Autore Topic: [Cinema] Terminator Salvation  (Letto 11802 volte)

0 Utenti e 1 visitatore stanno visualizzando questo topic.

Offline [c]ego

  • Stratega
  • *****
  • Post: 4.139
  • I'm not a number. I'm a free sheep.
[Cinema] Terminator Salvation
« il: 04 Giu 2009, 12:07 »
Terminator Salvation: Mah, sinceramente non mi ha suscitato alcun tipo di emozione o ricordo. A dirla tutta è proprio il progetto di una nuova trilogia che mi lasciava perplesso e ancora di più ora che ho visto quello che dovrebbe esserne l'episodio fondativo. Trama un po' troppo contorta, Bale distratto e sostanzialmente inutile (bravo invece Sam Worthington che pare credere di più al suo personaggio). Ottime le scene action, tutte molto spettacolari, anche se il fatto che alcune facciano pesantemente il verso a Transformers, palesa il voler seguire l'onda lunga del sequel del film di Bay, più che il voler vivere di vita propria. Secondo me c'è un errore storico di interpretazione nell'analisi della trilogia originaria. Il primo film era, sotto tutti i punti di vista, una pellicola sci-fi “indipendente”,originale, discretamente squattrinata ma con buone idee: stava alla cinematografia del tempo come Pitch Black a quella della fine degli anni 90'. Il sequel ha centrato l'obiettivo perchè spaccava i culi dal punto di vista tecnico, il Governatore era una star in ascesa e la storia era ben scritta, il terzo episodio era totalmente derivativo e chi l'ha visto l'ha apprezzato per forza d'inerzia/nostalgia/saluto a Schwarzy. Con Salvation si è partiti subito con le fanfare e di solito chi fa così, poi si sgonfia (vedi Star Wars I). Incassi americani alla mano, imho non vanno nemmeno avanti con i prossimi due episodi. In ogni caso si lascia vedere, specie considerando che il regista era quello di quella demenziale puttanata chiamata Charlie s'Angels.

Oh, a me e' garbato parecchio invece. Ma parecchio, eh. Ringrazio il nepotismo di James Cameron (ma James Cameron c'e' da ringraziarlo e basta, comunque) per aver suggerito Sam Worthington. Concordo, invece, su Bale... grida, grida e a me non faceva altro che tornare in mente il suo rant. Mi porno dietro la sensazione che Salvation sia forse l'esempio migliore di film d'azione anni '80 rivisto ai giorni nostri, e per quanto mi riguarda e' il piu' bel complimento che mi sarei aspettato di fargli. Resta il fatto che a me Charlie's Angels mi era piaciuto. Entrambi...
Sono allergico all'italiano medio
[c]ego lavora nella periferia videoludica, le sue opinioni non hanno nulla a che vedere con quelle dei suoi mille e uno clienti. Uno più, uno meno.

Offline The Dude

  • Reduce
  • ********
  • Post: 23.210
    • E-mail
[Cinema] Terminator Salvation
« Risposta #1 il: 04 Giu 2009, 14:53 »
Uh, stasera evento Belstaff:
- cocktail party dietro piazza del popolo
- visione in anteprima di Terminator Salvation, di cui la Belstaff mi sembra sia sponsor (giacche del film?).

