Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Even Thought TERMINATOR Hasn't SALVATed Yet, They're Already Ramping Up For Another One...

Merrick here...
Derek Anderson and Victor Kubicek, the producers of TERMINATOR SALVATION, are forging ahead with a fifth film, per a discussion at the Dubai International Film Festival (website HERE).
Helmer McG, who directed the upcoming fourth pic, "Terminator Salvation," is working with the Halcyon duo on the latest project.
...says THIS REPORT in Variety. The gang had originally planned to see how TERMINATOR SALVATION performed at the box office before launching a fifth film. But...based on general response to SALVATION footage/trailers, etc...they're horny to get a fifth installment up and running at this time.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 15, 2008, 10:35 a.m. CST


    by doodah

    terminators have saliva?

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 10:38 a.m. CST

    You mean...

    by MurderMostFowl

    You mean they realized that it's going to be kinda crappy, but that it will make money anyway?

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 10:38 a.m. CST

    Just watched the latest trailer

    by one9deuce

    The movie looks good, Christian Bale certainly helps that. It CAN'T be worse than Terminator 3 can it?

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 10:38 a.m. CST


    by Bouncy X

    yeah, its the new T-869 models, makes for better lubrication when blowing people......away.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 10:41 a.m. CST

    something clever

    by Bishop6

    I have to say

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 10:41 a.m. CST


    by rasALclart

    we knew you had it in you sonny

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 10:44 a.m. CST

    Even thought?

    by Gilkuliehe

    I'll be back.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 10:50 a.m. CST

    I'm glad Terminator will be back in the mainstream....

    by TiVo1138

    at least I assume it will, with a fucking trilogy of flicks starring Christian Bale. <br><br> Plus it looks suprisingly awesome thus far. I mean, they showed the fucking internment camps in the latest trailer. How awesome is that?

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Helmer McG

    by Mullah Omar

    Too bad "Helmer" isn't really McG's first name, because that would make his name epically, comically bad rather than just irritating.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 10:54 a.m. CST

    I just can't get excited about this

    by yodaismyhomie

    I don't know what it is, but I'm just not getting excited. I love the first two Terminators, hated three. I like Christian Bale, but I'm not even sure he can do this justice. I'll probably watch it on DVD, but I just don't have much hope in the franchise. Especially after the abysmal Sarah Connor Chronicles.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 10:56 a.m. CST


    by Bricktops hammer

    second time I've heard that word used strangely on this site.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 10:57 a.m. CST

    And the 6th one is coming too

    by GeorgieBoy

    There were supposed to be 3 movies made about what happens after Judgment Day. So this is not a surprise. They're going to squeeze every drop out of this franchise that they can. Poor Cameron...

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:01 a.m. CST

    GeorgieBoy it's his own fault...

    by MurderMostFowl

    Cameron sold his soul when he decided to cheat on Linda Hamilton with the Titanic bit part lady.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:04 a.m. CST

    People are so stupid.

    by awesomebri

    His real name is McGinty, McG is not too much of a bastardization. Do none of you have nick names for your mates? so what if he uses it his nick name on professional projects, its clearly something that just stuck. I for one love what I've seen so far and this is coming from a massive terminator fan who was very skeptical about this guy too, I just keep reading so many underdeveloped hate comments its irritating.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:07 a.m. CST

    Poor Cameron?

    by awesomebri

    WTF? seriously he should've made T3 years before it was made.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:09 a.m. CST

    From James Cameron, director of ALIENS and T2...

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    ...comes the next step in total fucking destruction:<p>AVATAR - Fucking your eyeballs in 2009.<p>nothing else matters

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:13 a.m. CST

    Cameron had his chance for $1 dollar!

    by ABking

    James Cameron could have owned the rights to the TERMINATOR brand back in the 80's for just 1 dollar, but fucked that one up. Then in 2001 he had another chance again to own the rights but because he and Arnold thought the other would buy the rights...that gave Kassar and Vajna just enough time to snap ownership up really fast. Blame CAMERON for not owning what he created. The next 3 TERMINATOR films could have all been directed by JAMES CAMERON but alas! Oh and the reason they are moving ahead so fast with the 5th is because we know TERMINATOR SALVATION will gross at least 200 million domestic and 500 million worldwide.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:15 a.m. CST

    Damn You Mohinder Suresh

    by IAmMrMonkey!

    Damn You Mohinder Suresh

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:15 a.m. CST


    by BurgerTime

    Why not?

