Commenting Rules: Keep the conversation civil and on topic. If your comment does not add to the conversation, it will be removed. Debate intelligently. Insulting the author, /Film, or other commenters will result in comment removal and possible ban. If you want to point out a typo, correction, suggestion or criticism for /Film, please email us instead. Please use your name or nickname and not your business name (ie Discount Car Parts) as we might confuse and mark it as spam. If you would like to have your own Avatar show up with your comment, sign-up for a free Disqus account. Any Links will go into moderation before being approved. Anything we deem as spam will not be approved.

Internet Leak Leads To Radical Repairs to McG’s Terminator

Posted on Sunday, March 22nd, 2009 by Brendon Connelly

term_question

When a pretty darn serious spoiler for Terminator: Salvation shocked our collective socks off last year, the web-head reaction was divided. Was it real? And, supposing it was, was it a good ending? Was this the kind of climax fans would want?

It soon started to look like the big twist finale of the film really had been unveiled and, therefore, a lot of whumph had been sucked out of McG’s punch. Shame for him, I suppose. I don’t mind spoilers at all - in fact, I love them, really - but I do think they should always be very clearly labelled. I reckon that any film which depends on its plot to succeed probably isn’t a very good film in the first place - I mean, it certainly won’t stand up to a second viewing.

Now, Moviehole are reporting that this leak resulted in a radical overhaul of the movie and now the finished film has an entirely different third act. After the crease mark, we’ll have a look at Moviehole’s report and then, clearly labelled for the scaredy cats, I’ll repeat the original spoiler.

Moviehole report that that the new ending is “a complete 180 from the original” and that it “works better” and is “probably not as hard to swallow”. Sounds to me like Moviehole are, wittingly or un-, spreading some WB sanctioned propaganda.

Don’t forget that the original spoiler was swiftly denied by McG, which either means it was a) already an out of date plot point by the time of the leak, b) the plan to swap things over was made very quickly, or c) the spoiler was just plain wrong.

Okay, here’s your warning. Look away now if you want to stay absolutely 100% pure and not even see a one-time spoiler that - reportedly, at least - has nothing to do with the story we’ll actually be seeing on screen.

Alright so the main character is a cyborg named Marcus. For some background, Marcus was a criminal who was executed in 2003. He donated his body to Project Angel which was involved with SkyNet. They take his body and make a terminator out of him so he’s a terminator skeleton but has living muscle/skin and a beating heart too. At the end of the movie John Connor is fighting a T800 model 101 and loses. He dies and the top resistance people come up with a plan to help the resistance keep fighting on. The resistance feels that it’s important to keep the image or idea that John Connor is still alive so the resistance keeps going. So they rip off Marcus’ skin and put John Connor’s on the skeleton so now Marcus is John Connor.

For the record, I believed the spoiler was real and rather liked the idea (it possible even got Sam Worthington the role, as he has the suitable likeness to Bale where it counts to sell the idea).

I know that a lot of the vicarious pleasure for certain audiences is in having John Connor as some kind of wonder hero wish-fulfillment proxy, and this fiddles with that in ways which will make people feel uncomfortable, but I think its an interesting twist. Combining the idea of this iconic leader with the ironic deployment of a Terminator skeleton is actually quite a punchy idea, I’d say, and pretty rich for the ending of a Summer tentpole. If the plot has been changed, I hope the new conclusion is at least as ambitious and wryly bent, but I fear it won’t be.

In fact, I reckon that artistic intent has been bent over a barrel by some misguided desire to offer up short term appeal to internet fanboys.

Comments 

Related Posts

Tags

Action/Adventure, Rumors, Sci-Fi, Sequels, ,

  • Palmer
    Real or not, I didn't really like the ending. Kind of screws with some of the things set up by the previous three movies. Unless we are dealing with an alternate timeline, similar to what was introduced in the Sarah Connor Chronicles.
  • Lawdog
    No fate but what you make.
  • starscream9289
    So now the only reason I have to go watch this movie is for Moongoodbloodwhatsherface's boobs!
  • The idea that John Connor is more of a Symbol than a leader was too Batman like. Especially with Bale in the principle role. If they were to use this idea later in the series (I shudder to even consider linking this new series with the trash that was T3), in reference to John Connor's death it would make sense and be a nice ending to the series in general. Marcus taking over and finishing skynet and then left wondering as to what is left now that humanity has won.
  • Didn't we hear these rumors months ago?
  • "A movie that depends on its plot to succeed probably isn’t a very good film in the first place" I'm sorry, but are you stupid?

