Top
370°

Arnold Schwarzenegger Slams Fourth 'Terminator' Film: "It Sucked"

THR

The actor spoke to Good Morning America recently about the fact that the fourth installment was the only film in the franchise in which he wasn't involved.

Read Full Story >>
hollywoodreporter.com
The story is too old to be commented.
alycakes2062d ago

I liked the first and second one and thought Rise of the Machines sucked. He was involved and it wasn't any good so for him saying that the forth one was bad and glad he wasn't in it is just a little off.

freshslicepizza2060d ago

i didn't mind the third one but it definitely doesn't compare to the first two. this new one doesn't look very good, kinda cheesy. the female lead and her line 'come with me if you want to live' and 'get in soldier' pale to linda hamilton. in fact all the acting in the new trailer doesn't look good.

-Foxtrot2062d ago (Edited 2062d ago )

No offence but the new one doesn't look too good either.

It's basically shitting all over the first 2 and erasing them with a new timeline just so they can squeeze out another film.

Crazay2061d ago

You always run the risk of "erasure" when mucking around with time travel in film and book. It's just an opportunity to tell a new version of the story with major events being replaced. I'm guardedly optimistic for this movie and think it's going to be pretty decent.

-Foxtrot2061d ago (Edited 2061d ago )

Well it's not a risk they should of taken

If they wanted to reboot it and tell a new version of the story fine but don't erase the previous films, the two classics we all love.

What's wrong with just a brand new universe all together.

The way they've done this doesn't even make sense. Film time travel logic wise.

Crazay2061d ago

For all intents and purposes - this is creating a brand new universe. How would it not make sense? It makes sense to me if you look at some theories of alternate timelines or parallel universes. Most things are the same with some changes like if you took path a today but alternatively you decide on path b things change.

-Foxtrot2061d ago

You don't need to erase the other films to create a new Universe.

Look at the Evil Dead remake, it doesn't erase Ash's story. How about Casino Royale which served as a reboot to the James Bond franchise, they didn't erase all the past films did they. Then you have Batman Begins which tells a new story/universe for Batman compared to Burtons Universe.

" It makes sense to me if you look at some theories of alternate timelines or parallel universes "

In this film Kyle Reese comes to the past with the intention of protecting Sarah Connor, just like what he did in the original HOWEVER he comes back and see's that Sarah dosen't need protecting as the timeline has been changed.

Kyle Reese from the original timeline somehow crossed into the new timeline....THAT DOSEN'T MAKE SENSE.

The original Kyle Reese would not be able to jump into a brand new timeline. It's different if there was a Kyle Reese in the new timeline who KNEW about the changed events and the fact Sarah was being raised by a Terminator but if you look at the trailers Kyle looks pretty confused when he first arrives and Sarah instead saves him.

You wouldn't be able to cross into a new timeline unless you are the one who goes back into the past and are the reason to why it changes, like Back to the Future 2.

If Kyle did cross over then he should of known about the changed events as it would of effected the future he's came from.

Crazay2061d ago (Edited 2061d ago )

You're not understanding me. The time travel thing is so contentious for so many reasons but they aren't really erasing the original movies. They're rewritting that history in an alternate timeline. What happened in those still movies still exists in their own respected universes. Each time history is rewritten, another parallel history is acting out the rewritten story. The possibilities are endless.

John Connor sends Kyle back to save his mother. The future still happens and thus the new future John Connor sends another Terminator back to save himself and his mother. The future still happens and that new Future John Connor is dead but his wife sends someone back yet again. So you see, each bubble-verse is the same but with some slightly different outcomes based on history that is passed down. I know it gets convoluted and feels so Bass Ackwards at times and thinking about it can cause fits but I really don't have an issue with the timeline they're trying to establish here.

This site here actually gives a pretty thorough rundown. WHoever did it all must have been driven nearly crazy capturing all this.

http://terminator.wikia.com...

It's too bad we're both out of bubbles here - this is a fun conversation

Porcelain_Chicken2062d ago

Saying that the most hated Terminator movie sucks won't make Genysis any better Arnie. It has big shoes to fill if it plans on "replacing" the first Terminator.

Lord_Sloth2061d ago

I actually kind of enjoyed Salvation. Sure it wasn't as good as T2 but few action films are anyways. I didn't care for Bale in it but the character Marcus made the film more than watchable.

Porcelain_Chicken2061d ago (Edited 2061d ago )

The thing I didn't like about Salvation was that the future there didn't match the future shown to us in the first Terminator. In the first Terminator they showed us a very bleak "no hope" type of place where the machines had total domination while humans scatter around like roaches. In Salvation it felt much brighter and even felt like humanity had a fighting chance.

iamnsuperman2061d ago

A bit rich since I felt the third was the worst out of all of them.

Show all comments (16)