Talk:Terminator Salvation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Previous AFDs

Note: Previous AfDs:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 (2nd nomination)
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 (3rd nomination)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 (4th nomination)

No idea what happened to cause the lack of a third one. Please don't ask for recreation unless reliable sources start to show evidence that this film will exist. -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How does IMDB sound for you? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0438488/ And even so, Terminator 4 may not be a film, but it is, however, an idea. Does Wikipedia not have other articles on "ideas", or is Wikipedia suddenly not an idea now? Judging by the ending of Terminator 3, I would imagine that yes there is going to be a Terminator 4 and there is more than good reason to have it here. Besides, what harm does it do to Wikipedia to have an article that people would be interested in? I sure as hell am interested in the concept of T4, and I HATED T3. 86.141.141.124 10:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia is not a crystal ball sound for you? Shinhan 15:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Terminator 4 has been confirmed by Jonathan Mostow, he has been signed on to do it, just google Terminator 4 news and you'll get a slew of good info. SovietGuy

I'm not trawling through Google News (first page of results were blank) but I have this page on my watchlist so if you post some good quality URLs here of recent news stories saying that the film is now in production or at least casting, we can reconsider it. For now it's vapourware and the page stays locked until there's anything encyclopedic to write about. --kingboyk 12:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think he meant google "terminator 4 news". I got [1] which say its "confirmed", but it really doesnt look like a WP:RS. Shinhan 14:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You better kill off Mad Max IV then cause it's just as likely as T4.SovietGuy 05:26 or 05:26, 31 August 2006 User:Soviet Guy

There have been these Terminator-related AfD's:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 2: variations in the special editions
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 (3rd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 (4th nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 (5th nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator Versus Scream
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator X (software)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator in pop culture

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

from my talk page

Terminator 4.

• Terminator 4 at the IMDB
• Terminator 4 at Yahoo Movies
• Terminator 4 at Rotten Tomatoes
• SCHWARZENEGGER won't be back for Terminator 4
• Terminator 4 Tease From Michael Ferris
• Terminator 4 news articles at Google News
• Terminator 4 at Entertainment Weekly

Are those enough reliable sources to create a Terminator 4 article? If the writer, Michael Ferris, is already giving interviews to Entertainment Weekly, then why can't we make an article? I swear, if given the chance, i can create a pretty good stub with plenty of sources that won't be any more against WP:NOT then the article for The Grudge 3 is, or Snakes on a Plane was before it's release. So, what do you say? dposse 21:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not personally convinced yet (most of those are search/aggregate links), but if the consensus here is to give a stub a try, it'll be better off discussed here. IMDB has nothing firm, Yahoo still thinks it might come out in late 2005, a better RT link has no useful data except who won't be in it, and EW rehashes everything else already on the board. The Coming Soon at least says they've got a script, but that's it. Is there any sort of studio announcement, like with Grudge 3? Is there a director, actors, or greenlight anywhere in print? -- nae'blis 13:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think that any of the links can be considered a reliable source. IMDB still has a disclaimer about the unsure nature of the information, and the only cast member listed is said to be rumoured. Most of the other links contain several years old information or refer to Entertainment Weekly, but the page at EW has no solid information except about a new cyborg to which they claim Variety as a source.

I agree that one could probably write an acceptable stub on the subject, that is how this article survived its second AFD. But soon after that it grew to its previous state where it contained speculation, fan fiction and on one occasion even fan graphics (a suggested poster). Bergsten 22:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm also not convinced there's anything enyclopedic to write. There may well be an interesting news story, yes, but something credible for an encyclopedia that won't look like nonsense in 12 months time? There's really no rush... That said, if you're convinced otherwise why not write the article on this talk page or in your user box, and if it looks good we can take it live? --kingboyk 09:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a bit unclear there. I am not in favour of adding anything yet (not even a stub). Bergsten 18:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the curse of improper indenting :) I was kinda replying to the original poster. I'm pretty much in agreement with you my friend, but if the original poster wishes to convince me that we're wrong I'm willing to listen. Sorry about the confusion. --kingboyk 21:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Google search for "Terminator 4" just now got "about 997,000" ghits. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

edit protect

This page is a double redirect, but it's protected, so I can't fix it. Can someone fix it? Ian F. 17:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --Sherool (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's still a double redirect... it should direct to Terminator (series) instead of Terminator (film series). Anthony Hit me up... 12:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --kingboyk 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, meanwhile, there is a page named Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins. This redirect has to be fixed again, I think... --Koveras ^☭ 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

