Terminator: Salvation vs. Star Trek

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Really, has it come to this that Barack Obama has become such a new Messiah, that not only BO, but every one thinks the whole world revolves around him? As I recall from my Star Trek, poverty and disease had all been eliminated.
But if Bush's policies put me in the unemployment line, it is Barack Obama who will insure that I have no job for years to come, it seems.
His manipulation of free enterprise and his takeover of banks and the car industry has proven once again that the only organziation less qualified than corporate CEOs is the government. But its not just retail and service organizations and banks that Obama has removed the concept of freedom from. He has done that with health care as well. Joe Biden (admittedly an embarrassment to Democrats as well) admitted that in his healtcare program which is almost verbatim what was passed in the hidden pages of the stimulus plan, that we'd have to come to grips with the fact that old people die and we need to use our resources for the young.
The Obama administration, perhaps has more similarity to Michael Crichton's Coma or 1976's Logan's Run when it comes to healthcare. For the economy, the Obama sci-fi would be more like the bleakness of Bladerunner. How naive to put so much trust in Obama when he has merely escalated the mistakes of George Bush to our country's inevitable demise.

Bryan Bustard of SC 2:43PM May 25, 2009

It really was not that good at all. I was sooo disappointed....
The story was nowhere from being deep other then john conner rescueing his father from skynet..... Um The digital image of arnold, completely sucked, looked like it came outta a video game. Marcus wright, / sam worthington, played a decent part, but the story behind his character no real importance..
The story was very dryed up , each actor , had small parts.... Machines were cool, thats probly about it......
Im a terminator fanatic and from a 1-10 i give this a 4.5 Very displeased.
Closing statements- The Hype of the movie, was more appealing then the movie itself.

mike of FL 3:09AM May 24, 2009

I have trouble understanding why you'd write an opinion about a movie that you have not seen. I can't imagine a more flawed premise. It was a waste of my time to read it and I only spend more time on because I hope that you'll realize that this is why people don't pay to read the news any more.
I've seen both, I disagree with your criticism, and for you to sit here and try to graft a post-post-9/11 milieu onto a movie like this is extremely clumsy, about as clumsy as the grafting of rubber skin onto t-600's in the movie you attempt to pan, again without having watched it.
If you knew anything about movies, you'd understand that if a story is going to be as fantastic as a post-apocolyptic struggle-for-the-survival-of-mankind, the last thing you want to do is make it too "fun." Terminator 3 taught us that much. T3 was 'fun,' and it was shot within months of 9/11, debunking your . You are like so many feigned intellectuals who try to make an argument by first deciding on a verdict and then coming up with the evidence necessary to support it.
Your penchant for hyperbole is also unfortunate. A relic? Really? 2001 was 8 years ago; not 800 or even 80 or 18, but 8. To call a movie that was released 39 hours ago (again, that you have not seen) a relic from a bygone era, simply because it falls into a period of movie-making that you have unilaterally declared as having ended (based on the suspect logic that one movie <Star Trek> doth singlehandedly a pattern make and a new period herald), is strikingly shallow. The hero is dour and angry? IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!! HOW WOULD YOU BEHAVE?
Did you think about how ridiculous the movie would look and feel (taking Independence Day as but one examples) if, with the end of the world at hand, and the leaders of your beleaguered band of freedom fighters recently exterminated, you have your protagonist cracking jokes? The truth is that, in times of suffering, people do create an alternative sense of humor, but we all know that creating an accurate-feeling movie tonality is not as simple as attempting to replicate real-world "social physics," as it were.
Lastly, this movie is a sequel in a long series of movies forecasting the end of mankind. T3 simply actualizes the long-feared prophesy of this perfect dystopia and does so in a visually arresting way. How else might this story have been told? Your argument, taken to its logical conclusion, is that this movie simply should not have been made. Is that what you wanted?
Personally, I thought that the plot was full of flaws, the cut footage likely crippled the story that was left by its glaring omission, and some of the camera angles and cuts lacked any sense of axis. However, your opinion is the only 'throwback' around here. Yours is exactly the kind of journalism that future historians will love to ridicule for its thoughtless, myopic arguments. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
In short, watch the damn movie before you run your mouth.