Offline Devil May Cry

  • Reduce
  • ********
  • Post: 45.715
[Cinema] Terminator Salvation
« Risposta #2 il: 05 Giu 2009, 09:48 »
Terminator Salvation: Mah, sinceramente non mi ha suscitato alcun tipo di emozione o ricordo. A dirla tutta è proprio il progetto di una nuova trilogia che mi lasciava perplesso e ancora di più ora che ho visto quello che dovrebbe esserne l'episodio fondativo. Trama un po' troppo contorta, Bale distratto e sostanzialmente inutile (bravo invece Sam Worthington che pare credere di più al suo personaggio). Ottime le scene action, tutte molto spettacolari, anche se il fatto che alcune facciano pesantemente il verso a Transformers, palesa il voler seguire l'onda lunga del sequel del film di Bay, più che il voler vivere di vita propria. Secondo me c'è un errore storico di interpretazione nell'analisi della trilogia originaria. Il primo film era, sotto tutti i punti di vista, una pellicola sci-fi “indipendente”,originale, discretamente squattrinata ma con buone idee: stava alla cinematografia del tempo come Pitch Black a quella della fine degli anni 90'. Il sequel ha centrato l'obiettivo perchè spaccava i culi dal punto di vista tecnico, il Governatore era una star in ascesa e la storia era ben scritta, il terzo episodio era totalmente derivativo e chi l'ha visto l'ha apprezzato per forza d'inerzia/nostalgia/saluto a Schwarzy. Con Salvation si è partiti subito con le fanfare e di solito chi fa così, poi si sgonfia (vedi Star Wars I). Incassi americani alla mano, imho non vanno nemmeno avanti con i prossimi due episodi. In ogni caso si lascia vedere, specie considerando che il regista era quello di quella demenziale puttanata chiamata Charlie s'Angels.

Oh, a me e' garbato parecchio invece. Ma parecchio, eh. Ringrazio il nepotismo di James Cameron (ma James Cameron c'e' da ringraziarlo e basta, comunque) per aver suggerito Sam Worthington. Concordo, invece, su Bale... grida, grida e a me non faceva altro che tornare in mente il suo rant. Mi porno dietro la sensazione che Salvation sia forse l'esempio migliore di film d'azione anni '80 rivisto ai giorni nostri, e per quanto mi riguarda e' il piu' bel complimento che mi sarei aspettato di fargli. Resta il fatto che a me Charlie's Angels mi era piaciuto. Entrambi...

eh, cacchio ragazzi, un film così merita un topic tutto suo
se non c'è già apritelo

io sto schiattando di vederlo -___-

Offline The Dude

  • Reduce
  • ********
  • Post: 23.210
    • E-mail
[Cinema] Terminator Salvation
« Risposta #3 il: 05 Giu 2009, 09:58 »
Oh, mi è piaciuto.
Bello il personaggio di Marcus Wright, davvero azzeccato.
Bale niente di che.
Ottime citazioni dei film precedenti.
Peccato per la musica: Elfman non si sente più di tanto, ma soprattutto dov'è finito B. Fiedel?
« Ultima modifica: 05 Giu 2009, 12:08 da Zel »

Offline Lenin

  • Reduce
  • ********
  • Post: 30.493
  • Thunderer Thorlief
Re: [Cinema] Terminator Salvation
« Risposta #4 il: 05 Giu 2009, 13:35 »
Scimmione! Settimana prossima vado a vederlo!
What'ya gonna do? Not train? - Dr J Feigenbaum

Offline Grendel

  • Reduce
  • ********
  • Post: 21.674
Re: [Cinema] Terminator Salvation
« Risposta #5 il: 07 Giu 2009, 01:25 »
Reduce or ora dalla visione.

Ottimo capitolo.
Si sbaglia ovviamente a metterlo sul livello dei primi due, innegabili capolavori, ma questo è un action/sci-fi ritmatissimo mai annoiante, rispettoso della filosofia di Terminator e che si incastra alla perfezione con gli altri tre a livello di trama.
Un ottimo blockbuster, e come tale con qualche caduta di stile parossisticamente superficiale, ma del tutto trascurabili nell'economia del film.

