A Little Further
A reader thought I was being silly in saying I didn't like the idea of setting the latest Terminator film in the future battle between humanity and machines. The implication was if it works, it works.
I responded, but let me try to explain further.
It's not just what story you tell, but what part of a story. Homer's Iliad may be an epic, but it covers a short period of time, and doesn't enter the story of the ten-year Trojan War till it's near the end. Sophocles didn't show the whole story of Oedipus, he concentrated on the day Oedipus discovers the truth. Some parts of a story are more dramatic than others.
George Lucas had a story that was too big for one movie, and since he didn't know if he'd get to make another, he decided to start with the part of Star Wars that was most exciting. On the other hand, a sequel like Superman Returns fails because it starts just after all the interesting stuff has happened. Even in long-running shows like Battlestar Galactica or Lost or Babylon 5, which claim to tell one big story, I want to know I'm watching the part that really matters, which is why I generally don't like the offshoots. If some other part of the story matters so much, why did you pretend what I was watching originally was so important?
What worked in the Terminator films is the concept (overdone by the third) of sending back from the future a relentless killing machine and seeing how it does against its overmatched target. The question presented is can we change destiny. The first film said no. The second, made by the original creator, said yes. But both were based on a concept that works. In these films, the future is the MacGuffin. It sets the story in motion, but we're not concentrating on the future, we're watching the present. The future is some far-off place that allows a great story to be told today. We don't particularly care to see what'll happen--we've been told John Connor will win the day, so since he survived, we'll take their word for it. Showing this future is not what the Terminator series is about. It's just another dull battle of humanity versus machine, with nothing worthwhile driving it.
I responded, but let me try to explain further.
It's not just what story you tell, but what part of a story. Homer's Iliad may be an epic, but it covers a short period of time, and doesn't enter the story of the ten-year Trojan War till it's near the end. Sophocles didn't show the whole story of Oedipus, he concentrated on the day Oedipus discovers the truth. Some parts of a story are more dramatic than others.
George Lucas had a story that was too big for one movie, and since he didn't know if he'd get to make another, he decided to start with the part of Star Wars that was most exciting. On the other hand, a sequel like Superman Returns fails because it starts just after all the interesting stuff has happened. Even in long-running shows like Battlestar Galactica or Lost or Babylon 5, which claim to tell one big story, I want to know I'm watching the part that really matters, which is why I generally don't like the offshoots. If some other part of the story matters so much, why did you pretend what I was watching originally was so important?
What worked in the Terminator films is the concept (overdone by the third) of sending back from the future a relentless killing machine and seeing how it does against its overmatched target. The question presented is can we change destiny. The first film said no. The second, made by the original creator, said yes. But both were based on a concept that works. In these films, the future is the MacGuffin. It sets the story in motion, but we're not concentrating on the future, we're watching the present. The future is some far-off place that allows a great story to be told today. We don't particularly care to see what'll happen--we've been told John Connor will win the day, so since he survived, we'll take their word for it. Showing this future is not what the Terminator series is about. It's just another dull battle of humanity versus machine, with nothing worthwhile driving it.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:25 AM
9 Comments:
Even in long-running shows like Battlestar Galactica or Lost or Babylon 5, which claim to tell one big story, I want to know I'm watching the part that really matters....
Good point. I think this sums up what went wrong in the B5 spinoffs.
And it also explains why shows like Star Trek, which don't purport to tell one big story, are more amenable to spinoffs and movie sequels and the like.
The Superman Returns movie could have made the standard superhero choice and simply given us an episode in the ongoing life of Superman; it could have been good (or with the right writer, maybe even great). But for reasons I will never comprehend, the writer decided that the first two Christopher Reeve movies were canon and then ended up in a box.
The Sarah Connor Chronicles TV show was pretty good during the brief time I watched it (the second half of season two), but that was because it had become a totally different creature than the movies.
I feel you're making an argument in which you take something that's subjective and act like it's not.
It's also think it's a bit cheap to use respected literature to try and strengthen your argument. Yeah, writers cherry-pick the moments in a universe that best assist them in telling the story they want to tell at the time, but that doesn’t’ mean that other portions of the timeline/universe they create can’t also yield entertaining stuff. I don’t see how the two are mutually exclusive.
“The Terminator” was set in the present because of financial reasons. James Cameron made the film specifically as a calling card to try and coerce executives into letting him direct a sequel to “Alien.” He reverse-engineered the story based on what he knew he could get for a budget. Making a sci-fi film set in the future would be too expensive, but he could make one set in the present (and, almost just as much of a factor – set it in LA). And, when you watch the film, you kind of sense that the story is never going to spend much time in the future simply because it was beyond the means of the production. (Sort of like you know you’re never going to see any significant action set piece on a TV show.)
Watching the film, you sense that most of what you get about the future war is going to come from Reese talking about it. And it’s good stuff (at least I think it’s good). Hearing what an amazing leader John Conner is, how the Terminators evolved, how they discovered the “time displacement equipment” does get you excited about that portion of the story.
When Terminator 2 was announced, people didn’t know if it was going to be set in the present again or in the future. This time around, the budget made both choices a possibility. Plenty of people were excited about the idea of Part 2 taking place in the future. When it became clear that T2 was going to be in the present, there wasn’t any kind of collective sigh of relief.
“We don't particularly care to see what'll happen--we've been told John Connor will win the day, so since he survived, we'll take their word for it.”
