It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I think that directing-wise, Cameron is a genius. But producing-wise he is a disaster, especially since he has an ego the size of the known universe.
I´d be happy if he reached those levels again or even surpassed them.
I'd add True Lies on that list @boldfinger. A classic 1990's action flick. And who doesn't enjoy watching Arnie ride a horse in an elevator? ;-)
Unfortunately not a single sequel was treated this way. T3, Salvation, Genisys and Dark Fate all have, if you pardon my language, novice or mediocre (at best) directors. None of them came close to setting a high bar for visual effects. None of them came close to having the same atmosphere and unique style of the first two movies.
Just big fat waste of potential.
I didn´t forget it, but, much like the three I mentioned, it´s great but not on that level.
Ok, splitting hairs ;-).
Agreed 100%
The studios keep hiring mediocre nobodies like McG, and Alan Tyler to do the Terminator films because they are cheap, and then expect these films to become big. Lol
Unfortunately Tim Miller is in the same category.
T2 was revolutionairy in every way, doing mediocre sequels won't cut it.
His earlier films are great and some of the best in the genre, I was not keen on the CGI heavy Titanic and Avatar though I recognise there technical accomplishments. Thinking back other than the first Terminator film and Piranha 2 I have watched all the other Cameron films at the cinema, I vividly remember watching T2 it was a really big deal at the time.
So on one side, Cameron just wanted to give his opinions to Tim Miller, but Miller was going to do his own thing, and on the other side, the film reflects those things that they all agreed on would be cool. Who was in charge of things, then? Miller alone, with suggestions of Cameron (and Ellison), or Miller together with Cameron and Ellison?
Now that the movie tanked horribly i guess everyone will blame the other party :D
"Look, i was barely there... what, the film is out already? No one told me, see?"
The choice of Director's has come across as flavour of the month or not even that in some cases
It's almost like it got worse and worse at some point, going from the guy who did the Charlies Angels films to a TV Director who did arguably the worst looking Marvel film at that time? What the hell.
Needless to say, all these guys had their career*... terminated.
*using that word lightly here.
Too right. The directors they pick don't have any semblance of consistency to their work in terms of justifying them leading a big franchise (and one that they continuously plan failed trilogies around).
As for Cameron, he can backpedal all he wants but he was responsible for:
Which is more than enough reason for me to not trust his word on these films anymore.
+1
Agree if the tone of Breakdown was replecated T3 would have been good, though admittedly T3 script was not great either
Even though it's not a good Terminator film by any means. But it had a lot more elements from the first 2, and Mostow understood a couple things better than his successors. Mainly using as many practical effects for action scenes as possible. Here the Terminators feel legitimately like they weight 400 pounds.
What he got completely wrong was the tone unfortunately. It went too much into camp territory. Which is odd as they could have written a very dark and intense film, similar to the first two, as they had the perfect ending to pull it off.
Also i never bought Nick Stahl as JC. That casting was and always will be off to me.
Kristina was the best thing about T3 hands down.
I liked her a lot… like a lot lot… (i was 19, come on)
She was flawless and possibly the deadliest and most effective evil Terminator in the series.
I wish she had been a Femme Fatale in a Brosnan Bond, that would have been legitimately scary. Unfortunately she only made it to a TV Commercial with him (playing off of her Terminatrix even then).
Better than nothing i guess.
I think her Terminatrix was so iconic at that time that it overshadowed her career sadly, and she wasn‘t able to land roles in anything else, similar to Robert Patrick.
PS:
Also i think she was a WAY better example of female empowerment, without being preachy or on the nose about it, than the clumsy and hamfisted DF.
That´s a nice spot there with Brosnan and Loken, never saw that before.
I have seen Kristina in a few things gorgeous woman, in fact I was browsing Amazon Prime movies the other day and added a film Kristina is in which I have not seen called Bloodrayne.
Kristina is just bad ass without none of the preachy nonsense.
I have never seen that advert before
And you still write better than whoever wrote the last few Terminator sequels. ;-)
The reason they can’t get a big name talent attached to the franchise is because they story ended back in 1991. There hasn’t been any need for a Terminator sequel since John and Sarah put a stop to Judgement Day.
Valid point.
There were two attemptes already to reverse that, with T3 and now DF.
Though i would argue, and I think Cameron would agree, that Skynet really is inevitable, at least in the Terminator universe. We are only at the start of artifficial intelligence taking off, and there is no way that at least half a dozen companies would attempt what Cyberdyne was doing. Google is todays Cyberdyne.
I think T3 did the best job in exploring that by showing that John (and Sarah) were very much aware of that fact and could never find peace again.
But they did it half assedly so many times by now that there is really nothing to explore here anymore. They alreay started Recycling their recycled Material in DF, they should let it rest.
It essentially takes the best of the worst and retells it. So yes, by default it's better than the other post-T2 films. I didn't hate the opening (although I wish we could have seen a bit more in the way of flashbacks), and as a CGI fest it's a fun ride in the cinema. Linda and Arnold are fantastic, as were Davis and Reyes. Tim Miller seems capable of getting good performances from his actors but the action, while fun, was just too comic book.
Never did I feel the true danger. Had none of the other post-T2 sequels existed this might have worked fine for a change in tone. However, it really just feels like a slightly better T3.
Enjoyable, but when people are saying "it's better than the other sequels" instead of saying "it's as good as the first two" then it's easy to see why audiences are tired of it. I'm not surprised it's tanking.
Honestly if I was gonna pitch a 3-6 for the terminator series
Terminator 3 I would make it set in the post apocalyptic and instead of some random plot it would be a horror time bender with John Connor and Kyle Reese in a race against time to get Kyle into the time portal to save John.. (I picture like john’s health deteriorating throughout the film but no one can figure out why as that time line disappears
Terminator 4 a film where they capture and reprogram the t-800
Terminator 5 ok for sheer b movie thrills the idea of a guardian fighting a younger t-800 and t-1000 would be so cool but set the full film in 1984
And there you go