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:16 a.m. CST

    You gotta be FUCKING kidding me!

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    McG, Joseph MacFucky Nichol, will also direct T5 ??? Aint this fucking shit news?

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:17 a.m. CST

    he directed Titanic too.

    by awesomebri

    I love Aliens and T2 but he's not all that. The Abyss was average, who can really be hyped about Avatar? no one has seen anything, it could be a huge turkey like Titanic.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:19 a.m. CST

    Can't wait...

    by SlickyVonBoner

    I've been waiting for a Terminator movie set in the future since I was a kid. Honestly I don't see why they even dicked around with T2 and T3, retreading the same theme. The war with the machines is the real story.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:22 a.m. CST

    Chris Bale will look like a confused puppy between...

    by ricarleite

    ... McG and Chris Nolan, one asking him to return to Termination Full Throttle, the other to the sequel to TDK. McG, unfortunally, has the ablity to suck penises with intense vigor to get jobs, so he'll convince Bale with glorious fellatios. Nolan goes on to film a Memento prequel. We all lose.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:31 a.m. CST

    Does this mean PG-13?!!

    by TheMcflyFarm

    I would think they would be more sure of a high gross with a PG-13 than they would with an R. God I hope the fuck not.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:31 a.m. CST

    Yeah, but the trailer sucked

    by NivekJ

    If you were making Mad Max vs. Mechagodzilla, that'd be one thing. But Terminator? Everyone needs to get their damn hands off of the franchise. Even T3 was just overglorified fan-fiction. At least the TV show knows it.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:31 a.m. CST

    I can definitely get excited about this

    by slone13

    I mean, really, who doesn't want more Terminators? Idiots. That's who.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:34 a.m. CST

    ricarleite, WB owns both

    by TheLastCleric

    And they won't fuck with Bale or Batman; not after a billion dollar gross and the second highest domestic take of all time.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:38 a.m. CST

    I thought the trailer looked pretty damn good.

    by TheLastCleric

    Literally every bit of the future wars in the previous films were night sequences so it's pretty cool to see some of the battles happening in daylight. The concept of the future conflict has always been a good idea for a film or even a series of films so I really don't get the automatic hate on this one. Bale generally does quality work so I'm of the opinion that this film could deliver the goods next summer.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:39 a.m. CST

    Titanic and Abyss hate? I don't get it.

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    Seriously. I know we are all sick and fucking tired of Celine Dion's fucking atrocious Titanic theme song. But that shouldn't mean that the movie itself was shitty, too. I really don't know why the fuck it seems to be cool to hate on Titanic. <p>The Abyss may have a little weak ending with its ecological message (especially in the director's cut) BUT it's a thrilling rollercoaster ride of a movie with tons of cool scenes, a great cast and stunning visual effects.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:41 a.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    Titanic was a turkey? Erm, might want to check your facts there. And The Abyss can be described in one word: AWESOME. Blockbuster filmmaking is in the toilet. Hopefully Cameron can dig it back out.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:42 a.m. CST

    Mad Max vs. Mechagodzilla?

    by wbrownley

    That sounds fucking awesome. Just don't call it Terminator 4.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:48 a.m. CST

    It's more like Mad Max meets Transformers...

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    For a PG-13 audience...

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:52 a.m. CST

    Please may they get this right!

    by Mr Gorilla

    They're doing a VERY good job of it so far. 5 years ago a TERMINATOR film without Arnie was unimaginable. But now, I don't think I'll miss him! Oh, by the way haters, that final film was actually damn good fun. And it had a really wonderful last 10 minutes...

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:54 a.m. CST

    Keep chugging down satans dark seed

    by MatDGZ

    and make the 5th film, why the hell not? its not like the money could be used elsewhere on something brilliant and astounding, that'd be too hard. Lets keep making what will clearly be distinctly average and dull as fuck films.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:58 a.m. CST

    Titanic was a turkey...

    by awesomebri

    it did amazing in the box office granted but its a bad movie. As for someones PG13 comment, you can do a lot with PG13 nowadays. T1 would be PG now if you took the sex scene out.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:58 a.m. CST

    Quality > quantity, in this case...

