Case and point:
"Waterworld" was still being written even after the Hawaiin location sets were torn down...
That's an extreme example, but come on MCG, do you have confidence in your script or has the fan response to your possible outcome forced you to think twice ?????
This could be the Star Trek Nemesis of the Terminator franchise.

790, i'm thinking the same... don't know about the script man, i'm concerned too.... McG says that Bale and him are working on script every night - - - - WTF?
How can you work on script while shooting fu**ing movie?!

BJN, I agree that Roland can play Mr 101, no prob, I think I'm more concerned about the script than the casting here.

If Rolands Terminator says "I'll be back" I'm walking out for a refund.

Everyone, Roland Kickinger will be base for model 101 (Arnold), so if you watch "See Arnold Run" you will see brilliant copy of Arnold.
As true T fan i think T4 will be better without grandpa Arnie

You know I say everyone just wait and see how this will turn out...Yes mcg is crap but everyone has at least one good movie in them or ideas and some of the best movies have been when you go way off the grid(wanna dark knight reference leger as the joker) everyone was panning that and look how that came out so I say just give it a chance bale wouldnt be apart of it if it wasent half way decent..!!!

I thought T3 was a mistake, but damn, this would be god awful.

JD, if you get a chance check out the time-sphere arrival scenes of Arnold in 2 and 3.
If you look carefully you can see that from the neck down the body of Arnold in T3 is the same one in T2.
I have heard from a inside source that they used the same digital image from T2 reversed it and blended Arnolds head on it. The scene was also going to be a daytime shot then they later changed the fire-truck chase scene to a daytime scene so the arrival had to be at night/early morn. That entire arrival scene was then digitally redone as a night shot.
A lot of CGI just in that one arrival sequence.
If they can do THAT they can create a CGI a battalion of T-101's. There's even enough stock audio to blend in his voice.
I just hope that spoiler is BS.

It's going to be great. I just hope that the have dozens of Arnold terminators running around. There's no reason they cannot have a digital Schwarzenegger head on a bunch of them. He doesn't need to act, doesn't need to speak, he just needs to kill. Take a couple of scans of the Gov's face and get to work. It could be awesome.

Lol Cap... And being a person that hasn't seen the film I agree and hope your right! (Its clearly not a marketing issue with me so I must be retarded Christopher marc.)
I thought that's what we do here analise the quality and outcome of movies WE HAVNT SEEN YET. I forgive cause I'm tarded// ;-)
^
Great points Hunter and Gaius, you said it all when it comes to the rating issue, real good points!
I don't understand the hate of T3, but ok.......

Reason I hate this new film (without seeing it yet) is because of the rumors I'm hearing about the ending and the ripping off of the skin of Connor and sewing it on a endo from the 2003.
I didn't invision that and I can't begin to tell you how feather plucking insane that is.

Pg-13 sucks!!!!!!!

btw: i'm not knocking the anime take on batman, it's just that in 'field test', it was kind of an awkward take. i know there are 5 other chapters, and from the previews they look good.

anyways, i'm really dying to know if anyone else out there has seen all the comcast on demand featurettes for TDK, and what they thought.

sounds cool to me, and speaking of the dark knight...HAS ANYONE ELSE SEEN ALL THE EXTRA STUFF COMCAST HAS ON DEMAND FOR THIS FILM?!?!?!?

i just saw one of the 'Gotham Knight' anime chapters called 'feild test'. i don't like 'anime batman', but it was good to hear conroy as the voice again. there is so much shit on there, it's fun as hell - they even show a 3 min featurette on how they made they 'clown masks' for jokers gang.

i'm dying to know if anyone else has seen all this stuff too.

It's going to S to the U to the C to the K.

Damn it, I clicked shift and return...

Anyway, to anybody including Dan who thinks this film can survive without violence, it can't. Think about the concept here. People are facing their extinction at the hands of cybernetic organisms The sense of doom can't just be evoked with just a simple panning of really malnourished resistance fighters living underground. That's pretty much every goddamn war film you've ever seen dozens of times before. Sure, the HK's and the laser weapons are a huge difference, but you need to show people dying in really inhuman ways to show just how fucked the human race is even with John Connor. He's got to be losing people left and right in awful, terrible ways. It's not realistic to think war with machines wouldn't be a goddamn bloodbath. People would be cut in half by laser sentries, having their limbs torn off by an early model rubber Terminator, put in cages to harvest their tissue to emulate it and create later models, have smaller drones fly into a barrack and cut down people left and right. It has to be complete madness when you really think about it.

I have no faith in McG, considering he thinks this film can work as a PG-13 flick.

@Dan

You don't think the violence in T2 was graphic?

1) The scene where the T1000 mimicks John's foster mother to John over the phone, panning to the foster dad getting impaled through the head by the T1000's swordlike blade. The blade gets pulled out and he falls to the ground.

