Terminator movie seems to be in the works.

I doubt Arnie will be in it since he's aged and is busy with work and all.

I also doubt that it will be a time travel to the 80's-90's like the originals were since... it's been done as much as possible already.

What would be cool is to see the fighting in the future with the humans vs machines. We only got glimpses of it from the first movie and I always wanted to see more

[Wes]

Another Terminator movie seems to be in the works.

I doubt Arnie will be in it since he's aged and is busy with work and all.

I also doubt that it will be a time travel to the 80's-90's like the originals were since... it's been done as much as possible already.

What would be cool is to see the fighting in the future with the humans vs machines. We only got glimpses of it from the first movie and I always wanted to see more

You're saying you didn't know after seeing 3? Yeah from what I heard it's supposed to be in the future, the only period I really cared about. So long as I'M NOT the one defending that pick-up truck this time! I mean seriously, what the leader of mankind's resistance doing driving around in that jalopy?

[Graham]

Never saw anything wrong with the pick-up truck. By that time, mankind had been reduced to using whatever equipment they could cobble together.

Graham

[yellowlightman]

Never saw anything wrong with the pick-up truck. By that time, mankind had been reduced to using whatever equipment they could cobble together.

Graham

A basic pickup truck has served a lot of good in numerous conflicts around the world. Something interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_war

Edited May 14, 2007 by yellowlightman

[kung flu]

It would be great to see the conflict in the future for a movie, but I think Terminator 1 & 2 where enough for the franchise, I feel they are taking it too far like the Alien movies. When Terminator 3 came out I didn't really like it that much.

[myk]

A basic pickup truck has served a lot of good in numerous conflicts around the world.

"TECHNICALS!!!!"

[wolfx]

This can either be really bad or really good. It can go down the path of robocop with its mundane minimovies.....or it can be a new cool thing.

Maybe follow the adventures of John Connor and Kyle Reese before sending Kyle back to the past to impregnate John's mom. XD

[fulcy]

Uh, you guys know that it's not only Terminator 4, but there appears to be word of a 5 and 6 also!

http://www.filmjunk.com/2007/05/10/termina...d-6-on-the-way/

http://www.filmstalker.co.uk/archives/2007..._appear_in.html

Edited May 14, 2007 by fulcy

[chrono]

Oh god... why are they dragging this out the story is done they'll only screw it up if they continue!

[HoveringCheesecake]

I only own the DVDs for 1 and 2 anyway. I might buy 3 once it drops way down in price, but to be quite honest I don't think it is even in the same league as the first two.

[Phyrox]

Just as in the Alien series, there is no need for anything past the first two.

First was great, second was greater, and that's it.

I know they want to make money off a recognizable name, but it's sad to see a property get exploited.

There is something to be said for resting on your laurels. I miss the days when a hit could be a hit and left alone. Although besides E.T. I can't think of any modern blockbusters that haven't tried to strike gold twice.

[Skullsixx]

Here's my response to this idea... AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited May 14, 2007 by Skullsixx

[Sumdumgai]

I'm not holding my breath on this new trilogy. I'm not going to pitchfork and torch it yet, but I don't have a good feeling about it.

[The Shade]

I'm not holding my breath on this new trilogy. I'm not going to pitchfork and torch it yet, but I don't have a good feeling about it.

What you really mean to say is "I have a bad feeling about this!" I know, different franchise, but what the hey.

As for this new movie, like the others here, the first two are all that count. When I watch T2, I just set it to display the Future Coda ending (I've got the ultimate edition). While it may be the "happy ending", it does just that: ends the story. No T3, or T4.

[ruskiiVFaussie]

As long as they get the music and mood right like Termy 2... it will be SWEET.

That's why Term 3 sucked, the music was severely lacking. IMO. oh and errieness.

Edited May 14, 2007 by ruskiiVFaussie

[Hikuro]

I heard about this on the feed on G4, no arnie in it and it was suppose to be based on the future with the war between man and machine.......now if we could see some diffenet stuff on it that'd be cool, but apparently the movie wont even be out until 09.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Terminator always needed a story that fleshes out what happens in the "real" future imo. As a fan I would like to see a whole movie dedicated to the war itself not on current day conner. So long as the humans have the tech, they will eventually be tempted to use the robots for themselves for defense and end up coming to the same conclusion: the machines go out of control and decide they should terminate humans.

