All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
In this context, it would refer to the producers of this movie gearing it towards viewers who exhibit an homogeneous 'consumption' of action movies - that is to say, they basically made this for people who like action-filled films. Is that group composed largely of younger people? I don't necessarily think so, plus it's difficult to standardise what a 'young person' is in terms of how they behave, y'know.
I mean, Spielberg did 'Duel' at 25. My point being that attempting to group in terms of age is ultimately folly.
Finally got round to seeing this. After T3 which was so badly made that I could barley watch it, I wasn't expecting much.
It was a lot better than I feared, although no where near what it could have been.
I agree on all points that people have raised about Skynet and the overall story. These kind of things are amazing really. There's whole industries dedicated to telling people how to write films and such, people who run businesses selling scripts, festivals and awards etc but it's pretty obvious that Hollywood doesn't really give a fuck about writing. Seems to be a complete after-thought after the project has been greenlit.
It comes across as almost an irritiating hitch to shooting silly action when you watch a $200M film. Bizarre, but there it is.
Other than that though, it was good. The lack of intelligence present amongst the writers and filmmakers undermines any attempt at taking it seriously, but it was better than 95% of sci-fi action films..which I suppose is quite sad in some ways.
Cameron created such a great story that even pale imitations and hybrids of it still have some interest.
Shame someone like Neil Blomkamp couldn't have directed it, but it was still pretty good, despite everything.
My big problem with this movie (I may have mentioned this elsewhere) is that it stepped away from the focus of the previous movies of one Terminator trying to kill John/Sarah. Now it was an army of people versus an army of robots. It didn't seem as...personal, I guess.
Arnold's cameo was great, though I wished they explained why they chose his 'face.' In the Sarah Conner Chronicles, an episode was dedicated to Cameron's origin and how she got to look the way she does.
My big problem with this movie (I may have mentioned this elsewhere) is that it stepped away from the focus of the previous movies of one Terminator trying to kill John/Sarah. Now it was an army of people versus an army of robots. It didn't seem as...personal, I guess.
Arnold's cameo was great, though I wished they explained why they chose his 'face.' In the Sarah Conner Chronicles, an episode was dedicated to Cameron's origin and how she got to look the way she does.
Phil
Fair enough. Personally I've been waiting to see the battle between human and robots on a grand scale since I saw the flashbacks in the first Terminator.
The only real problem I had with the film was the absurdity of the story.
It seems that they tried to do what you wanted and keep up the "kill John Connor" thing, but to me that was one of the reasons it didn't work...it was no longer relevant as we're in the present, not the past anymore.
Did you Sky Anytime it by any chance, Rick? Only, I finally watched this last week too.
It's not as bad as I assumed it would be, but it's not great, either. It just never really felt that involving. Not epic enough to be epic, but not really at all emotional and personal, either. There's basically no characterisation, and while some of the action's well done it never really felt weighty, if that's the word. For me, though, Christian Bale was probably actually the worst thing in it. It's not a good performance. It's the Batman voice for two hours, and that's it. Sam Worthington was fine (although he did lapse into his natural Australian at one point), and Anton what-sit was okay too.
It's just...meh, really. Not bad, but not a worthy sequel to Cameron's original. It just felt like a cash-in rather than an attempt to do anything new.
Did you Sky Anytime it by any chance, Rick? Only, I finally watched this last week too.
It's not as bad as I assumed it would be, but it's not great, either. It just never really felt that involving. Not epic enough to be epic, but not really at all emotional and personal, either. There's basically no characterisation, and while some of the action's well done it never really felt weighty, if that's the word. For me, though, Christian Bale was probably actually the worst thing in it. It's not a good performance. It's the Batman voice for two hours, and that's it. Sam Worthington was fine (although he did lapse into his natural Australian at one point), and Anton what-sit was okay too.
It's just...meh, really. Not bad, but not a worthy sequel to Cameron's original. It just felt like a cash-in rather than an attempt to do anything new.
It was on Sky premiere last night.
I agree with what you're saying. It's nothing like as good as a Cameron film, but it was still better than most films in the genre (it is after all very much a B-movie/"ghetto" genre).
Not great, but it was a decent attempt by considerably less talented filmmakers. Just looking at what McG has done before, it's a miracle it was even half watchable.
You guys are chipping into the surface of a serious creative issue affecting any successfull enterprise: Limit future projects by precedents the audience enjoyed previously or to broaden those limitations at risk of offending/alienating the fans that brought the project this far?
Here's $100-$200M: make a decision.
"WHUT?!! HUH?! I... uh... ?"
Do you give back your percentage of that pie that would be your paycheck or do you say "LOL! Screwit!" and produce something that will pay for your ridiculous mortgage and hopefully land your next gig?
I think the mano a mano argument has been played out and now the broader scope of humanities plight is appropriate to be addressed UNTIL that's been played out. At that point - Terminator 9 will revert back to mano a mano.
Personally, as a fan of hard scifi, I wanted to be immersed in more tech and less human condition. (Cliche) dystopian futures disgust me, but that's where this story carries us. Again. Perhaps the greatest challenge of horror is to out-gun the audience's capability to recognize/accept/adopt an amazing multitude of situational possibilities. I've seen broken down men and societies resist and perservere. Show me something else. Make me say "G@D@MN! That's messed up! Let's not allow that to happen."