Se gli eventuali altri due capitoli della nuova trilogia manterranno questi livelli, ben vengano.
2.0

Offline luca

  • Condottiero
  • ******
  • Post: 7.585
    • E-mail
Re: [Cinema] Terminator Salvation
« Risposta #6 il: 08 Giu 2009, 13:40 »
Visto.
Marcus Wrightc ottimo, bale monotono.
Elfman si sente in un paio di occasioni e poi è solo mestiere imho.
in generale cmq son piuttosto deluso, la trama mi par tirata via malissimo e l' impressione è di aver inuntilizzato il "potenziale".
per essere un reboot di un franchise morto, grazie t3, non ci siamo proprio.
divertente al massimo a con sprazzi di spunti interessanti e basta a mia personalissima opnione. sarà la monotonia generale del film tranne nel finale (a proposito era meglio quello tolto...)
Most wanted: FF16 The Rising Tide, Elden Ring Shadow of the Erdtree; Trails through Daybreak; Metaphor: RE.
Sto giocando FF14

Offline lawless

  • Eroe
  • *******
  • Post: 11.007
  • if you wanna give up, remember why you started
Re: [Cinema] Terminator Salvation
« Risposta #7 il: 08 Giu 2009, 18:20 »
mi dicono dalla regia che ci sono buchi incredibili in alcuni collegamenti con gli altri film  a livello di storia generale proprio.

confermate? no perche' credo che a livello di trama, concettualmente parlando, questo salvation non dovrebbe neanche esistere no?

non si era evitata la guerra?

Offline Grendel

  • Reduce
  • ********
  • Post: 21.674
Re: [Cinema] Terminator Salvation
« Risposta #8 il: 08 Giu 2009, 18:23 »
mi dicono dalla regia che ci sono buchi incredibili in alcuni collegamenti con gli altri film  a livello di storia generale proprio.
La regia sbaglia.

Il paradosso della guerra in realtà si compiva alla fine di T3, con la guerra che scoppiava cmq "perchè così doveva andare".
Cosa che a dirla tutta nemmeno si può confutare.
2.0

Offline lawless

  • Eroe
  • *******
  • Post: 11.007
  • if you wanna give up, remember why you started
Re: [Cinema] Terminator Salvation
« Risposta #9 il: 08 Giu 2009, 19:13 »
presumo spoiler, io mi sono fermato ai primi due punti. Ma gia' il primo punto la dice lunga sulla qualita' ideologica, diciamo.Vedo il film e poi me lo leggo

1. Skynet identifies Kyle Reese as its #1 target for termination, but when Skynet captures him, what does it do? Kill him, right? Wrong. After going out of its way to capture and identify its #1 target for termination, Skynet keeps him alive and imprisons him so that John Connor can free him. Great idea, Hollywood. Like a machine is going to go against its own mission priorities to keep alive the suspense and drama.

2. Skynet creates Marcus Wright as a precursor to the T-800, and he is supposedly half-man, half-machine. But the whole dialogue between Marcus and the Skynet computer makes absolutely no sense after all. Skynet tries to reason with Marcus that he is a machine and is on Skynet’s side. Now, this is ridiculous. Skynet is trying to reason with Marcus, instead of simply programming him. And then, when Marcus decides that he is human, not machine, gee, Skynet not only doesn’t see that coming, but it also has no defense (e.g., other terminators or machines around) to attack Marcus or defend itself against him.

3. At the part when Arnold Schwarzaneggar appears in the film, he is the prototype T-800 lying in wait in a trap to kill John Connor. But while every other Terminator in the movie is armed with a Gatling machine gun, the very terminator that is being used in the trap to kill John Connor, the very one assigned this great mission, is completely unarmed, and instead of killing Connor, it simply smacks him around a bit.

4. Skynet headquarters are supposed to be heavily guarded so that both infiltration and escape are impossible, but John Connor finds his way in readily easily, and is able to move around quite easily without any Terminators finding him or knowing he is there. To make it worse, this was a trap for Connor laid out by Skynet, and it still has not terminators around to kill him while he wanders freely through Skynet HQ.

5. When John Connor finds the prison cells in Skynet, he is able to open them by what is essentially a manually-controlled switch. Ahem, but why would a completely mechanized base that is controlled by a computer and filled with machines have a switch panel for a human to open the cells? Hello?

6. Skynet headquarters are supposed to be heavily guarded so that both infiltration and escape are impossible (see # 4 above), but rescue choppers are able to fly in and rescue all the humans without a single terminator or Hunter-Killer or anything else for that matter opening fire on, or offering any sort of resistance to, the choppers.