2) The fat security guard in the insane asylum who turns around to see the T1000 be his double. He raises his finger up and it goes right through his eye and out the back of his head.

These are great, creepy scenes, where the audience sees first hand how easily somebody can die at the hands of a Terminator. They are effective, eerie, and just plain badass. All of those scenes go out the window with a PG-13 film. This film may just "nuke the fridge" if they become too restrictive.

@ dan

Np. The first Terminator is too nihilistic in my opinion; even if you cut out the profanity, the violence is too graphic and there's also a bit of nudity that wouldn't pass for PG-13 today. But mainly, it's an R-rated film, and that's how James Cameron envisioned it. I don't follow the argument that if "you cut this out and this out and toned this down" it would automatically become a PG13 rated film and still be AS GOOD. That is thinking in terms of what gets by the MPAA. But it doesn't take into consider the director's vision. If you want a shot of liquor, you want a shot of liquor. If you want to watch Die Hard, you watch Die Hard, not Die Hard: Odouls. Cameron wanted to and made two R-rated films. That didn't mean that he wanted to include naked babes and f-bombs for the sake of it. A lot of R-rated films today play up the R, which I find annoying. Have you noticed?

And, no, The Dark Knight is not the end all be all for this argument, b/c Chris Nolan gets carte blanche on those films - it's a very rare deal. PG-13 is fine, but when it's used for material that deserves to be R-rated, like the Terminator films, it's compromise plain and simple. You can't make fans of the films - the reason why those films have grossed hundreds of millions - swallow the decision, especially sight unseen. And you can't rewrite history. Part of the reason why the Terminator films were successful, and anyone who was in middle school or high school when they were released knows this - is because they were hardcore action films - something that barely exists today. This wasn't death that was off screen, the Terminator did it in front of you and it kept coming. It gave the films unparalleled excitement and buzz. The third film was very nearly PG13 but the studio turned the other cheek. That film is moot. It would have sucked either way. Yeah, it could have been PG13....and? It would have sucked.

This is where the MPAA has really effed up the market in my opinion. Studios think, "well, we can tone this down and get the rating and it'll play bigger," - common business sense - but as a movie fan, I don't think like that. For instance, John Carpenter's Escape From New York and They Live and The Thing are all better and classics imo because they are R-rated. They aren't compromised. They aren't for the prototypical teenager per se. Sure, you can edit them to be PG-13, but they won't be the real deal. Singling out profanity, boobs and violence overlooks the bigger picture. And when did we start meh'ing those ingredients for action films anyhow?

There's a mentality to the first Terminator movie that is meant for adults. For some reason, PG13 has become a celebration of the populist experience that is going to the theater. I don't buy it. Even if you removed the stuff to please the MPAA -- like cable often does -- The Terminator still has a darkness and edge to it because the director was able to go for broke. T2 has numerous scenes with heads being impaled et al. The violence improves the film on a visceral level, and I think Cameron would agree. The urgency and sense of doom in T1 and T2 is rated R. You can do it the other way, but it's one scoop of raisins instead of two. It's just a sign of the times, but even when I see T4, I can tell you right now, it would have been better with an R. Why do I care if 15-year-old kids don't have to sneak in? I don't. Why get amped defending a PG13 rating? I don't. That is for the next Tipper Gore. People don't say "Yikes" when they are fighting robots of death, I mean, what did you say when you fought them?

I'm gonna give the pg-13 terminator a chance.....3 wasn't that good but I think it could have been pg-13 instead of R, there was very few things making it R.....

Dum-Dum-Da-Dum-Dum

I cannot wait for that theme to start playing in a darkened theater once again.
T-3 was god awful, but that theme still gets me pumped.

we are marshall was a good movie. He made both of thous Charlies angels movies to make cheese ball movies on purpose. He wanted to make a loud chick power movie.

This actually sounds kind of cool and I was a massive skeptic at first. I will give it a try. You've got one more chance in my book McG. Also: McG is not as big of a douche as Brett Ratner. Just wanted to make that clear.

Sounds like it could be cool.

@Hunter

Elaboration? I think the violence is abundant in the first two but not overly graphic.

@ dan

Maybe the third movie could, but not the other two imo.

The old Terminators could get PG-13 ratings without all the f-bombs, so I am not too worried about this being rated PG-13.

marketed*

Eh. I personally don't agree with any more Terminator movies, but it'll all depend on whether it's actually quality.

There have been successful PG-13 sequels, that's all I'm going to say.

yeah people can bash a film they haven't watched or seen anything from so easily..I'm noticing it's usually from ignorant people or people the movie isn't being marketing to...

that said, I'm curious to see what they're up to with the new one...just another reason to go see the "Dark Knight"....

@ september 11th

bless you.

new terminator movies = fail
PG13 terminator movies = fail.
mcg = fail.
new trilogy of fail = EPIC FAIL