    by Darth Macchio

    ...I mean is it just me? When is enough enough? Do these human pez-dispensers have a limit? Are these people like dogs who simply cannot resist the possibility of orgasmic satisfaction and thus will eat until their stomach rupture? Or, in our case, make shitter and shitter versions/sequels/prequels/whatever of classic movies until we've so low balled our expectations that we'll all flock to the theater as long as it's in fucking color and moving?<p>Don't get me wrong, I truly want this to kick ass. I really do. But there's something rotten in Denmark, here. I want this to kick ass but I absolutely do NOT think that it will. There's just too much fucking shit going on....if it was a smart drama in the middle of a sci-fi action bonanza, we wouldn't be hearing or seeing this shit.<p>McGinty doth protests to much me thinks.<p>He's worried about his shitter of a movie so he was out equivocating and pretzelizing the flimflam before it's even released and now, out of the blue, the movie is so good (from the riotous response to the trailers, natch) their moving onto the next? Sure, I'm overreacting and sure, time will tell and maybe a grown man known to the world by his nickname will surprise us all. I've been wrong before!<p>Truly, I want to be surprised, I want to be wrong on the inevtiable suck of Terminator: Salvation...but when I'm not and McGinty (and no, I will not call you by your nickname either!!) makes "Charlie's Angels 2: Full Throttle!" in Terminator land, all of you will owe Jimmy Cameron a personal apology and you will must be forced to watch 'Titanic' and then "Twilight" with one thousand 13-14 year old girls high on ritalin.<p>And, not a facetious query here, what the hell exactly IS a Terminator Salvation? Cyborg heaven? 72 robot virgins? 3 for 1 sale at Radio-Shack? Endless repeats of Wall-E and Heartbeeps on HD-PPV?<p>I hope I'm wrong and I hope it's good but for drama the McGinty guy is just mediocre (football teams dies in plane crash movie) but for action? He only excels in charicature movies...even in "We Are Marshall" the sentiment was so think at times as to be relatively "charicature" of a tragedy (altho not too much...give me hope in fact).<p>Please let me be wrong! I'll make my pledge: I, Darthemius T.S. Macchio, on this date, the fifteenth of December, in the year Two thousand and eight, I hereby hope that I am 100% wrong on my final prediction of the imminent suckage of 'Terminator:Salvation'.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 12:01 p.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    How is Titanic a bad movie? Its not to my personal taste and the dialogue is pretty bad but its an awesome piece of filmmaking vision.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 12:02 p.m. CST

    McG is no auteur

    by Rupee88

    This movie will be tolerable at best...they stole the big robots from Transformers (who stole them from somewhere else), but I just don't see this being a very enjoyable film. And that is coming from someone who found T3 to be pretty darn good (though not in the same league as T2 which is a masterpiece)

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 12:05 p.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    You've hit the nail on the head. Cameron is a visionary filmmaker. McG is, at best, a director-for-hire.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 12:07 p.m. CST

    I'm guessing this will shoot before Nolan/Bale's Bats 3

    by performingmonkey

    I'm pretty sure Nolan's third Batman flick WILL happen and Bale probably did a deal with McG that he would only do T4 and beyond if it could fit around any future outing as Bruce Wayne. Batman 3 (how fucking funny would it be if they actually called it that!) could maybe be about Bruce possibly losing all his fortune. His future as the big playboy should definitely hang in the balance, even if Wayne Manor is rebuilt. Taken down from the inside. Talia Al Ghul would be a great character to bring in (she wouldn't have that name though, only secretly) thus bringing the trilogy full circle. Perhaps they could set up Gordon's kid as Robin. I hope to god Gary Oldman returns as Gordon, and he has as large a role as in TDK. Utterly brilliant and inspired casting from the outset. Either The Riddler or The Penguin (or both) could be the way to go, even though the way they were played in Returns and Forever by De Vito and Carrey is probably embedded in people's minds. But so was The Joker and Nicholson. Thankfully Nolan proved how good he was by doing the 'real' Two-Face in TDK and also a Joker of the likes we'd not seen onscreen before. It would be harder to pull that off with The Riddler IMO but seeing as Carrey took most of his inspiration from the '60s TV show Riddler there's no reason why we can't have the comic book version in Nolan's universe.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 12:15 p.m. CST

    The only possible title for Batman 3

    by kwisatzhaderach

    The Dark Knight Returns :)

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 12:42 p.m. CST


    by NivekJ

    Apparently, this TPB helped inform both of Nolan's Batflicks. Plus, with the Riddler and Catwoman as villains, and everyone going apeshit during a crimewave on Halloween, it's the perfect title. C'mon; we haven't had a holiday-themed Batman film since "Returns" (Christmas) and Batman & Robin (Gotham City's 200th anniversary). We need a Batman for the holidays. As for T4, I only have this to say: "FUCK MY EYES, MCG! FUCK MY EYES NOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!" Oh, and Mad Max vs. Mechagodzilla would still kick ass, but only if rated PG-13. FUCK MY EYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYES!!!

