Thursday 14 March 2002

Yeah, so I was innocently browsing through one of my favourite film websites, when I came upon the news:

Terminator 3 : The Rise of the Machines is to go into production

There are just so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to start. Please excuse the lack of cohesion in this entry, I'm somewhat disturbed right now.

1.    Director: not James Cameron

James Cameron's vision and talent brought us The Terminator and T2, also Aliens and The Abyss, and all movies featured groundbreaking special effects and art direction, redefined the action/scifi genre, and starred strong, proactive heroes who happened to be female.  I can't even wrap my brain around the concept of James Cameron not directing the third Terminator movie, its like his child, his creation, he knows his characters and vision better than anyone else ever could ...

Then again, look at Titanic. And Dark Angel. His most recent endeavours in film and TV and I found them both to be sickmaking unbelievable uninvolving pap. So maybe it really is okay if James Cameron doesn't direct T3.

2.    No Sarah Connor/Linda Hamilton

I find this totally unforgivable and out of line and just wrong wrong wrong. Sarah Connor was not only the central character in both Terminator movies, she was the whole point. She was vulnerable and flawed, yet strong and skilled, and it was her humanity against the unstoppable, emotionless force of the machine that made the films so powerful and involving, and changed the action/science fiction genre forever. Without Sarah Connor/Linda Hamilton, another Terminator movie would descend into the quagmire of the usual daft shoot-'em-up B flick.

3.    No Eddie Furlong

Eddie is John Connor. I can't get past that. Besides, he's cute as a button, easily old enough to play a late teen John Connor, and hell we aren't getting human continuity any other way (I don't count monoexpressionist Ah-nuld). So why cast another actor? I can only presume it's because Eddie read the script and threw it across the room before ripping it into a million pieces and posting them one by one into the sewer.

4.    The Terminatrix? The fuck?

Oh how I wish I was making this up but ... the "good" Terminator is of course played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, and is sent back by the resistance to protect John Connor. The "bad" Terminator is a brand-new, very different model, able to take on molecular attributes of things it has contact with, thus more organic than the T-1000 of T2. However, and this is the clincher, its name is TX, and it is played by a tall blonde breastful Austrian/Swedish ex-Miss-Universe type. Yes, a female Terminator. No, I don't have problems with that (though I do have issues with having such a blatant Playmate-esque type cast in the role - definitely appealing to the 13-15 year old geeky boy market here - *shudder*). What I have problems with is that the director, producer, all press statements etc refer to her as "the Terminatrix".

The Terminatrix? The fuck? What is this, 1905? Oh dear oh dear oh dear ... And to think women's suffrage has come so far, that in the year 2002 a female villain is called a terminatrix, a la executrix, aviatrix, whatever. Shit. And as for dialogue possibilities with an Austrian/Swedish ex-Miss Universe type ... oh dear ...

Terminatrix:        Oh John ... You're so big ...

John:        I'll be back

But that's just my sick mind, yeah.

5.    Plot, see lack of, also originality

The plot: the bad guys, the machines, send a Terminator back in time to kill John Connor, the man who is the leader of the resistance against them, whilst he is still a boy. The good guys, the resistance, send a "good" Terminator back in time to protect John against the "bad" Terminator.

Hmmmm haven't we seen that somewhere before? Okay, so it worked with a human protector in the first movie (mmmm Michael Biehn, where are you now), and it worked with a cyborg/Terminator protector the second time around. So, the producers figure well d'oh, that plot works, so why bother coming up with anything else? Even though there's a kerzillion interesting things we could do with Sarah and her fears, and John in the future as an adult and maybe the actual war, wouldn't that be cool? No? Argh.

And the thing is, this way none of the time paradoxes will be solved, or any of the plot-holes filled in, it'll just get more complex and holey but hey! Ah-nuld! Shooting things up and getting paid $2,365,252.08 per word of dialogue. Yay.