I hope they put as little humor in the next movie as possible and focus on the sufferring you see in the first movie. Post apoc setting with humans eating rats to survive, and disguised terminators with rubber skin (early versions before they used realistic "smelly breath" models) disguised to infiltrate the bases to kill as many people as possible. Characters should be ultra paranoid of each other (suspecting each one of potentially being a machine underneath) they would have to use lots of sniffer dogs to sniff people before coming in to the base, and it's should feel like a survival movie. (enemy out numbers and overpowers and people have poo weapons to fight with and have to hide and stuff - go back to the roots of what made the original machine so scary and unstoppable)

Honestly after seeing 3 I think it would be ok to have some new person fill the role of the terminator. The thing is I always thought arnie was more powerful as a bad guy with no emotion than a good guy helping people, learning to smile, or making wisecracks in no.3. Without the fear, it loses the horror angle of the machine being this thing with only one thing on its mind. If they humanise the machine too much like they tried to in no.2, you end up feeling sorry for it even though it was designed to kill you.

That's a bit sick imo. Like the girl in the patlabor anime who is in love with her ingram because its like a pet had, or the kids in the gundam wing anime who talk to their robots as if they weren't just these killing machines out to destroy. Come on it's a sophisticated killing machine built by power hungry humans to make killing easy, not a kids toy. Death, suffering, horror should come back. Less humor, less trying to make the machine nice, and less generic action. More suspense, paranoia, fear, and uncertainty.

Now that conner lived, he should be twice as good as the original conner that sent kyle back to save his mom. Because now he knows what is coming and has the training. Hopefully they toughen up the character and make him totally dependant on his skills like he means to win, as opposed to noob still trying to come to the realisation that : "omg, its actually true. mom wasn't crazy." That's what 3 was for. No more mouth agape expressions, just show us this great leader who finds out what to do and how to kill them easily. The theme should be about the hunted becoming the hunter. As these machines become more realistic, it should show how humans slowly find new ways of spotting differences between humans and machines and the focus is on "who can be trusted? How do you know if one of the soldiers isn't a terminator amoungst you biding its time to get at the leader?" And then go into the little details of why is conner so important to the fight against the machines. Perhaps his death is inevitable, but so long as he can keep sending back Kyle Reeses in the past to warn current day humans of the imminent future they can keep the war going on and postpone the inevitable for indefinite amounts of time instead and at least saving the people who live in the past so the future can still exist? As opposed to no future at all and no fight? Maybe they could change the theme back to the "future IS set", but how it gets to become this way is based on what we do now. If more leaders like John Conner were around in the current day who listened to the messenger, you could avoid the rise of the robots in the future rather than having to fight against them. They may be virtually unstoppable but better to stand and fight and not let them have their way than to succeed in taking the past too. John HAD to die to remind the soldiers of the future why there needs to be people like him to lead. Kill him and so long as his spirit lives on amoung all the other soldiers to keep going, then eventually another new leader can arise. I think the whole emphasis should be on allowing others to follow in conner's footsteps to lead the resistance instead of just relying on john. Let john die, lets us weep, let us see the doom of the machines taking control for a while and allow some other character to survive it and use all the teachings and training of the leader to survive the holocaust.

So the machines end up getting the future that was predicted but a soldier IN the future finds new ways to continue on from where john left off after being motivated from conner's inevitable death. That way the fight can continue on in the future and they can have a series of movies dedicated to show a long drawn out war in the future. 3 movies already in the present. 3 in the future. All the latter shows the gradual progression and evolution of the machines as they get more sophisticated: from the gundam-guntank types, to drones, to rubber skin model, to realistic skin model, to morphing ones and then to hybrids of morphing and solid ones. Maybe have one elite model that is completely humanoid brain, and so sophisticated that the sniffer dogs don't know the difference? And that one is what studies the humans and gathers the info about us that allows for the machines to gain a major advantage and beat the leader. (since john may not have been warned about those models in time to be able to prepare) But the whole movie isn't as simple as humans fighting robots, it's the paranoia of not being able to detect which one amoungst them IS the terminator, and not wanting to tip that terminator off by letting it know that you know its there amongst you. The first movie was good the way it was a chase and survival and not just action. Instead of having kyle be the bodyguard of sarah, the future movies can show a new character entrusted to guard future conner and be just as paranoid and uneasy abou his safety the way his mom was. Only to witness the death and become the next leader to allow the war to continue after his death.