-

I enjoy these movies as pure escapism. Pure and simple.

I mean, if we're really gonna get deep on Skynet...wouldn't it be easier for them to simply crank out nuclear weapons and continue to just bomb every nook and cranny of the Earth except for their own installations? I mean, if they're that hellbent on wiping out humanity, that would be a much simpler solution, rather than all of these cockamamie schemes involving retroactive time-travel abortions and killer cyborgs.

Fact is, the entire premise of this saga is pretty far-fetched. You either accept the rules of it, that Skynet is in fact a beatable entity, rallied against by a single man who led humans back from the brink...or you may as well just reject the whole thing. Yeah, there's some big holes in TS if you pick at it...but check the calendar man. It's summertime. Time for big explosions, killer robots, you name it. I just want something that doesn't completely insult my intelligence (cough cough, TRANSFORMERS). I'm willing to suspend disbelief if it's done in an entertaining way.

Michael Bay makes McG look like fucking Kubrick.

-

If Kyle Reese had to travel back in time to father John Conner, how did Conner ever come into existence to begin with so he could send his own father back in time?

Didn't Skynet come into existence because they used parts from the original Terminator to create advanced technology? So Skynet couldn't have been created in the original timeline because there was no Terminator there to be destroyed. Or was Skynet just created a different way in the original timeline?

Time travel is a clusterfuck, just enjoy the ride.

-

But also did you notice that the Skynet HQ was designed like it was meant to have humans working in it? Especially when you see the computer console Marcus approaches. It looks like it was made for humans to use. Why would Skynet need to do that when it could just communicate electronically? What were all those displays for? Soley for Marcus?

Just a bad decision on the part of the set designers, IMO.

But more to the point the whole "what makes us human?" aspect of the film was poorly done, and I don't think they explored it very well.

-

Cyberdyne Data Systems uses the parts from the Terminator (from T1) to greatly advance their understanding of technology. They were already working (presumably) on shit like this, but...the tech from the T1 Terminator greatly accelerated their progress. This changed the future timeline.

So now Skynet is more advanced, and in the NEW future timeline is able to send a more technologically advanced Terminator (T-1000) back to kill John in T2. Not that it had sent one back before, the future timeline was changed and i believe this was Skynet's first attempt to kill Connor (again under the new future timeline.)

The destruction of the CDS Labs at the end of T2 changes the future AGAIN, hence why we see a weaker Terminator in T3 (only partial liquid metal) when Skynet from the again altered future tries to kill Connor once again (again, probably the first time it has tried to do so).

The only thing consistent in each timeline is that Skynet reaches the (logical) conclusion that to win the war it must eliminate John Connor, and it does this by sending terminators back in time.

And I guess presumably the terminator from T3 must have been from a point farther in the future than when the events in Terminator Salvation took place, unless the Terminator from T3 altered events in some capacity as to change the timeline once again. I'm inclined to think the events in T3 didn't alter the timeline much, since Judgement Day occured so close to the events of that film, and I don't think Skynet (At that point) would have been able to recover the body of the T3 terminator to advance its tech.

-

The only serious logical flaw I see in T1/T2 is the paradox of John Connor creating his own existence by sending Kyle Reese back in time to beget him. How could John Connor cause his own existence unless he already existed from some source apart from himself.

At the same time, the same can be said of Skynet/Cyberdyne. Cyberdyne relies on a chip from the future to revolutionize technology to the point where Skynet is able to think for itself. But how could Cyberdyne use technology from a chip to develop Skynet if Cyberdyne didn't already have the technology to design the chip. In other words: chip --> (causes) SKynet --> chip. It's another chicken versus egg paradox, but it makes even less sense.

Apart from the flaw in these two chicken/egg paradoxes (Connor and Skynet causing their own existences), I thought the ideas for the basis of T1/T2 were genius.

