McG talks, just a little, about Terminator 4.

Last updated on: February 6, 2008 at 8:30 pm by Peter T. Chattaway

McG talks, just a little, about Terminator 4. 2008-02-06T20:30:00-08:00 Peter T. Chattaway

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I might as well offer my own two bits on that interview that Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins director McG did with The 213 recently; it’s been making the rounds today:

(213): How will the TV show play into the film in terms of timelines?

McG: It’s a little tricky, but I mean obviously there’s some liberties taken. What Cameron did with the second picture and what Mostow did with the third and certainly the TV show in the spirit of week in, week out episodic television has to take some license as well. We’re going to do what we can to respect them all, but there are indeed some timeline issues. We speak to the idea of one version of a future, which is clearly articulated by Michael Biehn in the first picture.

Good luck with that! One of the reasons I have always loved the first film is because it is such a tightly-plotted story that there is, quite simply, no way to make a sequel to it. So I was disappointed when I heard almost 20 years ago that James Cameron was, in fact, going to make a sequel to it — and then I didn’t know what to make of the fact that Cameron decided to jettison the first film’s underlying approach to time-travel altogether. The first film is defined by causal loops; the second film says these loops can be ignored, even though the story wouldn’t exist without them. And then, the third film came along and said the loops are still there, just kind of … wrinkled. So it has been a delight to watch The Sarah Connor Chronicles — I have only seen the first three episodes so far — and to see the way this series just ignores the concept of franchise continuity altogether. There is simply no way that this series and the third movie can exist in the same timeline — not unless they plan to wrap the series up in a deeply contrived and unsatisfying way. So really, why bother trying to “respect” all the various sequels and spin-offs? Why not just accept that each story takes place in its own parallel universe, and leave it at that?

And wait a minute, what’s this about Michael Biehn saying something about there being only one version of the future? Didn’t his character say the exact opposite, that there is no fate but what we make for ourselves, when he passed along a message from John Connor to his mother? And even if Biehn’s character did say that there was only one version of the future, haven’t the sequels and the TV spin-off all pretty much disproved that now?

(213): So is this taking off after number three or number two?

McG: This is the space between; this is post Judgment day. So there really is no continuation, you know what I mean? Its sort of a different animal, whereas the first two pictures on this thing are Terminators from the future, this picture takes place in 2019.

Uh, sounds like the answer is: “After number three.” The third picture in “this thing” also featured a couple of Terminators from the future, too. And it was the third film that ended with the missiles flying — apparently no later than 2004. Unless they rewrite the back-story all over again, this would mean the new film is taking place at least 15 years after Judgment Day.

(213): I was curious, you have your own signature style, which is obviously something that’s different from Terminator films we’ve seen before – how do you feel it will mesh with the new film?

McG: It was important to me to honor James Cameron’s pictures and I spoke to him for a long time, he’s down in New Zealand doing Avatar, and he was very encouraging saying “Look, I was in the same spot following Ridley Scott on the second Aliens picture – it’s like, what are you doing, it’s Ridley!” And he said, “I wanted to be respectful of the film by Ridley, but I wanna go in a direction where hopefully I can satisfy the hard core fans, but also build upon what’s put before us.” And I would never be so bold as to say that we’re going to be successful, but we’re certainly going to do our best and I think we’re greatly protected by Christian Bale.

I gotta admit, I like that James Cameron anecdote. And not just because I like Aliens (1986) a fair bit better than Alien (1979) — though in fact, one of the things I like about Aliens is the way it stays very true to the spirit of its predecessor, while building on it. I have no idea if McG can do half as good a job at sequelizing someone else’s work as Cameron did, but at least McG is paying some sort of homage to the guy who started this franchise.

(213): Come on, who would be McG’s “dream Terminator”?!

McG: You know, those are big shoes to fill. If you go back and look at the first picture it’s so funny because there’s such a decided difference between what Arnold was doing in the first picture and in the second and third picture. I mean there’s this decided physicality – look what Robert Patrick did to get ready for the role. He’s a guy who I adore, I put him in every movie I’ve ever done. And it’s very difficult to say because it’s a decidedly masculine role and I think we’re living in a time where a lot of actors are very effeminate and they’re sort of skinny, heroine chic and there’s really a masculine component to the role. And there’s guys out there like Russell Crowe and Eric Bana, bring a good physicality, they do what they do, but I don’t know if they’re exactly right at the end of the day. (Smiles) Josh Brolin is a very exciting actor – we’ll see.

Hmmm, I know Jeffrey Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere thinks this is a bad idea, but I kind of like the sound of that. Though it would be funny to see Brolin play a Terminator so soon after starring in No Country for Old Men, a film in which he played someone who was trying to get away from another character who was described by many critics as resembling a Terminator. In any case, won’t Brolin be busy with Oliver Stone‘s Bush pretty soon?

It’s also interesting to hear Crowe and Bana named so close together, since one was rumoured to be in the running for the part of the villain in Star Trek XI, and the other actually got the part.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

February 6, 2008

New Line Cinema -- gasping its last breath?

Next Post

February 6, 2008 "Baa baa sheep."

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Anglican Planet Articles BC Christian News BC Report Bible Movies Bible Review Blog Books & Culture Campus Times CBC Radio Christianity Today ChristianWeek Essays Faith Today Festival Cinemas Guide Film Journals Georgia Straight Interviews MB Herald National Catholic Register Salvationist Today's Christian Two Chairs Ubyssey Uncategorized Vancouver Courier Vancouver Sun

Select a Month August 2025 April 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 May 2024 February 2024 December 2023 May 2023 March 2023 November 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 July 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 April 2012 January 2012 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 November 2003 October 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 March 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 September 2001 August 2001 July 2001 June 2001 April 2001 March 2001 February 2001 December 2000 November 2000 October 2000 September 2000 August 2000 July 2000 June 2000 May 2000 April 2000 March 2000 January 2000 October 1999 August 1999 May 1999 April 1999 February 1999 January 1999 December 1998 November 1998 October 1998 August 1998 July 1998 June 1998 April 1998 March 1998 January 1998 November 1997 September 1997 July 1997 June 1997 April 1997 March 1997 February 1997 January 1997 December 1996 October 1996 September 1996 June 1996 March 1996 February 1996 January 1996 April 1995 November 1994 September 1994 September 1991

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What famous garden did God place Adam and Eve in?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Sinai Eden Gethsemane Bethel