Edited May 14, 2007 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[chrono]

Terminator always needed a story that fleshes out what happens in the "real" future imo.

I never felt that way. But than again I'm not a completist like many who want everything spelled out for perfect understanding either.

I always thought that the first movie was perfectly self contained as it was the End and then the beginning of the entire story, so it left you with some 'hope'. The second one really added a lot of questions that itself cleared up, and three completely blew out the legs of the viewers 'hope for a bright future' ideal by showing them that everything that happened only bought them a real chance at survival as originally was intended to do.

Only thing left movie wise is to tempt the audience with the bait of "Will humanity survive?".

[CoryHolmes]

I like how each successive Terminator movie advanced the plot of the overall story. It's never been as simple as, "let's make another one that's a simple rehash of what's been done already."

[Lonely Soldier Boy]

1/1 LVL should write the next three movies.

I've never had any conflict with the Terminator trilogy: For me they're three different animals, being Terminator a grat Science Fiction piece, T2 a Hollywood action superproduction, and T3 a bad movie. As I see it, the only thing the three have in comon is Arnold.

If they make new ones, I'll take them as they are. I'm not a purist. Maybe they're even fun to watch, but they'll need somebody who really cares about the licence and can come up with an original approach. Someone like 1/1 LVL here, but I doubt it.

Edited May 15, 2007 by Lonely Soldier Boy

[Veritas]

There’s a chance it could be good… a chance.

Unfortunately if the trailer for Die Hard 4 is any indication… Terminator 4 is looking like a bad idea.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

heh I guess I just don't want to see terminator turn into a bright science fiction movie when the original was so dark. Lots of shadow, 2 stalkers coming from out of nowhere to get to someone, cops trying to catch this mysterious phonebook murderer. etc. Sarah's own friends being brutally killed. There is some suspense too, not just explosions.

Now when you watch 3: the future is well lit, the robots are lined up in easy sight so you can see them marching towards the humans to kill them: their metallic bodies shining in the light. Obvious that they are coming towards to use brute force to take on the humans. Not the same as the first.

The first was dark and gritty, shadows everywhere, robots trying to sneak around as if they were one of us, and not naked with their robot parts showing for all to see. An assassin could pop out of the shadows and strike at any time to kill looking just like humans. All you have is a dog to bark as an alert and even then how do you know which person is the terminator? The robots weren't typical in that they'd take the most direct route, but you could sense that they were cunning and have knowledge of us humans and study us and copy us, and ambush. They had plans on how to trap and trick people.

As the franchise went on the machines lost the "element of surprise" that I liked, (trying to "be" one of the humans and learn thier tricks) and they were just human tanks that got stronger and stronger but not necessarily trickier or more cunning as they hunted.

[Lonely Soldier Boy]

As the franchise went on the machines lost the "element of surprise" that I liked, (trying to "be" one of the humans and learn thier tricks) and they were just human tanks that got stronger and stronger but not necessarily trickier or more cunning as they hunted.

That's a very smart analysis. I agree, the Terminators were an intelligent way to wipe out even the smallest sign of human life, an efficient and really scary human predator. That's what I liked so much of the movie: You could feel the menace. Very John Carpenter. Then, for some reason Cameron went all Hollywood and wrote T2, wich I see as a completely different genre.

I remember reading an article about it. A Hollywood executive remembered a chat with James Cameron about his next movie. Cameron then said: "I want to do a movie about a boy and his terminator", they both laugh about it for a while and then Cameron went all serious again and said: "No, really".