    Without a good story a movie won't ever be any good. Special effects and cool scenes are fun but can't carry a movie for 2 hours. The plot is the key to a great movie.

    Most stories are meant to be seen or read once, and personally, I love a great twist and hate it when people insist on spreading spoilers. How can you possibly appreciate the art of storytelling if you want to know the ending before seeing a movie?
  • Nope, not stupid at all. Gave a more complex response further down in the comments if you want to look at it.
  • Pedro
    @Brendon "I reckon that any film which depends on its plot to succeed probably isn’t a very good film in the first place"

    are you retarded?
  • TORO
    Haha yeah i thought the same thing
  • First, I think your headline is a little misleading.... When I originally heard this rumor, I kind of liked the idea, too. But the bottom line for me was that that kind of ending wouldn't really fit on almost any film out today. (Which, I suppose could have made it even better, but there are enough Terminator fanboys out there that you can't go too far without pissing people off and losing a large part of the fanbase.) But it seemed like it would be a great ending for something like a short story.
  • Lawdog
    Let me just say...and I mean this from the bottom of my heart...FUCK the fanboys. We need more directors who ignore the fanboys (and the studio), and make the movies they see in their head. They're the professionals. We aren't. All these misinformed fanboys just serve to water down the creative process.
  • I love how this spoiler turns the terminator series into a knock of of Face-Off
    because that movie was so freaken awesome... that the Terminator would benefit form it
  • I'm hoping he meant plot more as "twist ending" rather than "complete story" there because that I can agree with. Directors like M. Night Shyamalan only care about the twist ending, which causes most of his films to suffer. He thinks that if you pull a fast one on the audience they'll all gasp and applaud his smartness at an ending we didn't see coming; even though by the time his ending comes, we're usually over the rest of the film and just want it to be over.
  • No, I meant plot as in the pure narrative. The story alone.
  • Pedro
    i find this very troubling coming from a movie website
  • Don't be troubled. Depending on plot is just like depending on, say, lighting or acting or music or editing. These are all only components. A film that is purely narrative - or depends upon nothing more than narrative - is simply an exercise in "what happens next". So, I agree that films do want, perhaps even need good plots, just that they shouldn't have just that and nothing more.

    I reckon that any film which depends on its characterisation to succeed probably isn't a very good film in the first place.

    I reckon that any film which depends on its themes and thematic discourse to succeed probably isn't a very good film in the first place.

    I reckon that any film which depends on its politics to succeed probably isn't a very good film in the first place.

    I reckon that any film which depends on its dialogue to succeed probably isn't a very good film in the first place.
  • Pedro
    While I can understand what you mean, I have to wholeheartedly disagree. If a film doesn't have a good plot then it will go nowhere. There are numerous films were the story is great and perhaps the lighting/editing/acting may be questionable, but since there is a good story, people see past those other elements. If you don't have a good story, you have nothing. It all starts with a good story.

    Films are not made to be exercises in lighting or editing (with the exception of student films). They are made to tell a story, and if the story is no good, then the film is no good.

    To address what you said, "any film which depends on its characterization, themes, politics,etc. probably isn't a good film" do any of these elements really matter if they are not serving the greater purpose or the STORY? To say that the plot doesn't matter is to say the story doesn't matter, and if the story doesn't matter then why bother making the film in the first place?
  • I think you guys are drastically misunderstanding what Brendon is saying. He is saying that if you read a plot spoiler for a film, and that ruins your total enjoyment of the film, than it really wasn't a great film anyways because a great film will work despite knowing spoilers, and will work on repeat viewings where you already know everything that is coming
  • That's it.
  • That's basically what I was trying to get at with my above comment. A movie that depends on a major twist or one that could potentially be ruined if the twist gets out is probably a movie that isn't going to work.
  • Pedro
    "a great film will work despite knowing spoilers, and will work on repeat viewings where you already know everything that is coming"

    right! and why does it work?? because the story is solid.
  • No, because the storyTELLING is solid. Many of you guys jumping down Brendon's throat about this are confusing story/plot with storytelling.
  • 790
    "Face Off" was awesome ? I thought it was a forgettable p.o.s.
    Clearly not all /Film readers think alike?

