Queue on 3/8/2008 at 20:14

---

I thought the first "Charlie's Angels" was fun, and a somewhat refreshing take on a really awful 70's TV show. But, that's been the only thing of McG's that was really well thought out; "Full Throttle" was tiring, and "We Are Marshall" was typical.

Another Terminator? I'm sorry, but this relentless pursuit of money is getting out of control: Sequels of sequels, and remakes galore. It's like the "new" Death Race movie. Death Race 2000 was a classic--leave it alone!

Queue on 3/8/2008 at 20:36

---

Honestly, I can't remember what the third film was about. I remember 1 and 2 (so it's not senility setting in), but for the life of me I have no idea what happened in number 3.

...it's like the second Mission Impossible; my wife swears we watched it, and I have no recollection.

Scots Taffer on 4/8/2008 at 09:36

---

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the trailer, that said, there's nothing essentially right about it either - it's a bit flat really, which isn't even something I thought I'd say about McG. His films are usually colourful and vibrant to the point of parody and beyond (for the record, I actually enjoyed Charlie's Angels). Not to say that his style in those movies suits the Terminator universe in the slightest.
Feeling no particular affection for the franchise I can see this actually faring well despite my initial skepticism, this (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/37779) candid interview definitely helped me get a bit of respect from McG's standpoint, it just all depends on how it plays out.

I mean, you can't get as different a tone as in the three moves from Terminator to Judgement Day to Rise of the Machines. The first Terminator movie is this lean, aggressive and dark thriller where there's genuine tension overlaying everything. The second is a big flabby spectacular blockbuster that retains only some of the fatalistic aspect of the original but at the sacrifice of Arnie's image, though they did kind of neatly sidestep that by creating a bigger (and visually impressive) villain. The third... well, I didn't hate Carry on Terminating but it was definitely a step in the wrong direction in almost every way, but it was only a baby step. At least some of the action was well-staged and I was quietly impressed the bleakness of the ending.

I wholesale avoided the TV show as it just looked like a poor production from the get-go and having no real reason for being, it smelled like a mistake. That was my first impression of the new movie too (though really we should call it the new "trilogy", unless the first bombs), the story was not one that I particularly cared about or felt had to be told, however the attachment of Bale is a good omen - he's been pretty choosy about his projects for the last few years - and what I'm hearing/seeing/reading about this actually gives me hope that it'll be something a little different, a new take on a franchise that kind of got worn into the ground (I assume the TV show did the same manner of "unstoppable killer robot fended off by nearly-unstoppable good robot who interacts with the kid and learns about humanity" shtick that T2 and T3 did). The fact that they're also talking about this movie as launching more directly from the Terminator 2 mythos makes the heart warmer also.

I'm taking the line of not really giving a shit about this one until I catch it in the cinema.

Scots Taffer on 4/8/2008 at 10:04

---

I like McG's comparison to TDK though disagree that it was shot without compromise, there were one or two edits made for the sake of the rating alone that much I'm certain, but the idea is right - it can be shot so that rating is insignificant outside of language and excessive gore, after that it unfortunately becomes a marketing decision.

Stitch on 4/8/2008 at 14:21

---

That's ridiculous. "R" is hardly an indicator of any level of emotional or thematic maturity.