ROTTEN TOMATOES: Ahnold to Show Up if "Terminator 4" Ever Gets Rolling?

Ahnold to Show Up if "Terminator 4" Ever Gets Rolling?

by Scott Weinberg | March 02, 2007

He's obviously more interested in politics than in science fiction these days, but it sure sounds like someone's expecting Arnold Schwarzenegger to pop back up if and when "Terminator 4" ever goes into production.

It was MGM chief Harry Sloan who said ""I think it's in his contract [to make an appearance]," regarding Arnold's involvement in a fourth "Terminator" movie. No word yet on who'll be directing or when the movie might go into production, but yeah: Announce those trivial little cameo appearances as early as possible.

All we know for sure is that A) that "Sarah Connor" TV show is still on its way, and B) "T3" writers Michel Ferris and John Brancato have been hired to pen a fourth "Terminator" flick.

Sources: IGN Movies, Boston Herald

Related Items

Movie:	The Terminator
	Terminator 2: Judgment Day
Celeb:	Arnold Schwarzenegger
	John Brancato
	Michael Ferris

(1-11 of 11 posts) | Reply

Pokchu writes:
on Mar 02 2007 06:38 AM

I hope Arnold declines, just for the lulz.

(Reply to this)

elziard writes:
on Mar 02 2007 08:13 AM

T3 was such a disappointment.
like Aliens, they can't get past the Marquee character. Reinvigorate the franchise, new blood. arnold, unless he voices a T-1000 skeleton, i don't need to see his flabby ass onscreen.

(Reply to this)

renny2077 writes:
on Mar 02 2007 09:18 AM

Sarah Connor TV show? Dear God, no.

(Reply to this)

ck100 writes:
on Mar 02 2007 09:50 AM

Let the franchise rest in peace. Not every franchise needs to continue after a certain number of films. The first two were classics and should have stopped there. T3 was an unnecessary sequel done to boost Arnold's flagging career and to cash-in on the franchise.

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Mar 02 2007 10:18 AM

I liked T3....

Don't see why it's such-a-big-deal if Arnold makes a cameo if T4 gets rolling. It'd be no different than him going on vacation for a weekend; like Bush does every other :)

(Reply to this)

Kid_Ikarus writes:
on Mar 02 2007 10:45 AM

I liked T3 as well, they did a lot better than most 3rd movies in the trilogy, and the continuity was fine, i especially liked how they tied in Sarah Connors death with the whole coffin full of artillary, that was sick. Not as bad as everyone makes it out to be...

(Reply to this)

carrierj1 writes:
on Mar 02 2007 02:08 PM

I think they clucked up with part 2 when the hired some guy who looks like a fluffer for gay porn to play John Conner. In part one you would have never expected John Conner to sound like he had a cmock logged in his windpipe. And what was the deal with making the terminator a good guy? What the cluck? Part three was worse but not as bad as it couldn't been. I think I may be a little biased because I like Kristina Lokan's ass. There was just osmething wrong with the look of this movie. It's like the terminator future went from scary to campy. Suck my cmock!

(Reply to this)

Brad 3000 writes:
on Mar 03 2007 10:06 AM

Some of T3 is a little re-hashy, but T3's ending is brilliant. The world is ending and no one knows what the hell is going on except for John Connor. He's the only person in the world who has total knowledge of what is happening, which puts him in the position to be the leader of the resistance. But if the robots had never sent a terminator back in time to kill him in the first place, he would've been as lost and confused as everyone else - if he wasn't killed in the nuclear strike that is. Talk about irony; the robots wound up CREATING the leader they sought to destroy! Perfect. If you don't get it, or can't see it... you're just dumb.

(Reply to this)

jeremyd4 writes:
on Mar 04 2007 01:04 AM

In reply to this comment (#857168)
Yeah.... but maybe you're being a little dumb too. Think about this for a second, if the robots ended up creating the leader they sort to destroy, why had they originally gone back in time to kill him, given as you say he would have been killed in the nuclear strike and didn't exist in the future??!?! Time travel movies don't work, and they make little sense.

I think the point of the movie is that John Connor was always meant to be the leader despite whatever efforts they made to change things. Hence, the whole 'destiny' theme.

Another point, the whole idea of John Connor sending back a soldier to protect his mother, who would subsequently become his father is also absurd. IT MAKES NO SENSE!!! How was future leader John Connor even alive in the first place if it took him to send someone back in time to start his existence!!! AHHHH!!!

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Mar 04 2007 10:59 AM

In reply to this comment (#857169)
It actually does make sense. I've had similar arguments with my brother with Back to the Future and the third Harry Potter movie; time movies really do mess with people's heads. I think the problem a lot of people have is that they look at time in a linear, time-line fashion; point A to point B. There are many brains out there who don't believe this is how time works, so people who make these types of movies tend to go with their methods. You just have to wrap your head around the notion that IN THAT MOMENT OF TIME, that person was there. How they got there is irrelevent; IN THAT MOMENT OF TIME, that person was there.

Jeremyd4 you have some of your facts wrong. The IRONY of it all is that the robots didn't realize that by sending a Terminator to the past to kill the leader of humans, John Conner, they were actually trekking his destiny to become that said leader.

IF those events didn't take place (if the robots had saw their error instead of sending a Terminator back in time) then Conner would have probably died in the nuclear blasts instead of being in the President's bunker when the nukes went off. Since the robots tried to control their destiny with time, it wound up screwing them over. Not only do the robots now have an advesary they didn't want, they have one that actually knows what's going on!

It really is a brilliant little number if you actually look at the facts and sort them through. That's why I want a new batch of movies about the actual war, and why I believe the Sarah Conner Chronicles to be un-necessary. We already have all the background information we need. As far as I'm concerned the first 3 movies are like prequels to the actual war, or the main story in all of this.

We now (definitively) know how John Conner became the man he is, now lets see what the man does.

(Reply to this)

bsideleau writes:
on Mar 05 2007 12:02 AM

Should have been dead a long time ago....the first was a good film, the second was good fun, the third was just a pathetic marketing tool to promote Arnold's bid for Governor.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links