The McG-directed, Christian Bale-starring continuation of the Terminator series (the first in a new trilogy) is being given a primo Memorial Day weekend slot, directly opposing the Ben Stiller family-comedy sequel. Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins starts production on May 5 in New Mexico. Sam Worthington, currently filming James Cameron's Avatar, is likely to co-star.
Source: Variety
|
Elixor writes: on Feb 26 2008 12:31 PM A futuristic Sci-Fi movie with what should be lots of special effects is starting production in May and being released in a year?! Am I completely off, or is this a really short timeline. I'm looking forward to this, but that sort of rushed production doesn't sound good to me. (Reply to this) |
|
Spiderbash writes: on Feb 26 2008 12:37 PM Yes a must see for me (Reply to this) |
|
dennischu22 writes: on Feb 26 2008 12:37 PM Christian Bale should bring some fresh blood into the Terminator franchise, especially with the Governator running things in California and all. (Reply to this) |
|
jokerboy1991 writes: on Feb 26 2008 12:42 PM I am actually lookinf foward to this, even though McG still sucks. But with BALE as JOHN CONNOR it makes the movie sound even better, and Sam Worthington could be cool in it- Hey if CAMERON recomended him to McG he must be good then. (Reply to this) |
|
quietus28 writes: on Feb 26 2008 12:46 PM Sounds like May 22, 2009 is a day that will live in infamy. (Reply to this) |
|
Dread writes: on Feb 26 2008 12:51 PM McG is on and off good, and Bale is absurdly good casting. However, this is possibly the single worst title in filmmaking history. "The Future Begins"? Really? (Reply to this) |
|
TombstoneLawDog writes: on Feb 26 2008 01:15 PM In reply to this comment (#1604453) Actually, it's worse than that- 'Terminator: Salvation- the Future Begins' I've posted at least three different rants on how sucktastic that title is for something that should be nothing but COLD MERCILESS BADASS from title to credits. Here's a clue: Cameron's Terminator sequel was called "Judgment Day." simple, ominous two words. You KNEW sh#t was going to get ROCKED. As a poor-as# highschool freshman, I paid to see it three times. ..Then again, Cameron could direct one of those Enzyte commercials and I'd still want to see it. As for Stiller, I just hope he escapes the Musuem only to find himself in the burnt-out waste of the future -just before he's killed by the machines. McG, you're on notice. You've been given the big guns (Bale, Worthington, the budget). DO NOT F#CK THIS UP. (Reply to this) |
|
Marktime writes: on Feb 26 2008 02:49 PM I like Christian Bale so much but I just lost a little respect for him... I love the first two terminator movies, then the third one kinda ruined it a little because it was so awful. Now this is going to be so awful, and I dont want Christian Bale to be in an awful movie. I want it to be good, I just dont think it will. (Reply to this) |
|
maxxpeck writes: on Feb 26 2008 03:45 PM In the behind the scenes thing on Planet Terror, Rodriguez was talking about how quickly you can do effects these days. A year is probably enough time to shoot & edit if the script is written. John Conner is one of the most mysterious fictional characters of our generation and Bale should play him great. I just hope McG doesn't make it cheesy. (Reply to this) |
|
nblarson writes: on Feb 26 2008 03:48 PM The title reads like a bad comic crossover event, and Bale is the only thing that is piquing my interest here in what otherwise looks like an attempt to milk the last few dollars of those that weren't alienated by the third installment of this faltering franchise. The made-for-trilogy motif is also a bit unsettling...I guess we'll just have to wait for the "future to begin" to see if this is more than mere profiteering. (Reply to this) |
|
lilheclou writes: on Feb 26 2008 03:59 PM 2009 is looking good but they realy change the title (Reply to this) |
|
nathanpoitras writes: on Feb 26 2008 04:42 PM In some other good action movie news, the fourth Bourne flick has been confirmed with both Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass returning. In not-so-good news, there's gonna be yet another Transporter film, Why do you put us through this Statham, (Reply to this) |
|
ck100 writes: on Feb 26 2008 04:54 PM What could potentially hurt the movie is making the material so it pleases old-school "Terminator" fans while bringing in new ones. Updating the series to make it more "hip" and "cool" could be a deadly approach. (Reply to this) |
|
salsafish writes: on Feb 26 2008 05:12 PM If you didn't like 3, there's no way you're going to be pleased with 4. 3 was well executed, stuck to the story, some innovative and brutal effects, and let the governor retire from the series on a positive note. I won't deny that I tend to be a fanboy about things, but the T-X was the star in my mind, (Kristianna Loken) and if they can craft another excellent villian like this to play alongside Bale, the movie will just own. The title is a tough one. They are naming them according to what happens at the end of each movie, and thus the ending already sounds stupid. Some open ended crap where Conner is dead and some ridiculous plot twist is running amuck? Seriously pick something bland and less stupid; just look around inside some high school goth's spiral notebook. (Reply to this) |
|
PornAgainChristian writes: on Feb 26 2008 05:14 PM In reply to this comment (#1604495) 'Night at the Museum' is a harmless family movie. There's no reason to be so hateful about it, at least its attempts at humor don't involve bathroom jokes. Plus it's written by two of the Reno 911 / The State guys, and those guys are awesome. But Terminator is dead. It died with T3. The Sarah Connor chronicles raped the dead corpse, and now McG will feast on the remaining decayed flesh. (Reply to this) |
|
PornAgainChristian writes: on Feb 26 2008 05:15 PM In reply to this comment (#1604817) "3 was well executed" Correction: the people who made 3 should well be executed. (Reply to this) |
|
Matanuki writes: on Feb 26 2008 06:13 PM In reply to this comment (#1604495) lol. Well, it should certainly quell the complaints over the "X Men Origins: Wolverine" title. I bet it's sounding a hell of a lot better to folks now compared to this crazy sh it. (Reply to this) |
|
sadExisting writes: on Feb 26 2008 09:34 PM I am beginning to believe that the world's population is getting progressively more self-destructive. Do people not remember those Charlie Angels movies? They were terrible, absolutely terrible. I am beginning to believe I may be a brain amongst a sea of morons; no human being can watch the Charlie Angels movies and have an ounce of happiness remaining in their bodies afterwards. I am basing my theory on the assumption that the powers that be who chose MCg as the director for this film were privy to viewing McG's previous work. I am speechless. (Reply to this) |
|
TombstoneLawDog writes: on Feb 26 2008 09:36 PM In reply to this comment (#1604921) Sorry, Mat' but I'm pretty sure they're in a no-holds-barred title 'suckfest' between "X-men Origins: Wolverine" and this pathetic, cuckolded sh#t. Hollywood: Now featuring new, patented 'Balls-Free' corporate action on all movie titles. (Reply to this) |
|
shield_fx writes: on Feb 27 2008 12:47 AM T-3 was a worthy sequel a lot better than this new Television crap show out. I will pretend that this Sarah Connor Chronicle never really existed and move on to T-4. Maybe we can travel back in time to 2006 and stop the producers who made this silly TV show. T-3 was short but a nice " tie in movie" leading to bigger events and sequels. (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |