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Titanic is definitely not a masterpiece.

    by DerLanghaarige

    But it's not a worthless piece of shit either. It's an okay movie with a bad screenplay, that you watch onece but don't have to re-watch again. (So yes, in terms of box office it's definitely overrated.)

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 12:59 p.m. CST


    by J-Dizzle

    I think that Oldman has the same deal as every one else in that he's been contracted to do 3 movies, meaning he will be in Batman 3. And yes, I agree, they should call it Batman 3 (just to stick it to Burton and Schumacher).

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 1:07 p.m. CST

    Terminator 5: Ka-ching.

    by Diagnostic

    Salvation has come for the franchise and studio.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 1:09 p.m. CST


    by medicinaluser

    Batman 3 whats the story behind that and how it would stick it to B and S? <BR><BR> It should be called Batman Ends so this set of films can be put to rest and then someone else comes along and reboots with ther vision 5 years hence.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 1:23 p.m. CST

    You guys are nuts! I for one LOVED THE NEW TRAILER!!!!

    by Leafy McPlantsalot

    Thought it looked hilarious! Can't wait!

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 1:28 p.m. CST

    Grammar check that headline buddy

    by SomaShine

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 1:50 p.m. CST

    Getting ahead of yourselves ain't ya boys.

    by otm shank

    Let's see watch you got first, and if it's PG-13 I'm not interested.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 1:56 p.m. CST

    McG's full name ...

    by emeraldboy

    is John McGinty Nichol. Actually batman three could be really topical. Bruce wayne loses everything. Wayne realises that Lucious fox was a corporate conman who was privately stripping wayne enterprises dry. He sold the sonar device to highest bidder but fox was a complete insider. it could be possible that he brings down wayne enterprises from the inside. it may well be that Wayne and fox fall out. fox sides with unseen enemy. twoface. Twoface takes revenge against batman. over rachel dawes. We never saw rachel dawes die. that bit of the movie annoyed me. cause it looked like they never learned anything from the Katie holmes debacle.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 2:14 p.m. CST

    Terminator Salvation looks great, but please make it an R...

    by Rindain

    I think you would really need the R rating to make the themes of war and sacrifice that were mentioned in the trailer really resonate.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 2:26 p.m. CST

    I doubt Cameron

    by I am_NOTREAL

    wants to do any more Terminator movies. He probably doesn't care.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 2:37 p.m. CST

    Should include a subtitle Cajun Man would love.

    by NinjaRap

    To tie it best to Terminator: Salva-shun, they should name the sequel Terminator: Eradica-shun or Terminator: Elimina-shun or Terminator: Degrada-shun or Terminator: Devasta-shun or something like that.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 3 p.m. CST

    I'm telling you, this is the ending spoiler !

    by nooneimportant

    Arnold is 'sort of' in the movie. The naked guy picking up the gun in the trailer is actually pro bodybuilder Roland Kickinger. He was hired as a body double and they are CG'ing Arnold’s face over his because Arnie is not in that kind of shape anymore at 61. The Terminator (Arnold) attacks John in the factory. John is able to trick him into following him (John) into the Time Displacement equipment. John traps Arnold there and sends him back in time to be the Terminator from the original film. The salvation aspect has to do with John saving his own past so he'll grow up to be the savior he needs to be. So it seems that he doesn’t just send Reece, he also sends the Terminator. John knows that Skynet's creation and subsequent actions are inevitable. He decides to prepare the mother so she in turn can prepare him for the future.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 3:15 p.m. CST

    So...this is how the world ends....

    by Darth Macchio

    Jar Jar Binks practically destroys the galaxy and now Conner is both humanity's savior and death?<p>So, if John is the first to send the Terminator back and then destroy the equipment then isn't he kind of a dick? I mean all he had to do was simply NOT send the Terminator back. The Terminator would never have "existed" in the 1984 timeline, Cyberdyne never would have developed Skynet via reverse-engineering the pieces of the future Terminator in the factory. Sarah Conner would still be hanging out with lizards and goofy women with poofy hair. And, most important, John Conner never would have existed.<p>So, in McG's world John Connor, the supposed 'Savior' of humanity is actually the instrument of its destruction and thus weds himself to humanity's fate for eternity? Sounds a bit selfish don't you think? I'd say you choosing not to exist to save humanity isn't just noble but god damn mandatory? I mean even the Punk'd dude told that girl to beat-feet when he realized that there was no possible 'existence' that would be not hosed in a bad way if he continued to be in her life. But John Conner, all he had to do was destroy the time displacement gear before sending the first Term and then Reese back, thereby never even starting the storyline! But "humanity's savior" chooses not to?<p>Dickhead!!!! Asshole! Savior, my ASS!!!!