Edited May 15, 2007 by Lonely Soldier Boy

[Warmaker]

My favorite scene from Terminator was when Arnie is prepared for his "trip to the Police Station." He exits his room and walks down the hallway with sunglasses on (at night) and his assault rifle raised.

There was a guy in the hallway who stepped to the side and just said, "GodD**N!!!"

[JB0]

Just as in the Alien series, there is no need for anything past the first two.

First was great, second was greater, and that's it.

Ironically, I feel the opposite.

The first, in both cases, was a modern update of the traditional horror movie.

In Terminator's case, there's no "happily ever after" either.

Sarah Conner is hiding out in Mexico, waiting for the robots to launch a nuclear holocaust that wipes most of humanity off the face of the Earth

They don't explicitly illustrate it, but you know it's going to happen, because it HAS to happen. The entire movie fails to occur otherwise. It's a causality paradox.

(Not that Ripley being adrift in Middle of Nowhere, Deep Space, population 1, with nothing but a cat and her underwear was particularly uplifting, but the aliens aren't already destined to get loose on Earth and kill everyone)

Terminator 2, like Aliens, was converting a horror film into a standard action movie. But while Aliens remained respectful of it's roots if not true to them, Terminator 2 bends the original over a table and rapes it in the ass. The robot is a GOOD GUY, for Pete's sake!

And to top it all off, there IS a happily-ever-after ending that, at least in theory, stops the entire franchise from ever happening.

And it merrily ignores the fact that the Governator's swim in a vat of molten steel aborts John Conner's existence.

If they'd made the causality paradox an actual plot element, with John being forced to choose his existence or the billions of lives lost in the impending rise of the robots, and kept the entire rest of the movie the same(even the cheesy scenes and the intentionally humorous ones), I'd have a LOT more respect for it. Instead it was about a kid teaching a robot to be a cool person, and saving the world in the process.

Terminator 3... actually gets back to basics in many regards. I heard people cursing in the back of the theater when they started nuking everyone, but I was ready to cheer*.

That one scene fixed the entire franchise. John's continued existence is explained, and rather than just imply the future isn't all sunshine and roses, they explicitly SHOW it.

And on top of it, heroic macho man John Conner's gonna die too! At the hands of heroic macho man Arnold, even!

Even T1 didn't have the balls to say "BTW, Sarah... You gonna die. You know why? Because your hubby's gonna come back from the dead and shank you!"

*Especially given they swore up and down they were going to a secret base where they could STOP Skynet, painting the whole thing as Terminator 2.1 right up until the final minutes, where it goes Terminator 1 on everybody.

[hutch]

JBO, I agree with you COMPLETELY about the ending to T3. It was EXCELLENT and made the movie for me.

[kung flu]

Didn't the machines lose the war, thats why they sent the terminator back to kill Connor, to prevent the humans from winning. So the outcome of the war is already known.

[wolfx]

Didn't the machines lose the war, thats why they sent the terminator back to kill Connor, to prevent the humans from winning. So the outcome of the war is already known.

That would be right. Skynet knew it is losing the war and did something to prevent that. But in Terminator series, it seems Skynet's future runs parallel to "current time" as everytime it sends a termie back to the past and it fails, he can't send it back further into time to undo that mistake. (Maybe kill Sarah Connor's grandad instead of killing her)

Frankly the only way for the Terminator franchise to go is the drama/sci-fi aspect that can be milked from the 2029 era. Since T2, i already got bored with the sci-fi horror/thriller of robots from future coming to the past to assasinate ppl. If they did T4 again that a cyborg liquid metal dog was sent to the past to kill John Connor again.....i'm sure to bust some heads.

[kung flu]

Apparently in terminator 2 Sarah Connor narrating in the beginning of the movie, said Skynet sent two terminators back, One to kill her in the 80s and the other to kill her son in the 90s. So future John would have sent daddy and friendly Arnie back as well. She didn't mention a 3rd or 4th terminator, so if they keep making movies of time travel like T3, that just screws up the whole franchise. If the new movie is set in the future that would be better and show us how future John manage to send his little helpers back to save himself.