    (Possible Terminator 4 spoilers)

    One thing, I guess casual fans of Terminator don't remember is that Terminators are cyborgs. They don't have a personality, or have the ability to download the a life review of a human. Even if they did, they wouldn't have the same mannerisms and habits.
    (Think of the original Himey from Get Smart). They would be robotic and it would be obvious.

    The film still has the flaw of Marcus having a human personality and not even knowing it ,,,

    This is Terminator, not Battlestar Galactica, Transformers or Earth 2.

    Now the Terminators are Cylons ???

    If this Terminator film sucks, I'm done with it professionally !!!
  • Interesting that this story is getting reported yet the fact that J. Michael Straczynski has stated that the FORBIDDEN PLANET project he is working on is getting completely overhauled following script details leaking online has really gone largely ignored. http://tinyurl.com/c3xvlf
  • Does bandying the term "retarded" around not break the hate speech rule? I certainly find the term offensive.

    But then, BEAVIS AND BUTTHEAD seemed to have broken the world's critical faculties down to three words, "cool", "sucks" and "retarded", years ago.
  • The closest thing I can think of off the top of my head is 'Idiocracy' as a movie with a great story/idea but contains such crappy acting and dialogue that it completely ruins the movie. I think it's more rare for a movie to only have a great plot and nothing else going for it than a movie to only have cinematography, dialogue, action sequences, etc carrying it; which is probably why the backlash over your comment.
  • But then why does a movie like Romeo and Juliet work? You know the plot twist coming up at the end of the story, its one of the most known plot twists in the history of lit. But the film(s) work or don't work based on their own merit, despite your knowledge of the entire plot or a plot twist.
  • We're on the same side of the argument here, Peter. I agree with what Brendon and you are saying. Or at least I'm agreeing with Brendon's explanation of what he meant with his initial statement.
  • Kind of like how bush was a war criminal fighting war criminals as a war criminal while he was a war criminal
  • Weyland_Yutani
    This just sounds like a big backpedal to me, but it is a very good backpedal. :)

    You guys earn your keep on getting scoops and spoilers. It alters the way you anticipate and view film. If you are suggest reading the last two chapters of a novel before the rest, you would be essentially saying the same thing. It's no different for film and it should be held to the same standard.

    All good film will still be good upon later viewings. Even the few M. Night films (or Momento) hold up in this regard, because they are not just good stories, but "good stories told well." That is what is lost in this conversation. How well is the story told?

    The debated thought, however, is that an audience is entertained by the way a story unfolds. It's part of the experience. That experience has been increasingly ruined by modern information access - scripts, blogs, behind the scene photos. The storytelling and experience has suffered because of it.
  • I'm kind of glad they changed it because it seemed too weird. But then again, the Terminator universe is kind of weird so it could work. I guess if it wasn't spoiled all over the internet a few months back we would be getting this ending. I guess now we're going to get something a little different and maybe in a sequel, we'll get this original ending.
  • I just have to say that I think that both Brendon and Peter would know what they're talking about more than you. It's nice to see you're fighting for your opinion but in this case, it's just not right or you're not understanding what is going on. Maybe read the article one more time and try to understand it. It has a good story, I think you will like it.
  • Landfill, you're the biggest retard on this website so I wouldnt say anything.