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 3:22 p.m. CST

    terminator 3 already explained his motivations

    by nooneimportant

    in T3, we learned that judgement day was inevitable, no matter John's actions. It should have ended in T2, but fate is fate and judgement day HAD to happen. John knows that if he wasn't the one to send this Terminator back, then they would themselves eventually. At least this way, it's on his terms.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 3:32 p.m. CST

    Im holding off until Jondough weighs in

    by ArcadianDS

    I've set aside the remainder of December for that.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 3:54 p.m. CST


    by Darth Macchio

    ...don't you see? If this new one ends with Conner sending both the first term back and Reese then its shite personified. If John didn't send the terminator back the first time, according to this rumored "spoiler" for Salvation, then there would be no terminators (nothing to back engineer, nothing to develop into skynet, no terminators!). The timeline would have been broken right there prior to it ever even existing. "They" (Skynet) wouldn't have existed so "they" wouldn't have been able to send anything back. I hope this is not how Salvation ends cause it totally screws the entire story over. And if John is the one doing it, he must know what he is doing so he's the one who causes the end of the human race.<p> could argue something else would happen to kill all humans but it wouldn't be a Terminator/s as they never would have existed.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 4:17 p.m. CST

    I concur wih Ralph Vader

    by NivekJ

    If John really did start this whole mess (the time loop), that makes him essentially a villian, one of the most vicious in cinematic history. Judgement Day was a result of the time loop. In T3, the government takes over SkyNet. In T2, Cyberdyne back engineers SkyNet. In T1, a terminator is sent back to kill a woman who conceives the resistance leader with the guy sent back to protect her. Once John Connor sends back both, he's the cause. End of story. If SkyNet was able to send back a souped-up Terminator, guess what? Sarah Connor is aced, the Terminator jumps in a pool of lava, no SkyNet. Thus, no Terminator to begin with and no SkyNet or Judgement Day. Sometimes, you should just leave well enough alone, and trust the random pools of lava.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Damn You Michael Bay


    Damn You Michael Bay

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Damn You Michael Bay


    Damn You Michael Bay

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 4:58 p.m. CST

    Where is....

    by blacknoi

    Clair Danes? She's so hot....

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 5:01 p.m. CST

    John Connor and Skynet are in the

    by kabong

    reality loop. <P> Skynet always sends Terminators back and John Connor always whips metal butt.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 5:21 p.m. CST

    I don't mind McG.

    by Amy Chasing

    He's been involved with shows I like or used to like (The O.C., Chuck, Supernatural, Charlies Angels). Hope he can bring to Terminator whatever it was he brought to those shows. <P> In any case I think he has a better resume than J.J. Abrams, who I hope doesn't bring to Star Trek what he brought to things like Cloverfield and MI3.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 5:56 p.m. CST


    by TheHumanBeingAndFish

    According to the IMDB, the character (Kate) is now played by Bryce Dallas Howard.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 8:07 p.m. CST

    What's with all the typos?

    by PrezMike

    "Even 'thought" in this post, and "which it hopes to 'producer' in Australia" in the Phantom post. Come on, at least proof read your things once?

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 10:31 p.m. CST

    I hear T5 will feature

    by MrD

    Christian Bale's swirling ass in Spider-Man underoos!

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 10:37 p.m. CST

    Terminator Ejaculation: The End Comes

    by KongMonkey

    Proposed title for McGenius next outing with the Govenatorless new Terminators. Only if McG alumni Cameron Diaz shows up and gets her annoying cartoon smile blasted off her face would I see it.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 10:56 p.m. CST

    sarah connor chronicles

    by celebritydave

    have the last 2 episodes sucked balls or what? this week... we had sarah at a ufo convention.. befriending a fucking tranny??? i skipped through most of it.. just shit shit shit

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 11:03 p.m. CST

    I can't wait to read JonDough's review of T5...

    by Ultron ver 2.0

    ...should be up next Tuesday.