-

If Judgement Day occurs in 2003, then heart transplant surgery is very difficult, highly specialized, requires complex equipment and requires a sterile environment. Unless the Resistance had time during the subsequent 15 years of robot holocaust to focus on cutting edge research (hah), the scene with a woman who was a veterinarian in the previous movie conducting open heart transplant in the middle of a wasteland was so...fucking...ridiculous...

SkyNet took time to build a hard-to-defend-from-missles skyscraper... and apparently decided to try its hand at interior design for a modern office that works well for humans

A helicopter within a mile of a nuclear blast suffers no harm or serious turbulence from the blast wave.

The Magic Black Girl who has a sixth sense for sensing robots. How cliche.

Speaking of sensing the robots --how on earth did no one notice the approach or arrival of the giant robot human collector and HK that suddenly appeared at the remote gas station? None of the robots appeared to have any stealth capabilities in the movie --and especially not those giants.

Why was SkyNet collecting people? They never explained it other than they happened to pick up Kyle Reese. Why keep everyone else? Were they going to harvest cells or organs? They never made that clear.

How easy was it to hijack a Terminator motorcycle? Somehow SkyNet never thought of putting a self-destruct function in any of its robots?

If John Conner could sneak within a half-mile of SkyNet HQ at any time, what on earth kept the Resistance from firing a low-yield nuke or powerful missile at the damn SkyNet skyscraper?

Connor was apparently based in southern or central California, but somehow is able to get around the entire Bay Area and into Marin County to approach SkyNet... somehow I'm thinking the infrastructure for the freeways isn't really there.

For as many Terminators as we see being built at the end, where the hell were all of them? When the Resistance attacks SkyNet, its a deserted refinery.

Speaking of SkyNet HQ: were they running out of money? A bunch of everyday construction equipment driving itself around? WOW Somehow SkyNet has the worst security ever seen.

SkyNet's weapons can hear a car speaker from a long distance, but it cannot hear or take action when a major firefight erupts right outside John Connor's resistance base. Somehow I believe SkyNet has the missles and nukes and the will to throw one at such an opportunity. The water terminators (which were lame) certainly saw what was going on.

No one in the resistance figured out the usefulness of an EMP --say what you will about the Matrix series, but those made sense there and would've made sense here.

The infiltrator Terminator (Marcus Wright) starts very, very obviously falling back into the actor's IRL Australian accent when talking face to face with John Conner.

I can understand why SkyNet would make the Marcus Wright Terminator believe he's human --but why on earth would it not install an easy internal remote-activated switch that would turn it back into an obedient robot? Giving the terminator the ability to make such choices (and an easy to remove control) was unbelievably weak.

When Marcus Wright says he's going to go against SkyNet, not one terminator tries to stop him until he interferes with the T-800. Again: SkyNet is apparently abandoned.

SkyNet sends a naked T-800 (Arnold) to finish off John Conner. This single moment was loaded with so much asinine stupidity I don't know where to begin.

Why did SkyNet not simply kill Kyle Reese then impersonate him to lure Connor? Heck, they could've made a Terminator version of Reese that would've been very interesting.

Only A-10 Warthogs, Hueys and a submarine survived Judgment Day? No other vehicles?

The half-assed, tacked-on "Oh, but now we have to destroy SkyNet worldwide" made the assault on the big, bad SkyNet HQ even more stupid.


Well, there are two problems here. First is, as you said, even if Skynet was keeping Kyle alive just to trap Connor, how would Connor know that he is alive? What the heck was Skynet planning on doing? Posting a billboard for Connor that says: "Yoo hoo. We have Kyle. Come and get him."

Even if you accept as a valid explanation that Skynet kept Kyle alive to trap Connor (and it is not a valid explanation, but let us play devil's advocate), this whole explanation is undermined by the fact that SKYNET DOESN'T NEED TO KILL CONNOR TO KILL CONNOR; IT NEED ONLY KILL KYLE TO ELIMINATE CONNOR.

Remember the main reason that Connor was trying to stop the attack on Skynet was because killing Kyle would cause Connor to never be which would cause the rebellion to lose. So all Skynet had to do to eliminate Connor was kill Kyle, and Connor would cease to exist. Hence no need for the trap. The whole rebellion could be defeated in a single blow either by killing Sarah Connor (as was the misson in in T1) or Kyle Reese (as was the primary mission in TS). So Skynet could have easily prevented all the events of the film by simply killing Kyle instead of capturing him. So Skynet let him live, so Hollywood could bring us a movie. Sorry, but this is sounding more Spaceballs-ish than Terminator-ish.

-

See, this is where the plot has not one logical flaw, but several logical flaws.

First of all, while Kyle is the key to the future for Skynet, Skynet has no way of knowing this. First of all, if you look at the events of T1, Skynet doesn’t realize the significance of John Connor until the resistance is able to smash Skynet’s defense grid in 2029 and effectively win the war. At that point, Skynet has to wipeout John Connor’s existence to survive. Until then, Skynet has no way of knowing that it has to wipe him out before he exists.

Second, to make things even worse, even if Skynet does realize that it has to eliminate John Connor before he existed, it has no way of knowing who his father is. If you recall in T2, John Connor’s father is “unknown” according to the police car database search. Don’t forget that in T1, most records were lost in the war, so Skynet didn’t know which Sarah Connor in LA was John Connor’s mother, so it resorted to killing all Sarah Connor’s. But even putting aside the fact that the records were lost, assuming Skynet had access to such records, they do not show who John Connor’s father is.

Third, and this is where it is really problematic, is that TS takes place in 2018. Skynet in 2018 has no way of knowing that either John Connor or Kyle Reese would be significant in its demise in 2029. This part made no sense at all.

-

I, too, could understand one man sneaking in, but there are still two flaws in this theory. First, Skynet obviously has human sensing technology since it is able to send out Hunter-Killers to detect infrared from humans (hence the need for humans to lie low at night). So it could just install some infrared sensors in its base to detect for possible human infiltrations.

Second, according to (badly written) plot, Skynet set up a trap for John to sneak into Skynet, so it knew he was coming, and when he was coming, and how he was coming (Marcus gave all this info to Connor), so Skynet should have been able to intercept him at the perimeter.

-

if you really look at all of the movies in the series, Skynet doesnt seem to be all that smart. look at all their plots for each and tell me if they really are that smart:

T1: John Connor and Kyle Reese both exist in the future timeline. clearly Kyle wasnt the baby daddy. John ruins Skynet's party so Skynet decided to eliminate him from being born. Operation Fail.

T2: so Skynet has now decided to kill John before Judgement Day instead. Operation Fail again.

T3: Skynet actually succeeds in killing Future John, but Kate and the other Resistance guys still kept up the fight. so now Skynet decided to go back in time to kill off everybody from the Resistance OTHER than John (mainly Kate). and in this story Arnold explains Skynets new Infiltration Scheme (how he got to actually kill John)

T4: now here's where it gets even more stupid. apparently Skynet managed to create an Infiltrator that doesn't do any Terminatoring (like what Arnold did in T3). Skynet didnt even need to go back in time for this one since at this point in time John and Kyle haven't met each other yet. heck they even said they KNEW John also knows they'll be trying to infiltrate the resistance somehow, hence the new Infiltrator model.

so basically throughout this T-universe, Skynet has tried terminating, infiltrating, time traveling and failing, but doesnt seem to want to do it all at the same time. they could possibly have thought of targeting somebody else at some other point in time (maybe prevent the Reese's from birthing baby Kyle etc). maybe even go back in time and leave notes for itself ala Back to the Future, like maybe bring back the blueprints on how to build the terminators and mass produce them sooner. or maybe "note to self: go back in time...just 5 minutes before or so" or keep sending Terminators to the exact same timeline...i mean why just 84 and 92? if it failed in 84 send another one back to 84 so 2 of them exist, heck why not 83? or 9 months after? possibilities are endless.