6.    Why a third Terminator movie anyway?

T2: Judgement Day ended on the perfect note; the road leading ahead, lanes and phone-lines flashing by, with a voice-over by Sarah Connor;

Why can't they leave well enough alone? Even with all the time paradoxes and plot meltdowns and goofs about dates and timing and ages, it was a good ending. There was closure vis a vis the whole Skynet thing; Sarah and John were together again and could rebuild their familial relationship and most importantly they had a future; mankind had a future and maybe things could be different. Better. But nooooo ... they have to make another shoot-things-up and have lots of lasers and explosions and more evil and terrifyingly unstoppable Terminators. Yeah right. Sigh.

7.    The Terminatrix? The fuck?

See Point 4 above.

Yes and of course I'll go see it, even if for train wreck gawking purposes.

« « « « «

I usually don't get upset like this about upcoming movies, honest. If don't want to know then I don't want to know, and I certainly don't go if they're simply not my cup of tea. I don't complain and whine and do the shock-horror-disturbed thing. I guess I am more emotionally invested in Terminator (1 and 2) than in many others.

Book to movie adaptations are different though - I will often have strong feelings about those. Not the actual fact that a particular book (specifically, one I've enjoyed) is being adapted, I think that's cool and look forward to seeing how the writers and directors have realised the whole, brought it to life, whatever. Unfortunately some books have been truly executed - and I don't mean that they've been brought to life as the author would have wished.  Take The Horse Whisperer. Yes, I read it. Yes I enjoyed it, despite and also maybe because of it bordering on pap. I could tell at once that it had been written with the movie tie-in in mind (it came as no surprise to learn that Nicholas Evans was a screenwriter) and so was quite looking forward to the film. I mean, horses, a sexy love story, complex relationships, a few deaths ... what more could I ask for?

First sigh of trouble; casting Robert Redford as Tom Booker. Oh dear oh dear. One, too too old. Two, not believable, too pretty (even if old), and three, no way he's gonna get killed off, right? Right. And Kirsten Scott Thomas? Wrong wrong wrong ... The more I read about the film (whilst in production, then reviews) I swore I would not go see it, I would keep the images and truth of the story in my mind and intact thank you very much. The whole point of The Horse Whisperer is that there is this love story, the love triangle, the complex relationships and angst and pain between mother and daughter and horse ... All resolved by a surprise death/sacrifice which whilst tragic was also cathartic, healing, with a happy ending and new life.

But it was royally screwed up, right? The whole horse whispering thing and rehabilitation of Pilgrim was reduced to mere periphery (in spite of the fantastic opening accident scene); the triangle between Annie, Tom and Robert just wasn't explored; the character of Grace was paper-thin and I for one was totally lacking in sympathy; and then the ending. How could they do that? Just a wimpy goodbye scene, then KST driving away with a tear trickling down ... Very very disappointing and pointless, to boot.

« « « « «

I had my fears about High Fidelity but wowowow. The book itself (which makes my favourites list, by Nick Hornby) is mostly narrative which could have been a major problem in the move to screen but that was handled so well, perfect really. The shift in locale from London to Chicago; no problem. And besides, John Cusack? I'm just sayin' ...

The best book to movie adaptation to date, though, has to be Persuasion. Largely unnoticed amongst the rest of the Jane Austen bodice-rippers around at the time, which featured bigger stars and higher budgets (Emma, Sense and Sensibility), it was beautifully realised. Absolutely true to the characters and the period, without getting bogged down in inaccessible language or confusing plot, lovely camera work and dark, broody, claustrophobic sets reflecting so well the themes of the novel and Anne's own inhibitions and frustrations ... all wow. And I loveloveloved the ending ... I'm such a romantic, it's true, but that ending could have been fubar'd, and it wasn't. The understated joining of hands, the sweet kiss, aawwwwww.

Mind you Sense and Sensibility was great and I loved it; Emma Thompson's adaptation/screenplay got the "feel" of the book and the sisters' relationship, without being too, well, too OTT or histrionic, and again the language and the way Thompson managed to "dialoguise" the chiefly narrative novel was so well done. So, yay.

« « « « «

previous          home          next