  • Dec. 16, 2008, 12:11 a.m. CST

    I'm pulling for this.

    by Anti-fanboy

    McG might just make a good movie. Accidentally or otherwise. I'm really liking the cast (including Jane Alexander!?!), and the intensity and serious tone of the footage thus far.

  • Dec. 16, 2008, 12:30 a.m. CST

    The Terminator HAS to go back.

    by veebeeyes

    Whether or not Skynet sends the Terminator back, or John Connor sends the Terminar back, or ANYONE else sends the Terminator back, the Terminator HAS to go back. The inevitability of it happening is just as assured as the inevitability of Judgement Day occuring. It HAS to occur because IT ALREADY HAPPENED (at the point, it has already happened both in the future and in the past). They practically say as much way back in the first fucking movie. Just as it was actually The Terminator (as well as Kyle Reese) that directly led to a future in which a Terminator would be sent back in time to prevent John Connor from being born. It was also the Terminator that precipitated events that would lead to the birth of John Connor and therefore the need for Skynet to send a Terminator back in time in the first place. Does that make sense? Well, the initial premise doesn't make sense at all. The Terminator was basically like a darker and more violent version of that one Twilight Zone episode where a dude goes back in time to correct history's mistakes. You remember that episode, don't you? It was pretty cool. A dude goes back in time to kill Hitler, stop the Titanic from sinking, and warn about the bombing of Hiroshima. And every single time he fails. Disheartened, he decides to live in the past sort of like John Cole in the movie 12 Monkeys. And while leaving peacefully in the past, he remembers learning in his childhood about a school burning down and killing a bunch of kids. He sees the stage set for this tragedy to occur. So he basically freaks out, starts acting like a crazy bastard, and actually CAUSES the school to burn down. That's like the Terminator. And The Terminator relied on the same third act "plot twist". The thing is, even though the initial premise doesn't make sense, the following actions need to be consistent with the initial premise. I can't logically explain HOW beings from the future could go back in time and create a causality loop that essentially requires EVERYTHING in the intervening time to progress EXACTLY so as to cause those beings from the future to go back in time. But once you accept that such has occured (smething that was established in the first Terminator movie), then those events HAVE to happen. The Terminator and Kyle Reese HAVE to go back in time. That's history, even if it happened in the future. And as the Twilight Zone dude learned, you CAN'T change history. He couldn't Kill Hitler because if he HAD killed Hitler then he would have never gone back in Time to Kill Hitler. He also HAD to go back to the time of the school fire, because history dictates that he was THERE, and that HE was the cause of that fire. HOW could he be the cause of the fire? Beats the hell out of me. But once you accept that he caused the school fire, then you have to accept that he HAS to go back in time and cause it. Once you accept that the saviour of humanity was actually a RESULT of a Terminator going back in time to kill the saviour of humanity, then you must accept that a Terminator HAS to go back in time to plant the seeds of its own creation and destruction. The Terminator DOES go back in time. So does Kyle Reese. They both HAVE TO go back in time. There is simply no other way that things can end up.

  • Dec. 16, 2008, 3:02 a.m. CST

    Agreed, Trailer DID NOT EXITE ME

    by fisheater

  • Dec. 16, 2008, 3:53 a.m. CST

    So far my only complaints...

    by Johnno

    Cut that weak ass 'come with me if you want to live' line... And the film should be darker... like how we saw the future in T1/T2. But anyway, if this is part of some big trilogy, then I guess this one can be the start of it and it gets progressively darker...

  • Dec. 16, 2008, 3:59 a.m. CST

    But then again...

    by Johnno

    T1 had flashback (forward?) scenes of Reese fighting the Terms and it was dark and apocalypticy... But I guess it was probably just night-time...

  • Dec. 16, 2008, 5:10 a.m. CST

    ABKing, are you seriously stupid?

    by TurdontheRun

    One dollar? No, he SOLD the rights to terminator for ONE dollar, so that he could get a chance a chance to direct his script for the first movie, and also get his feet on the rungs of the directorial ladder. a devil's deal, but the right choice for anybody starting in the industry. It does not mean he could have bought back the rights for ONE dollar. As for later on, Arnold and Cameron planned to buy them back now that they were rich and successful, but for whatever reason Vajna and Kassar bought them back before they could do so, or they outbid them; who knows? Maybe Arnold should have got his finger out instead of squirreling money away for a future political campaign, eh? I like the S-Man too, but you've got your head so far up his and Sly's asses it's not even funny!