Edited May 15, 2007 by kung flu

[CoryHolmes]

better and show us how future John manage to send his little helpers back to save himself.

Not to mention more of Kate Brewster. She was spunkily cute

[Apollo Leader]

Ironically, I feel the opposite.

The first, in both cases, was a modern update of the traditional horror movie.

In Terminator's case, there's no "happily ever after" either.

Sarah Conner is hiding out in Mexico, waiting for the robots to launch a nuclear holocaust that wipes most of humanity off the face of the Earth

They don't explicitly illustrate it, but you know it's going to happen, because it HAS to happen. The entire movie fails to occur otherwise. It's a causality paradox.

(Not that Ripley being adrift in Middle of Nowhere, Deep Space, population 1, with nothing but a cat and her underwear was particularly uplifting, but the aliens aren't already destined to get loose on Earth and kill everyone)

Terminator 2, like Aliens, was converting a horror film into a standard action movie. But while Aliens remained respectful of it's roots if not true to them, Terminator 2 bends the original over a table and rapes it in the ass. The robot is a GOOD GUY, for Pete's sake!

And to top it all off, there IS a happily-ever-after ending that, at least in theory, stops the entire franchise from ever happening.

And it merrily ignores the fact that the Governator's swim in a vat of molten steel aborts John Conner's existence.

If they'd made the causality paradox an actual plot element, with John being forced to choose his existence or the billions of lives lost in the impending rise of the robots, and kept the entire rest of the movie the same(even the cheesy scenes and the intentionally humorous ones), I'd have a LOT more respect for it. Instead it was about a kid teaching a robot to be a cool person, and saving the world in the process.

Terminator 3... actually gets back to basics in many regards. I heard people cursing in the back of the theater when they started nuking everyone, but I was ready to cheer*.

That one scene fixed the entire franchise. John's continued existence is explained, and rather than just imply the future isn't all sunshine and roses, they explicitly SHOW it.

And on top of it, heroic macho man John Conner's gonna die too! At the hands of heroic macho man Arnold, even!

Even T1 didn't have the balls to say "BTW, Sarah... You gonna die. You know why? Because your hubby's gonna come back from the dead and shank you!"

*Especially given they swore up and down they were going to a secret base where they could STOP Skynet, painting the whole thing as Terminator 2.1 right up until the final minutes, where it goes Terminator 1 on everybody.

Very well put. Regarding the end of T2, when they threw the 1984 Terminator's arm and chip into the molten refinery, they forgot something else... the 1991 Terminator's severed arm which was back in those large gears! So obviously not all the future technology was toast. And I think it could have been easily written in that most, if not all of Cyberdine's research would have been backed up somewhere off site and/or in a secure vault. It also seems ludicrous that Cyberdine would have been the sole defense/research company or contractor that would have been given the 1984 T-800's technology to play around with.

The thing is with T2, just like Lucas with the recent Star Wars trilogy (for example), it was a sign that James Cameron was becoming more interested in touchy-feely leftist ideology (and this happens to many of the great producers, directors, and actors in Hollywood) instead of putting out an awesome, meaty film to entertain the public.

[JB0]

That would be right. Skynet knew it is losing the war and did something to prevent that. But in Terminator series, it seems Skynet's future runs parallel to "current time" as everytime it sends a termie back to the past and it fails, he can't send it back further into time to undo that mistake. (Maybe kill Sarah Connor's grandad instead of killing her)

Remember, the records Skynet has access to were sketchy.

It didn't even know who to look for. All it had was a name. The original Terminator was just running around shooting everyone named Sarah Conner.

And going back another 2 generations and killing absolutely everyone named Conner might be just a LITTLE more damaging to the future than Skynet wants(what if one of those Grampa Conners was an electrical engineer that laid the groundwork for one of Skynet's critical components?).

Hence, it needs to stick to a close generation, where it can more or less guarantee it's own birth.

As far as the end of the war being known...

Yeah, it is, for the most part. Skynet's gotten desperate and started playing with time travel, which is dangerous at best. But the war isn't over yet(heck, Skynet's still designing and deploying new models according to the later movies), and you still have billions dead in a nuclear holocaust and an Earth that's been utterly devastated by everything.