While here I think you’re being the most subjective, you also make your best argument. As I see it, there are three potential problems with setting a Terminator Movie in the future:
1. John Conner has been mythologized so much that he might be a letdown when we finally meet him. This kind of already happened in T2, where Edward Furlong might not have been quite as sucky as Jake Lloyd, but was still pretty sucky. Casting Christian Bale seems to be a good defense against this outcome, but you never know.
2. Time travel (and talking about time travel) is a lot of fun and setting a Terminator story in the future doesn’t necessarily mean that the characters will discover the “time displacement equipment.” If I were in charge, I’d definitely make it a part of the story – and it easily could be.
3. We know that John Conner leads the humans to defeat Skynet (as you point out). However, given with what happened in T2 and T3, it does seem that the future is malleable. The scene in the new Star Trek where Spock explains that everything that happened in the future that Nero knows is out the window is exciting and works. Something similar here would probably help in terms of creating stakes.
“Showing this future is not what the Terminator series is about. It's just another dull battle of humanity versus machine, with nothing worthwhile driving it.”
I think this is unfair and subjective. It’s like saying “movies where people fight zombies are dull and boring and been done to death” just before “28 Days Later” and “Shaun of the Dead” come out. Everything is execution dependent.
"I feel you're making an argument in which you take something that's subjective and act like it's not.
It's also think it's a bit cheap to use respected literature to try and strengthen your argument. Yeah, writers cherry-pick the moments in a universe that best assist them in telling the story they want to tell at the time, but that doesn’t’ mean that other portions of the timeline/universe they create can’t also yield entertaining stuff."
I think it does, and that's the point. I used example from high and low art, but it's a basic rule and I could give you countless example wherever there's storytelling.
You tell a story because it's entertaining and perhaps has a message. Thus, you try to pick the best part of some setting to place the story in. And within the story, you have the special arc, taking the lead character from point A to B. A good story feels satisyfing not something open-ended that would work just as well if done in some other way. This is why the vast majority of sequels fail, or at least don't live up to the original--because they have no reason for being except to make more money.
What works in the Terminator universe, what's it's reason for being, is a tale about whether or not you can prevent a tragic future, and it's told in a great way--the killing machine set loose in a zone that can't handle it, doesn't even understand it.
It's possible to have a decent humans versus machine story, but you have to come up with a good idea behind it first, not just have a lot of fireworks around a cliche set in a universe designed to tell a different story
I'm not sure where to go from here. There are countless examples of sequels that work in which there was no guarantee or even a plan for there to be a sequel. Sometimes things are just hinted at in originals then fleshed out later and it works.
"You tell a story because it's entertaining and perhaps has a message. Thus, you try to pick the best part of some setting to place the story in. And within the story, you have the special arc, taking the lead character from point A to B. A good story feels satisyfing not something open-ended that would work just as well if done in some other way. This is why the vast majority of sequels fail, or at least don't live up to the original--because they have no reason for being except to make more money."
I agree with this. But it seems like you don't have a problem with sequels in general, only sequels set in the future in which the characters fight robots.
It's a rare sequel that's better than the original, but at least most of them continue on in the same milieu. This throws out everything that's good about the orignal. It's like a band debuting with a new album you love, and their second album is a completely different kind of music.
I teach high school and the three students who indicated that they saw it over Memo Weekend all loved it. This kind of movie is for teenages and you're being too analytical. For whatever reasons, the teenies love it and it will be a smashing success.
p.s. They can't wait for the upcoming Transformers movie next. Youngsters (out there) love sequels; not only in movies, but in video games and (reality?) television also.
Mikey in Mich.
I know how movies play, and Terminator Salvation isn't doing that great (compared to expectations). It's not a flop, exactly, but another one like this and the series may be over. Teenagers (and other filmgoers) may not "analyze," but they know if somethng worked or it didn't. Star Trek works, and in the long run that's what counts. It'll easily make more domestically than Terminator or Wolverine.
Sequels in general are huge because they have what amounts to hundreds of millions in free publicity. (It's hard for people in LA to understand not everyone is up on the latest in cinema.) But if they don't work, nothing drops faster.
You are correct about Transformers. It'll be huge.
33 percent on Rotten Tomatoes isn't at all encouraging. "Salvation" is a tad behind T3 at this point but could drop significantly in its second weekend. T3 made 150 domestic, but a whopping 283 overseas. However, that was with Arnold. Time will tell how much of a disappointment the grosses are for this movie. If it kicks ass overseas maybe it won't be a disappointment (I don't see that happening though)
Here's an interesting quote from Box Office Mojo that's appropriate for this thread (I don't agree with all of it)
"In the context of the Terminator franchise, Terminator Salvation is as much a prequel as it is a sequel, because the future is treated as the past in the previous movies and its setting is before that future. Coming off more as fan boy fantasias than story advancers, prequels and spin-offs can struggle to appeal beyond the franchise bases. That's why Salvation was destined to be more commercially akin to X-Men Origins: Wolverine (which hit a series low) than the rebooted Star Trek. However, the previous Terminators' dramatic flashes of the post-apocalyptic future captured viewers' imaginations to a degree that further exploration was welcome enough to retain more of the audience than a T3 retread might have."
Star Trek is clearly not a reboot. It's not even a prequel. Technically, it's a sequel. Star Trek works because it was executed well. The story and characters satified people. That's what makes a movie.
Post a Comment
<< Home