  • Dec. 16, 2008, 5:33 a.m. CST

    Still, it looks good so far.

    by GetEveryone

    Nothing is really pointing to a bad film other than the director's previous projects. <BR>Also, with regard to The Abyss, it was one of those films i stayed up late to watch as a little kid. It blew me away. Suspense, drama, aliens; I fucking loved it. Even with a repeat viewing recently i still loved it. <BR>Titanic is a colossal piece of schmaltzy shit.

  • Dec. 16, 2008, 6:25 a.m. CST

    I thought everyone

    by CharyouTree

    already knows the ending to this movie? And how shite it sounds, plus there going to have to do something different than just robots as I'm sure Bays Transformers will have some robos

  • Dec. 16, 2008, 9:47 a.m. CST

    Has to go back? Not necessarily....

    by Darth Macchio

    ...the thing is we do not know what would happen if time travel actually occurred. We do not know if it is like 'Back to the Future' where, if you go back in time, you affect your own future. Where you could meet your younger self, slice your younger self's hand and presto, you now have a scar on your current self's hand. There is no evidence either way that says this is how time works that I'm aware of.<p>It could be purely linear like where you could theoretically go back in time and then return to the same 'present'. How would the universe react to you separating from your existent time and then going back and say, accidentally killing your mother...would you simply cease to exist? But then would you instantly re-exist as, if you killed your mom, then you wouldn't exist but then if you didn't exist, you'd never be able to kill your mom. But then you'd be alive to go back in time to kill your mom. See? Paradox! It's a mess and without any actual empirical time travel, its purely theoretical and more, purely science fiction as theoretical science basically says that time travel is impossible (well, improbable anyway).<p>I think if the universe keeps everything tied together where you could threaten your own existence if you went back in time then time travel would simply be impossible. Sure, you could 'go' back in time but the moment you did, time itself would be changed forever and you would never be able to go back to your 'original' time.<p>Or, perhaps it's like being untethered from a dock. Where if you go back in time, you are no longer "tied" to your origin time and could easily kill your mom without jeopardizing your current existence.<p>If the universe behaves in the first manner, then by John Conner not sending that first term back in time, he would simultaneously be ending his current existence. And not just dead but never existing in the first place. Meaning no Term sent back in time to be discovered and reverse engineered, etc, no Cyberdyne, no Skynet, and no "Judgement Day". No war of the machines.<p>If the universe works in the latter (think infinite 'realities' a la Schroedenger, etc) then nothing they did would matter and even Skynet sending the Terms back wouldn't matter as killing an unborn Conner wouldn't interfere with his current existence.<p>So, in either case, you have a present solution. One, as McGinty is apparently having Conner start the whole thing moving by sending back the first Terminator and then Reese to protect his mother. He only HAS to send it back to ensure his own existence but by doing so, he ensures humanity's destruction in Judgement Day. By not sending the Terminator back, he simply ceases to exist and the timeline moves into territory unexplored.<p>More importantly, humanity is left to its own devices without the blight of John Conner's alternate history where all of humanity is killed in a nuclear war except for scraps of resistance fighters eeking out a meager existence under the oppression of the machines.

  • Dec. 16, 2008, 10 a.m. CST

    Terminator: Warciples

    by Abominable Snowcone

    Coming this Christmas. Skynet dispatches a small army of robot marauders to the present day in order to kidnap Kloipy's daughter, who will grow to be a leader of the human resistance in the future. Nothing can stop them...except a gaggle of merry Warciples with their strong, latern-like jaws and flaming leg kicks.

  • Dec. 16, 2008, 10:02 a.m. CST

    Batman 3: The Dark Knight Forever

    by Abominable Snowcone

    With nipples and thong-pants.

  • Dec. 16, 2008, 12:54 p.m. CST

    What comes after Salvation?

    by Royston Lodge


  • Dec. 16, 2008, 1:01 p.m. CST

    Cinema Time Travel: The Debate Lingers

    by Royston Lodge

    I used to get all upset about cinematic temporal paradoxes (and even pair of duckses), but finally came to the conclusion that who the fuck cares "how time travel works" when we're talking about frikkin' movies! Maybe the paradoxes only SEEM like paradoxes because we're only thinking in four dimensions, ignoring all the other little dimensions curled up like silly string within each cell, or maybe one of the components inside the time machine was developed by the same guy that invented the Heisenberg Compensator (he also invented the machine that lets people smoke cigarettes in pure oxygen environments). I'm not there for a lecture on temporal mechanics. I'm there for gleaming robots, lots of things blowing up real good, and maybe a nipple slip here or there.