    As for what Brenden said. I mean dude, a film is primarily a story. Now, and this is where you seem to get a little confused, lighting and editing and characters and everything is put there to advance the story. If the purpose of the story at this point is to say, shock, for example, as it seems to be in this case then everything goes out the window because story is key and at the foundation, if you cant be shocked then the story crumbles. Also, for the most part the narratives of films are not made in order to be watched twice. Why do you think there is so much emphasis on the theater experience? A story unfolds in a very particular way, where, if they were expecting you to know a very specific event the film would be told in completely different way.
  • Thanks I guess. All I was saying is that both Brendon and Peter both got into the discussion trying to tell Pedro that he wasn't getting the article or what Brendon was originally trying to say. I mean they're obviously correct because they are being paid to do this kind of stuff. They've been around this stuff way longer than you and I so naturally, they will know more than us.
  • Saying they are right because they do this stuff is a terrible argument. It's such a non argument even they dont use it. I will put myself into their position as much as to guess they are embarrassed to have you defending them though.

    Plus, you may be correct about Brendon in terms of knowing more about blogging than me, but he clearly doesnt know much about film analysis. I mean its explicitly obvious. Its all right in his article.
  • Who's arguing? Like I said before in the last two posts, I'm just backing them up because I'm sure that their experiences with this sort of work has the edge over any of us.

    As for their embarrassment for me defending them, that's highly unlikely. I mean who doesn't like someone on their side? I'm sure you wish someone would defend you sometimes, I'm guessing that's why you jumped all over me.

    Either way I really could care less since none of this conversation has any real value. I stated my point and you have as well I guess we can leave it at that.
  • I think if that they tried not to get any feedback from the general public, the movie would have a higher possibility of failing. I know you're talking about fanboys but they are still part of the general public. And why no use some feedback from people that follow this like it's a job. If the studio decided to do movies without feedback, you get Ang Lee's Hulk and Terminator 3.
  • Lawdog
    Ouch. Good point. I guess we're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
  • Michael
    EL CID, anyone? I'm surprised no one brought this up on the AICN boards when it first hit last year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Cid_(film)
  • I never said it doesn't matter - it matters hugely -but no film should depend upon plot. Plot is surface, in many respects.
  • It's already been established that the TV show is in it's own canon.
  • Palmer
    I know that. But it would be interesting if they had something similar to that integrated into the movie.
  • Joey
    See, I imagined Sam Worthington as the Arnold of this film, the protagonist Terminator, and he would (presumably) return for the sequals. If the ending originaly reproted was the one used, Worthington would be gone, and Christian Bale would have to play a very different character. I like the ending, but I don't think it will work if the actors are to return.
  • jrgreer
    "I reckon that any film which depends on its plot to succeed probably isn’t a very good film in the first place"

    That is the exact kind of comment I would expect to hear form some douche bag development executive during a "creative meeting" on the Fox lot.

    It all starts and ends with the script / story / plot Brendon. Try building a bridge without a blue print and see how far you get.

    I'm going back to AICN. After all, Harry has been beaten up by the machine enough to stop pretending he knows more than the filmmakers and just stick to covering the gossip like the good dog they pay him to be.

    Brendon, you're really getting worse. Seriously.
  • I think that plot is crucial. Absolutely crucial.

    Yes, a blueprint is crucial -But no film should depend upon its plot. That would be like, say, releasing a stack of index cards into the cinema. Not even a screenplay! Just a stack of index cards!

    Don't you want your plot rounded out with characterisation, tone, mood, atmosphere, a point of view, some kind of perspective? Surely.
  • finally getting back to the main topic. i don't know how that ending would have played out for audiences and not sure it would have been taken well. interesting but probably better off they don't go that way.
  • what are we deleting posts now if you guys don't approve of them?
  • capn crunch
    if this were true, i assume kate, connor's wife would be in on it too. i can't imagine her and john connor trying to bang and then he would be like "yeah, sorry no penis". but maybe he would have a terminator dick? wow im so high right now bye
  • why post my opinion if it will just be deleted? guess I'll find myself a new movie site.
  • I just hope this movie will be good. go Terminator!
blog comments powered by Disqus

gorilla nation

/Film

Copyright © 2010 /Film. Web design by Pro Blog Design. Logo Concept by: Illumination Ink

All names, trademarks and images are copyright their respective owners.