It's a dark future regardless of who wins.

[Max Jenius]

T1 - Awesome

T2 - Good action, sappy plot

T3 - Awesome Action, ok plot, great ending

T4-6 - As long as they bring things full circle in a neat way I'll be happy. But there's no point in speculation and internet nay-saying at this point. T3 made me more excited about the franchise than T2 ever did. "I know now why you cry..." HA! Cameron is such a nut job.

[Wes]

Apparently in terminator 2 Sarah Connor narrating in the beginning of the movie, said Skynet sent two terminators back, One to kill her in the 80s and the other to kill her son in the 90s. So future John would have sent daddy and friendly Arnie back as well. She didn't mention a 3rd or 4th terminator, so if they keep making movies of time travel like T3, that just screws up the whole franchise. If the new movie is set in the future that would be better and show us how future John manage to send his little helpers back to save himself.

She was dead before the 3rd remember? So she wouldn't know anything past that, much less the milking of the series...

I'm see the Terminator fear-factor differnent than you guys. It wasn't so much the intelligence factor, it was the classic invunerability of the staker as seen in other cheezier horror movies. How are you supposed to stop a machine that your tech just can't touch? THAT'S what T2 really killed - I mean, what's more tougher than a machine that can reform itself at will? Very hard to top that.

And at the end of the first one it wasn't all happy, but hopeful. Sure the second made it seem possible to stop, but they were able to push it back. Mankind just sealed its own doom later. Starting to remind me of Berserk here.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Ok but the sneakiness of the terminator coming from out of the shadows is what I liked so much about no.1

It's just Reese and the assassin.

So if John is to outsmart these machines he can't just rely on firepower alone. He has to maybe capture some, study it, hack them, (just like young conner did with the ATM using an atari console ) hide from them, use more scientific ways of avoiding their sensors and learn some weaknesses of the machines. (maybe even show how their own heavy weight could be used against them and set traps for the machines that they could not have planned for since it is not within their logic to think up because the idea is unique to humans)

So it's like instead of the humans just fighting them head on in the daylight, and the terminators marching towards them in plain sight as naked robots, they have to sneak in the nighttime, (using whatever scanners or intelligence they have on them) bomb the treads of the HK, and slowly think like the terminators by looking for weak points. And the terminators start to study us and think like us, trying to copy our tactics and adapting. Not just mere machines are what make them scary, but the threat of the AI actually getting smarter and smarter and more advanced as time goes on and learning from mistakes through studying human behaviour. Like HAL but for the terminator universe.

Remember that scene when arnie uses a voicechanger to trick sarah into thinking she was talking to her mom? That's what I mean about cunning. In the sequels they had the same trick, but it seemed the focus was on just firepower and getting more armor and more indestructible. (ie the bit in t3 when the terminatrix survives the rpg) So it was just like watching a brawl of two people exchanging blows until someone is too tired to fight. Not an intelligent movie where one guy is trying to outsmart the other and paranoid that the robots will read his thought and be one step ahead. (unlike horror movies these robot monsters are smart. Normal monsters aren't - they can just take a lot of damage)

Hopefully in the future they will bring back some of the post apoc feel of the original where people are on the brink of extinction and the cyborg is like some mass murderer that comes out of nowhere for surprise kills carefully planning how to best wipe out the human based on what it thinks we behave like. Not just act typically "robotic". Even the aliens in alien movies found unique ways of escaping capture and they are just animals. In a way it reminds me of what made the Raptors in jurrassic park so menacing because they can work in packs like cunning wolves to best survive. If the terminator networked their brains to share info to make more smart decisions that would make them deadly in a cunning way, where the efficiency of machines can best be shown, not just as a monster with lots of physical power. Merely making them stronger just goes down the dragon ball z path of repeating things at higher levels, like a videogame where you fight more healthy boss/leader. That's where the risk of people getting tired of the movies is, where they can predict what is going to happen due to repetition and then predict the pattern. In summary what I want to see more of is the "thriller" part of the series to return, and combine that with the action part. But not have one be sacrificed completely for the other.

Edited May 16, 2007 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker