Terminator Salvation: Review Central

What did you think?

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1


Results are only viewable after voting.
Again, why does it matter what he thinks? It's like banging your head against the wall with some people.
I agree with this, as well:woot:

Bashing of critics for their own opinions on movies (etc.) really needs to stop. It's so embarrassing having to review these trends over-and-over again. If you have nothing better to do than cry and make excuses, keep it up. 'Cause the critics themselves sure as hell don't give a damn what you say. Look at Armond White, this guy is notorious for giving "great" movies negative reviews (he gave all the "Best Picture" contenders of '08/'09 negative reviews). So, how do people come back from that? They bash the hell outta him. Nobody's a fakester in the buisness of being a critic, they're paid to give you their own damn opinions on movies. Why? So movie-going audiences will know what to expect upon walking in. I'll probably be seeing this movie some time this week (hoping to get there Thursday, well before the crowd strikes), and when I tell you what I think. I'll tell you what I think. I'm not gonna make some ---- up just to please all of you who want this to be perfect without even stepping out of your holes to see it. This is a movie. All of you complaining about it need to wake-up and realize that this world is made up of people and their own opinions. If we all didn't have our own... Well, we might as well be Terminators ourselves.
 
Looks like another case of Watchmen. We are getting a movie that fans will enjoy, but one that critics don't like. The difference with Watchmen is that this movie is much more linear and simple, Watchmen was much deeper, layered, and more complex, not to mention much more gory and violent. Salvation should make a decent amount of money in the box office.



People need to stop laying blame ONLY on McG. People need to understand that it was Halcyon Company that approached McG to direct Salvation, and not the other way around. Even McG himself initially wanted nothing to do with this movie. It was also Halcyon Company that hired Brancato and Ferris to write that awful original script. It then took a long time to get Bale to sign on, who only did so once script rewrites had occured. Warner Brothers then made the decision to change the ending of the movie after it had leaked online. Finally, McG was given a lot of creative freedom by WB to make the movie. What happened in the last minute it seems is that there some was studio pressure from Warner to make it PG-13, reportedly because Warner was dissapointed with the performance of Watchmen.

Even though Watchmen was not commercially successful, fans loved it. DVD sales may prove to be strong. Studios need to take creative risks like allowing movies such as Watchmen to be made, otherwise studios risk alienating fans of certain mythologies and also risk alienating some general audiences.

McG definitely has some flaws and is not a great director, but most of the blame here needs to go to Warner Brothers for some silly decisions as well as Halcyon Company since THEY hired McG and they were the ones that got Brancato and Ferris to write the initial full script.

If McG had been given total freedom by WB and Halcyon, he probably would have gotten Nolan to do the entire script with no rewrites, and the movie would have been over 2 hours with an R rating.

What's done is done. If they had gone originally with the Marcus story, it would have been a disaster in the eyes of the fans. It also likely would have flopped at the box office. Bale refused to do the movie playing the Marcus character, so they would have lacked star power as well. Unfortunately McG was not able to do a movie only about Connor since the script was already written, and Halcyon Company wanted to go with the Marcus angle originally. All that McG (with some convincing from Bale) was able to do was compromise with Halcyon, making the story about both John and Marcus.

McG was not the only one who did the editing, so blame cannot go only to him. WB (and Halcyon) very likely pressured him into cutting the movie and making it suitable for a PG-13 rating. Conrad Buff was the main editor for the movie.

The rumoured 30-40 minutes of material are supposed to be deleted/cut footage along with some behind-the-scenes stuff and other extras. I guarantee it is not going to be purely cut footage.

Basically a lot of twists, turns, compromises and revisions occured in the making of this movie. If it had been made the way Halcyon originally wanted it to, I guarantee it would have been an even worse movie.

What McG did was salvage a bad initial script, turning it into a decent script after rewrites and from all accounts he has made a good *Terminator* movie. It may not be a great movie in general, but as a Terminator movie it looks like McG has given new life to the franchise.

Lastly, I will say that I am not even a McG fan in any way, but I give respect where it is due.
1. The rating is out of McG's control, and never said it had anything to do with him. It is the executives.

2. The director does control the direction and objectives. It was acknowledged by him, he chose to cut out a lot of dialogue. Much of which could be from Jonah Nolan, hence F&B getting screen writing credits over Nolan. So what the editor might like, does not mean it will stay in, he maximizes the best of what he is given. This aspect can actually make or break films unlike PG-13 and R.

3. There is a difference between retaining the Marcus script with the original ending, than choosing the creative direction of a Marcus driven storyline. Ultimately, my point is to keep it focused on one lead Marcus or Connor, instead of co-leads.

What it looks like is, McG oversold the film. I suspect it is not as horrible as some critics make it to be, kind of like Star Trek was not the orgasmic spiritual epiphany it was.
 
Vile is right, it unnecessary for McG to do and say the things he did during production. He oversold the film. He should not have made statements like "bring credibility back to the franchise". The product will speak for itself.
 
Vile is right, it unnecessary for McG to do and say the things he did during production. He oversold the film. He should not have made statements like "bring credibility back to the franchise". The product will speak for itself.
You can tell McG's a rather arrogant filmmaker. But, honestly, I don't care. Any director should be proud of the movies they helm, just as any cast and/or crew member should be proud of being involved in the projects they were assigned.
 
i agree that McG oversold the film. Especially when talking about Jonathan Nolan. Now I"m thinking that Nolan just came in to tweak some dialog here and there, and that was it.
 
You can tell McG's a rather arrogant filmmaker. But, honestly, I don't care. Any director should be proud of the movies they helm, just as any cast and/or crew member should be proud of being involved in the projects they were assigned.

But there's a difference between being proud of your work and boasting unwarrantedly.

He over exaggerated Nolan's revision work on the script.
Started pointless feuds with Michael Bay.
The R-Rating "guarantee" (but not really) and his "struggle" with WB to get the rating.
Trying to sell the movie with Bloodgood breast's (which won't be included in the theatrical cut because of the PG-13 rating).

I'm sure I missed something.
 
Last edited:
Vile is right, it unnecessary for McG to do and say the things he did during production. He oversold the film. He should not have made statements like "bring credibility back to the franchise". The product will speak for itself.
I actually cringed when he said that.
 
McG was constantly putting over how Jonah Nolan was re-writing it with PAUL HAGGIS and making it so much better.

craigdbfan, besides Nolan being a writer, Paul Haggis also doing re-writes, being over 2 hours, how he understands fans don't want an inferior sequel because he's done an inferior sequel blah blah blah
 
McG was constantly putting over how Jonah Nolan was re-writing it with PAUL HAGGIS and making it so much better.

craigdbfan, besides Nolan being a writer, Paul Haggis also doing re-writes, being over 2 hours, how he understands fans don't want an inferior sequel because he's done an inferior sequel blah blah blah
 
1. The rating is out of McG's control, and never said it had anything to do with him. It is the executives.

2. The director does control the direction and objectives. It was acknowledged by him, he chose to cut out a lot of dialogue. Much of which could be from Jonah Nolan, hence F&B getting screen writing credits over Nolan. So what the editor might like, does not mean it will stay in, he maximizes the best of what he is given. This aspect can actually make or break films unlike PG-13 and R.

3. There is a difference between retaining the Marcus script with the original ending, than choosing the creative direction of a Marcus driven storyline. Ultimately, my point is to keep it focused on one lead Marcus or Connor, instead of co-leads.

What it looks like is, McG oversold the film. I suspect it is not as horrible as some critics make it to be, kind of like Star Trek was not the orgasmic spiritual epiphany it was.

You're contradicting yourself a bit. The rating was out of his hands, but how do you know he had full control of the movie's runtime? While he acknowledged he cut out a lot of dialogue, how do you know this wasn't from studio pressure? What if he was told to keep his mouth shut regarding any studio pressure on cut scenes?

I agree he oversold the film, but the majority of the movie's problems are not because of McG. The bulk of the blame Halcyon and WB get.

Most reviews so far, even the negative ones give credit to McG for keeping up a fast, tense pace in the movie and orchestrating relentless action scenes with good camera work. Also keep in mind that the decision to use set pieces, animatronics, and real props while keeping CGI minimal is a directorial decision. McG at the very least gets credit for keeping the stunts and effects realistic.

i agree that McG oversold the film. Especially when talking about Jonathan Nolan. Now I"m thinking that Nolan just came in to tweak some dialog here and there, and that was it.

Nolan confirmed himself in an interview last year that he did quite a bit of work on the script. The whole Connor story arc is pretty much unofficially credited to him. Bale also has confirmed that Nolan did quite a bit of script work. I trust Nolan and Bale's word on this.
 
But there's a difference between being proud of your work and boasting unwarrantedly.

He over exaggerated Nolan's revision work on the script.
Started pointless feuds with Michael Bay.
The R-Rating "guarantee" (but not really) and his "struggle" with WB to get the rating.
Trying to sell the movie with Bloodgood breast's (which won't be included in the theatrical cut because of the PG-13 rating).

I'm sure I missed something.
Looking back at it now... Yeah, you're right. He did oversell the film quite a bit. However, I doubt that's going to have any affect on the film for me. It's only going to affect the people who really cared about it all. And, those people were?...
 
McG was constantly putting over how Jonah Nolan was re-writing it with PAUL HAGGIS and making it so much better.

craigdbfan, besides Nolan being a writer, Paul Haggis also doing re-writes, being over 2 hours, how he understands fans don't want an inferior sequel because he's done an inferior sequel blah blah blah

Oh yes I'm quite aware of the other writers who worked on the rewrites. I tried telling batmop this and the reason why Nolan's rewrite weren't as extensive as he was trying to make them out to be. Otherwise Nolan would have been credited (or any of the writers who revised the script).

Correction, get it right. The script was written by Brancato and Ferris, but RE-written by Jonah Nolan and Paul Haggis. Christian Bale wanted nothing to do with the movie when he read the original Brancato and Ferris script. Bale agreed to do the movie after reading the revised script that Nolan and Haggis worked on.

I'm actually right maybe you should do a little bit more research on the subject. Brancato and Ferris are credited for writing the script and I'm aware that Haggis,Nolan,Zuckier, and Ryan all worked on rewrites but the initial script was written by those two and they are the ones receiving credit for the writing. Obviously those re-writes didn't help much.

Plus the majority of the script still contains most of Brancato and Ferris original story thus them receiving credit and Nolan and Haggis receiving none.
 
Last edited:
Looking back at it now... Yeah, you're right. He did oversell the film quite a bit. However, I doubt that's going to have any affect on the film for me. It's only going to affect the people who really cared about it all. And, those people were?...

Not me at least. I know its not going to effect the publics reasoning on watching the film or not.

This is just a clear indicator on the type of "director" McG is all.

The reviews aren't even what dropped my expectations for this movie. I did that all by myself as soon as the extended trailer and clips came out.

The trailer with the NIN song was just really well edited and made me believe that this movie wasn't only going to be about explosions and CGI but rather a blend of that and exploring the "Man/Machine complex" but that doesn't seem to be the case. Kudos to the trailer editor.
 
I mean last year, people made it sound like Jonah Nolan was THE screenwriter for the movie.
 
Not me at least. I know its not going to effect the publics reasoning on watching the film or not.

This is just a clear indicator on the type of "director" McG is all.

The reviews aren't even what dropped my expectations for this movie. I did that all by myself as soon as the extended trailer and clips came out.

The trailer with the NIN song was just really well edited and made me believe that this movie wasn't only going to be about explosions and CGI but rather a blend of that and exploring the "Man/Machine complex" but that doesn't seem to be the case. Kudos to the trailer editor.
I think this may be a film to wait for on DVD if you think you're going to be unhappy with it as it is. The film's editing may derail it from being "Fresh". So I'd suggest the people who are worried about this film being "Rotten", just wait for the DVD or catch it during a Matinee screening.
 
I think this may be a film to wait for on DVD if you think you're going to be unhappy with it as it is. The film's editing may derail it from being "Fresh". So I'd suggest the people who are worried about this film being "Rotten", just wait for the DVD or catch it during a Matinee screening.

I'm still a sucker for anything ILM actually does a good job in. Even if the movie has its directional and narrative flaws all the reviewers have praised the CGI. The "post apocalyptic" scenery looks pretty great from the footage I've seen.

So they at least got my money for a matinee screening. :up:
 
You're contradicting yourself a bit. The rating was out of his hands, but how do you know he had full control of the movie's runtime? While he acknowledged he cut out a lot of dialogue, how do you know this wasn't from studio pressure? What if he was told to keep his mouth shut regarding any studio pressure on cut scenes?

I agree he oversold the film, but the majority of the movie's problems are not because of McG. The bulk of the blame Halcyon and WB get.

Most reviews so far, even the negative ones give credit to McG for keeping up a fast, tense pace in the movie and orchestrating relentless action scenes with good camera work. Also keep in mind that the decision to use set pieces, animatronics, and real props while keeping CGI minimal is a directorial decision. McG at the very least gets credit for keeping the stunts and effects realistic.



Nolan confirmed himself in an interview last year that he did quite a bit of work on the script. The whole Connor story arc is pretty much unofficially credited to him. Bale also has confirmed that Nolan did quite a bit of script work. I trust Nolan and Bale's word on this.
Bale went something along the lines:

"my friend Jonah who wrote TDK, was on board for a few weeks" and "I wish he could have stayed on longer".

More to the point, what does McG have to lose by acknowledging the studio gave him the running time issue? If this is true, sure then we will know where the blame lay, but he is pretty specific in saying why he cut out certain scenes. AND he is quite open about the ratings issue, and threw in (jokingly) a few swear words. It's not the first time a director ever acknowledge this type of issue either.
 
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"