ROTTEN TOMATOES: Terminator 4 Plot Details Leaked! Comments

Terminator 4 Plot Details Leaked!

by Jeff Giles | December 20, 2007

Summary

After the comparatively lackluster T3: Rise of the Machines, more than a few people left the Terminator series for dead -- but as it turns out, the franchise may just be catching its second wind. Back to Article

(21-40 of 73 posts) | Reply

Elixor writes:
on Dec 20 2007 10:50 AM

I completely agree with Blade501 and southwick. T3 has a good story and helps clear up some of the time mythology problems that T2 presented, although not completely. Granted T3 isn't as bad *** as T1 and T2, but from a story standpoint was completely valid and interesting.

I can't see how anyone can claim that T2 is a valid end to the series unless you don't care about the story making sense. You could end the series after T1 and it all can make sense with a single timeline theory, but once you throw T2 into the mix, there's too many questions. One good one would be how does Cyberdyne know that the first attempt failed? When everything doesn't magically change around it (wouldn't make sense)? If you go with a multiple timeline theory, then Cyberdyne doesn't care about its own timeline, because it can't change it, it just wants to create a new timeline where the machines win. What's the point of that? If that's the case, it still doesn't know that the first attempt failed. T2 also makes the assumption that the first Terminator causes Cyberdyne to be created, which creates other problems. My point being that T2 presents more problems to the storyline than it solves and doesn't make a good end to the series.

(Reply to this)

Gimy writes:
on Dec 20 2007 11:11 AM

i'll just add this in because i haven't read it on here but, if you Bale fans think this is a might-be-bad decision...you should hear that he is going to be in a...gulp...vomit...urgh...uwe boll flick soon. never heard of the video game but, its solid snake. anything Boll does is absolute horsesh3t...so i'm a little worried about bale as of now. odd thing is, the chic who played the terminator(3rd one, and did a sh3t job) also starred in Bloodrayne(beyond horrible movie)...so there's a connection

i know in the 3rd flick they were ALL about a chic terminator and how she was more dangerous, could blend in better...blah blah blah but...if they do that in 4, a good casting choice would be Maggie Q. she has that cold heartless look down pat...

(Reply to this)

cooperbob writes:
on Dec 20 2007 11:12 AM

love the first one, hated the second one so much i couldn't even muster the energy to watch the third. christian bale is awesome, i was about to say i'd have to go check it out, but then i read "McG" was directing. never mind. even Bale isn't enough to make me want to go now.

(Reply to this)

nathanpoitras writes:
on Dec 20 2007 11:33 AM

I'm looking forward to it, but why McG of all people? What, was every other single director in Hollywood busy? Even Ratner would have been a better choice for this one!

(Reply to this)

dragoneye writes:
on Dec 20 2007 11:56 AM

I watched the original Terminator at the movies when I was 14, a claim most of the people who post comments on this board cannot make. It is built of much a point of philosophy of man against machine that Isaac Asimov realized as did Fritz Lang with Metropolis. Terminator 2 was a great movie, but had many problems with continuity across the board (time travel with the T-1000 terminator, etc.) as there were problems with the cast namely Edward Furlong as John. It capitalized on the fascination of the first movie made on a paltry budget of $6-$10 million making in the end over $40 million at the box office. The third movie was a good movie and did a fantastic job of wrapping up many of the issues the other movies ignored, where the Terminator 2 was just a rehash with the same story and plot lines as the original Terminator, Terminator 3 was much different not just due to James Cameron's departure from the series. A restart is greatly needed and will be justified in the end. I don't think McG is the right man for the job, but there were nay sayers when Spielberg signed on for Jaws when his only movie to date was the Richard Matheson written 'Duel' which was made for TV. I hope they do have a good bad *** guy like a Riddick in the movie and not such a unaccepting puss like Edward Furlong or Nick Stahl represented.

(Reply to this)

Exode writes:
on Dec 20 2007 12:01 PM

In reply to this comment (#1378950)
Seems you've been out of the loop a while, it was confirmed that, him, I don't like to mention his name, would not be responsible in any way for Metal Gear Solid's creation. Bale is also just a rumored actor for the film, far from a guarentee.

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Dec 20 2007 12:13 PM

In reply to this comment (#1378950)
i don't really know about the movie, but solid snake was the main character in the metal gear solid games for playstation. oh, just looked it up on imdb. guess they made a game called 'solid snake' about terrorists taking over a nuclear facility or something. ew boll is an abomination as a filmmaker, but those metal gear games are fly. if it wasn't him directing this would sound kind of cool for bale.

see gimy, i told you a couple weeks ago bale was getting overexposed. now it's just franchise this and franchise that.

(Reply to this)

SirEradan writes:
on Dec 20 2007 12:30 PM

"A big aspect of the story is the degrees of difference between a human and a Terminator. By which I mean cyborgs. By which I mean human brains in robot bodies."

Obviously Terminator has now around been for a long time but it looks like these guys are starting to draw even more from Battlestar Galactica (the new series) than the original films did with the old one.