Jordan Smith of TX 10:04PM May 22, 2009

I have trouble understanding why you'd write an opinion about a movie that you have not seen. I can't imagine a more flawed premise. It was a waste of my time to read it and I only spend more time on because I hope that you'll realize that this is why people don't pay to read the news any more.
I've seen both, I disagree with your criticism, and for you to sit here and try to graft a post-post-9/11 milieu onto a movie like this is extremely clumsy, about as clumsy as the grafting of rubber skin onto t-600's in the movie you attempt to pan, again without having watched it.
If you knew anything about movies, you'd understand that if a story is going to be as fantastic as a post-apocolyptic struggle-for-the-survival-of-mankind, the last thing you want to do is make it too "fun." Terminator 3 taught us that much. T3 was 'fun,' and it was shot within months of 9/11, debunking your . You are like so many feigned intellectuals who try to make an argument by first deciding on a verdict and then coming up with the evidence necessary to support it.
Your penchant for hyperbole is also unfortunate. A relic? Really? 2001 was 8 years ago; not 800 or even 80 or 18, but 8. To call a movie that was released 39 hours ago (again, that you have not seen) a relic from a bygone era, simply because it falls into a period of movie-making that you have unilaterally declared as having ended (based on the suspect logic that one movie <Star Trek> doth singlehandedly a pattern make and a new period herald), is strikingly shallow. The hero is dour and angry? IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!! HOW WOULD YOU BEHAVE?
Did you think about how ridiculous the movie would look and feel (taking Independence Day as but one examples) if, with the end of the world at hand, and the leaders of your beleaguered band of freedom fighters recently exterminated, you have your protagonist cracking jokes? The truth is that, in times of suffering, people do create an alternative sense of humor, but we all know that creating an accurate-feeling movie tonality is not as simple as attempting to replicate real-world "social physics," as it were.
Lastly, this movie is a sequel in a long series of movies forecasting the end of mankind. T3 simply actualizes the long-feared prophesy of this perfect dystopia and does so in a visually arresting way. How else might this story have been told? Your argument, taken to its logical conclusion, is that this movie simply should not have been made. Is that what you wanted?
Personally, I thought that the plot was full of flaws, the cut footage likely crippled the story that was left by its glaring omission, and some of the camera angles and cuts lacked any sense of axis. However, your opinion is the only 'throwback' around here. Yours is exactly the kind of journalism that future historians will love to ridicule for its thoughtless, myopic arguments. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
In short, watch the damn movie before you run your mouth.

Jordan Smith of TX 10:01PM May 22, 2009

I have trouble understanding why you would write an opinion on a movie that you have not seen. I can't imagine a more flawed premise for your opinion. It was a waste of my time to read it and I only spend more time on because I hope that your bosses come to realize that opinions like these are why people don't pay to read the news any more.
In short, watch the damn movie before you run your mouth. I've seen both, I disagree, and for you to sit here and try to graft a post-post-9/11 milieu onto a movie like this is extremely clumsy, about as clumsy as the grafting of rubber skin onto t-600's in the movie you attempt to pan, again without having watched it.
If you knew anything about movies, you'd understand that if a story is going to be told that is as fantastic as a post-apocolyptic struggle-for-the-survival-of-mankind, the last thing you want to do is make it too "fun." Terminator 3 taught us that much: it was 'fun' and was completely panned. In addition, T3 was 'fun,' and it was shot almost immediately following 9/11. You are no better than the millions of feigned intellectuals who try to make an argument by first deciding on a verdict and then coming up with the evidence necessary to support it.
Your penchant for hyperbole is also unfortunate. A relic? Really? I hate to break it to you, but 2001 was 8 years ago, not 800 or even 80 or 18, but 8. To call a movie that was released (again, that you have never seen) a relic from a bygone era, simply because it falls into a period of movie-making that you have unilaterally declared as having ended (based on the logic that one movie <Star Trek> doth a pattern make and a new period herald), is strikingly shallow. The hero is dour and angry? 1) YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE 2)IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!! HOW WOULD YOU BEHAVE?
Did you ever stop to think about how ridiculous the movie would look and feel (taking Independence Day as but one examples) if, with the end of the world at hand, and the leaders of your beleaguered band of freedom fighters have been exterminated, you have your protagonist cracking jokes? The truth is that in times of suffering, people do create an alternative sense of humor, but we all know that creating an accurate-feeling movie tonality is not as simple as attempting to replicate real-world "social physics," as it were.
Lastly, this movie is a sequel in a long series of movies forecasting the end of mankind. T3 simply actualizes the long-feared prophesy of this perfect dystopia and does so in a visually arresting way.
Personally, I thought that the plot was full of flaws, the footage on the cutting room floor likely crippled the story that was left by its glaring omission, and some of the camera angles and cuts lacked any sense of axis. However, your opinion is the only 'throwback' around here. You are exactly the kind of journalist that future historians will love to ridicule for their thoughtless, myopic viewpoints. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news...

Jordan Smith of TX 9:33PM May 22, 2009

I have trouble understanding why you would write an opinion on a movie that you have not seen. I can't imagine a more flawed premise for your opinion. It was a waste of my time to read it and I only spend more time on because I hope that your bosses come to realize that opinions like these are why people don't pay to read the news any more.
In short, watch the damn movie before you run your mouth. I've seen both, I disagree, and for you to sit here and try to graft a post-post-9/11 milieu onto a movie like this is extremely clumsy, about as clumsy as the grafting of rubber skin onto t-600's in the movie you attempt to pan, again without having watched it.
If you knew anything about movies, you'd understand that if a story is going to be told that is as fantastic as a post-apocolyptic struggle-for-the-survival-of-mankind, the last thing you want to do is make it too "fun." Terminator 3 taught us that much: it was 'fun' and was completely panned. In addition, T3 was 'fun,' and it was shot almost immediately following 9/11. You are no better than the millions of feigned intellectuals who try to make an argument by first deciding on a verdict and then coming up with the evidence necessary to support it.
Your penchant for hyperbole is also unfortunate. A relic? Really? I hate to break it to you, but 2001 was 8 years ago, not 800 or even 80 or 18, but 8. To call a movie that was released (again, that you have never seen) a relic from a bygone era, simply because it falls into a period of movie-making that you have unilaterally declared as having ended (based on the logic that one movie <Star Trek> doth a pattern make and a new period herald), is strikingly shallow. The hero is dour and angry? 1) YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE 2)IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!! HOW WOULD YOU BEHAVE?
Did you ever stop to think about how ridiculous the movie would look and feel (taking Independence Day as but one examples) if, with the end of the world at hand, and the leaders of your beleaguered band of freedom fighters have been exterminated, you have your protagonist cracking jokes? The truth is that in times of suffering, people do create an alternative sense of humor, but we all know that creating an accurate-feeling movie tonality is not as simple as attempting to replicate real-world "social physics," as it were.
Lastly, this movie is a sequel in a long series of movies forecasting the end of mankind. T3 simply actualizes the long-feared prophesy of this perfect dystopia and does so in a visually arresting way.
Personally, I thought that the plot was full of flaws, the footage on the cutting room floor likely crippled the story that was left by its glaring omission, and some of the camera angles and cuts lacked any sense of axis. However, your opinion is the only 'throwback' around here. You are exactly the kind of journalist that future historians will love to ridicule for their thoughtless, myopic viewpoints. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news...

Jordan Smith of TX 9:31PM May 22, 2009