Offline Devil May Cry

  • Reduce
  • ********
  • Post: 45.715
Re: [Cinema] Terminator Salvation
« Risposta #10 il: 08 Giu 2009, 20:05 »
lawless, non ho letto quello che hai scritto, e il film lo vado a vedere stasera, ma a quanto ne sapevo, questo terminator si pone in linea con i primi 2 ma in alternativa al 3
in pratica, nella prima puntata della serie delle cronache di sarah, succede un evento che "spazza via" gli eventi di T3, creando questo futuro che sarebbe rappresentato da salvation

questo sapevo io e avevo letto, poi non so cosa in realtà abbiano fatto

intanto il serial tv l'ho visto tutto e mi è piaciuto non poco (compreso il finale chiaramente sbrigativo e aperto), quindi spero di cogliere gli eventuali rimandi alla serie stessa

Offline Grendel

  • Reduce
  • ********
  • Post: 21.674
Re: [Cinema] Terminator Salvation
« Risposta #11 il: 08 Giu 2009, 20:07 »
lawless, non ho letto quello che hai scritto, e il film lo vado a vedere stasera, ma a quanto ne sapevo, questo terminator si pone in linea con i primi due ma in alternativa al tre
in pratica, nella prima puntata della serie delle cronache di sarah, succede un evento che "spazza via" gli eventi di T3,
Fammi sapere quando avrai visto Salvation, perchè io che ho visto T3 e non Sarah Chronicles non riesco a capire in che modo Salvation dovrebbe smentire T3.
2.0

Offline Devil May Cry

  • Reduce
  • ********
  • Post: 45.715
Re: [Cinema] Terminator Salvation
« Risposta #12 il: 08 Giu 2009, 20:09 »
sì, certo son curioso anche io (a pelle posso dirti che di T3 non smentiscono tanto l'evento finale, ossia l'inizio della guerra, quanto tutto ciò che accade durante il film, nel senso che alla guerra si arriva in un altro modo e non come si arriva nel terzo, col terminator donna, il ritorno di swarzy, john che incontra quella ragazza, ecc)
cmq recuperalo il serial che è fatto bene con diverse cose interessanti
poi sono gli stessi autori mi pare di aver capito, quindi se ti è piaciuto il film dovrebbe piacerti il serial (e viceversa)

Offline Grendel

  • Reduce
  • ********
  • Post: 21.674
Re: [Cinema] Terminator Salvation
« Risposta #13 il: 08 Giu 2009, 20:20 »
Ho una marcata ritrosia per le serie tv tratte dai film, quindi dubito accadrà, ma non lo disprezzo a prescindere.
Semplicemente vedo i film di Terminator come una saga unica, con una coerenza verticale tanto quanto orizzontale (perchè tanto parlando di paradossi temporali volendo uno la magagna la può trovare sempre, pur senza dimostrarla).
Tra l'altro io apprezzo anche T3, ottimo action movie con un bel finale nichilista, purtroppo ingiustamente disprezzato a prescindere per il solo fatto di non poter raggiungere gli irraggiungibili standard di magnificienza dei primi due capolavori (ettecredo).
Per me era un degno completamento alla saga iniziata coi primi due (per quanto riguarda l'ambientazione contemporanea dell'ecatombe imminente), e questo Salvation è un buon inizio di una nuova saga che pur raccontando la stessa storia lo fa con presupposti completamente diversi (è un blockbuster fantascientifico senza deroghe).
Chiaro che ne T3 ne TS sono al livello di T1 e T2, ma non sono nemmeno confrontabili, visto che sono film con tutto un altro obiettivo in mente.
2.0

Offline lawless

  • Eroe
  • *******
  • Post: 11.007
  • if you wanna give up, remember why you started
Re: [Cinema] Terminator Salvation
« Risposta #14 il: 08 Giu 2009, 20:30 »
mmmm

quindi questa nuova trilogia non e' collegabile con i primi 3?

no perche' se e' collegabile, a naso ci sono gia due o tre cazzate a livello di trama belle pesanti, a mio avviso