Come on, McG. Just do a Terminator-Matrix crossover and make the Battlestar rehash complete.

(Reply to this)

quietus28 writes:
on Dec 20 2007 12:36 PM

This has sounded terrible from the start. Christian Bale's inclusion doesn't help much, either. Regardless of how good he is, it doesn't mean he always picks out winners to star in. Reign of Fire, anyone?

(Reply to this)

lpbreeze writes:
on Dec 20 2007 12:39 PM

I really don't have any urge to see T4 and I'm not impressed at all with the talent behind the film. I can see how some people would say T1 is better than T2 but go back to Alvin and the Chimpmunks if you think T3 is a great film. It is worth seeing on dvd and thats it.

(Reply to this)

quietus28 writes:
on Dec 20 2007 12:45 PM

In reply to this comment (#1378924)
I agree with Elixor, T2 just messed up the story. I felt like I was the only one who hated it. Sure, the action and special effects were great, but it was impossible to get into the story because if John Conner's death changed the future, why should I care about the kid, especially when he's played annoyingly by Edward Furlong? Kill the kid, save the human race. With the kid dead, there's no reason to send Terminators back to kill him, thus the technology for creating Terminators would never be used by the company that developed the evil supercomputer. Besides, if you changed the future so the Terminators never existed, the kid wouldn't exist anyway, because there wouldn't be the time travel technology, nor the need to send his daddy back to seed him. Two birds, one stone.

(Reply to this)

rle4lunch writes:
on Dec 20 2007 01:39 PM

meh.

(Reply to this)

Hurts2Watch writes:
on Dec 20 2007 03:34 PM

-"Marcus is a bad *** - think along the lines of Riddick"

-"there is a butt busting female character by the name of Blair"

These two lines scare me. First of all, the over-the-top invincible hero type...a la Riddick... just sucks. Its a watered down, undramatic character type that gets used more and more these days. These guys make everything seem like a mountain dew commercial.

Secondly, butt busting females are almost ALWAYS done wrong. I'll not be surprised if T4 falls into the same old cliche of the uber-hot, cute-but-tough, 100LBS-but-wielding-a-.50Cal-Desert-Eagle, character. What ever happened to just using a believably attractive and GOOD ACTING person like Sigourney Weaver as a heroine? Why the mega sexy overtones? Its just so lazy, they dont want to deal with adding in a sexy character AND a tough character so they just combine them! Yay, good idea...lets just put our hamburgers and cokes in the f-ing blender so we can gulp it down easier, idiots. And who falls for this crap?! How do you live with yourselves letting them treat you like cinematic invalids?! Why would someone positively reinforce that kind of treatment?? Are you high or do you hate yourselves or something?? Its pathetic.

(Reply to this)

Crusader07 writes:
on Dec 20 2007 04:12 PM

Screw T3. They should of just skipped over T3 and made this new thing they're doing... It would've saved lots of people the heartbeak.

(Reply to this)

South Texas Terror writes:
on Dec 20 2007 04:16 PM

T1 is the definition of a classic movie. T4 needs less bad CGI like T3 and more rubber face and red light bulb eyes like the original.

(Reply to this)

Brad 3000 writes:
on Dec 20 2007 04:38 PM

The way I rank em - T1, easily the best, T3 comes in second, and T2 is in last place by a good margin - it has some great sequences but overall it has not aged well, certain sections drag like crazy and Edward Furlong's performance is spectacularly bad.

(Reply to this)

elmokajaky writes:
on Dec 20 2007 07:27 PM

Catwoman was nowhere near as bad as it's made out to be...and T3 was pretty fun.

Bring on T4!

(Reply to this)

reyes writes:
on Dec 20 2007 07:29 PM

MY childhood, where has it gone. I need to bar myself from the world so i cant watch my childhood be burned from this movie.

(Reply to this)

phell writes:
on Dec 20 2007 07:56 PM

Christian Bale should file criminal charges against his agent. A talented actor, and all that popular goodwill from Batman du jour...all to be undone with this inevitable McG turd. I hope the paycheck is worth it.

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Dec 20 2007 09:45 PM

I've talked about this many times before on these boards. Why T3 was valid, why I think this new TV show is a step back, why I "don't" (yes, don't) like Bale as Conner (and to clear it up, not because I think Bale is "above this"), why this new trilogy is entirely worthwhile and not a simple money grabber and why I fully support this revamp (though I too wish there were more able-bodied people on board).

I've talked about all that, and quite frankly I'm sick of typing up the same stuff every other day. So I simply say this:

If you think T2 was the end of the story, then please explain how the events of the first Terminator even happened! For example, HOW THE HECK IS JOHN CONNER ALIVE IF THEY PREVENTED THE WAR IN T2?!

Judgment Day was inevitable, T3 wasn't a waste of time, and the kiddies or old farts out there saying different either aren't very smart, or aren't Terminator fans. Simple as that.

Make love, not Warcraft. :)

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Terminator Salvation

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links