  • Dec. 16, 2008, 1:06 p.m. CST

    "Sometimes, you should just leave well enough alone, and trust t

    by Royston Lodge

    That's going on my Facebook page.

  • Dec. 16, 2008, 1:07 p.m. CST


    by just pillow talk

    Too bad robots cannot withstand the might of a #2 pencil!

  • Dec. 16, 2008, 1:24 p.m. CST

    hang on, theorists..

    by ScaryJim

    hang on. Terminators would have been built anyway, that's nothing to do with time travel. Arnie went back to kill the resistance leader, the part of him left behind was back engineered by cyberdyne and hastened the arival of Judgement day. Judgement day would have eventually happened with or without any time travel. Terminator 2 had the message 'The future is what you make it' The frankly rubbish (apart from the ending) T3 had the message it doesn't matter what you do the future is inevitable. That's why it only matters what happens in the future war, T3 should have been the future war, should have been directed by a decent guy and should have been the last film, the whole thing was pointless till the last 10 mins.I hope

  • Dec. 16, 2008, 3:25 p.m. CST

    Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitabili

    by nooneimportant

    the real question is if the first time around the timeline, when John defeated the Terminators, why was there any left in the first place to send back in time? Didn't he win? Did he miss a secret base that had a Terminator AND a time machine? Doesn't sound like a complete victory to me...

  • Dec. 16, 2008, 3:54 p.m. CST

    I can't believe you still care?

    by 1922

    The franchise ended for me and the rest of the world with T2. JC moved on. You should too. Everything else with the name Teminator on it is straigh fucking bullshit.

  • Dec. 16, 2008, 4:10 p.m. CST

    They wouldn't have been built if....

    by Darth Macchio

    ...the rumor is correct and McGinty is having Conner himself discover the original 'Arnie' terminator at the end of Salvation, stop it from killing him in the future, but also knowing that in order to ensure the current timeline's existence, he'd have to send the Terminator back in time, which he does followed by Reese to protect his mother and ensure his own existence.<p>If this rumor for the Salvation storyline is true, then Conner is the bane of human existence and McGinty is a douchebag for totally screwing up the continuity and making Conner into a selfish dick more interested in preserving his own existence than allowing himself to be erased from existence by the proper timeline and thus ensure that there is no machine war (JD might still occur, etc, but not from Skynet, Cyberdyne, etc). My guess would be there's far more thought and attention going to big robots and explosions rather than the more cerebral aspects of paradox and time "traveling".<p>I don't think this rumor about McGinty's script can be true unless its been written by morons. Seriously? Send the Term back?!?! Only to ensure his own existence?! Otherwise...don't send the Term back, no Cyberdyne, no Skynet, no machine war, no time-dispolacement equipment (presumably invented by the machines, not sure we could invent shit much less time travel if it's all we can do to survive the day) and no John Conner.<p>If we go with the story as is now (T1,2,3), then yes, of course, there could be a problem or an 'inevitable' future war (maybe they missed some of Dyson's work, etc, I don't recall T3 coming up with anything other than "The war's inevitable...even though this technology wasn't invented by humans but instead was 'discovered' and then reverse engineered...even though all of that technology was destroyed, we needed to continue this franchise and milk coin so we just ignored that it was destroyed and pretended that Skynet just spontaneously "exists"...or some bullshit".<p>But that's not what others are saying about the ending of this movie and the old rumor about Conner "being a terminator himself" or some variation.<p>And I agree to read to much into the whole time-travel thing is silly but it can be a fun mental exercise, no? This type of 'exotic' science exists almost purely as math and thus, purely theoretical, so we cannot speak in terms of 'knowns' but again, it is a fun diversion.

  • Dec. 16, 2008, 4:18 p.m. CST


    by veebeeyes

    That's one of the reasons why Terminator 2 is a piece of shit. That whole "the future is what we make it" nonsense absolutely shits on the first movie. For all the people pissed off at how Alien 3 rendered Aliens irrelevant by killing off Newt and Hicks during the opening credits, they need only look at Terminator 2 and see how James Cameron himself took a giant dump on the first movie.

  • Dec. 16, 2008, 4:21 p.m. CST

    Darth, part of your post makes me snicker:

    by kabong

    "unless its been written by morons" <P> As if it could come from anywhere else in Hollyweird!