This page needs to be redirected to Terminator series#Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins. It's a better place for the redirect to be.--EclipseSSD (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Please redirect this page to Terminator (franchise)#Terminator 4 - it's how the section is named now. --Addict 2006 04:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Title

Variety reports the film is still titled Salvation: The Future Begins. Considering ComingSoon.net, a less reliable source, reported that title was dropped, I think I will move it back, unless someone objects. Alientraveller (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, but it's not worth an argument or edit war if someone reverts it back (which I bet will happen). Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

StreetHop

I'm not convinced about reliability of the source stating Common is playing Daniel Dyson (Miles Dyson's son), especially against a statement by BBC News Online. This hip hop fansite is powered by vBulletin. Alientraveller (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, Erik sorted it. Alientraveller (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Canon to other films, and Sarah Connor?

Okay, we know that Judgement Day has happened and been unavoidable all this time, and John is struggling to save humanity in the aftermath against Skynet. This new trilogy is about the war of the future and how everybody got where they are. What does this mean for Sarah Connor? Terminator 3 had her die of leukemia, and this possible fate is hinted at in the Sarah Connor Chronicles. The creators of the show were the writers of T3 and are working on this new movie, and they have stated T3 was a possible timeline for humanity in the war against Skynet. Where does the TV show fit into all of this? It has been renewed for another season, and they want to tie it together, don't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.155.74 (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The movie is set in 2019, and Sarah's dead by then. It's not our place to speculate, and readers can make their own mind by reading the premise, which details McG noting how the film will stand alone without too much continuity. Alientraveller (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to get too technical and obsessive, but I read that it was actually 2018 that it's set in. ONEder Boy (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that before the official synopsis arrived. Alientraveller (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but due to the many errors and changes Terminator 3 did to the first two films, T3 might be taken out of canon. McG has said the film will stand on its own, and that it is the original war that jump started the events of The Terminator. Since T3 had Sarah die of leukemia, that does not mean that they will keep T3 in continuity. The only aspect of T3 that remains is that the Judgement Day war could not be prevented. Besides, the producers and writers of T2 and T3 are involved in this film and the TV series, so they may very well link the two together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.192.229 (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The movies are there own continuity. Sarah Connor is an alternate universe spun out of the 2nd movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.243.184 (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• If the movie follows the plot of the show there will be an age gap between John and his wife (John being younger). If it follows the plot of the third film there will not be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.65.253 (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul Haggis?

The name of the guy appears in the "Written by" section of the article. How's that? I haven't read anything about him working on T4. There's nothing about it in the guy's IMDB page either. So, bogus or not bogus? 132.213.241.26 (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[2]. He polished it. Alientraveller (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Stan Winston?

Does anybody know who will take over for Winston after his passing? ONEder Boy (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

[3] That wasn't a minor edit now, and while this discussion violates WP:TALK, I will explain to you that Winston gave his name to a company, which is working on the picture. Alientraveller (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Moved. Alientraveller (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins → Terminator Salvation — The official website no longer indicates that the film has "The Future Begins" in its title. — Enter Movie (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support with the apparent title change; hopefully there's not yet another change. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support, yet I'm sure the title will change... again. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support, where's an adminstrator when you need one? Yes, the film dropped its subtitle yet we ordinary editors can't move it. Alientraveller (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose (for now) The thing is, the only indication of the title change is an image on the website. There's no source definitively, explicitly stating the title has changed. It could just be a shorter version of the full title, like "Coca-cola" being shortened to "Coke" in certain advertisements, etc. I want a definite statement from someone official. With that, I have no problems with the movie. Remember that a while ago, there was some site that said they were just calling Terminator 4, with no Salvation or anything like that, and they were wrong. ColdFusion650 (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sequel or new franchise?

I know TS is following the same story and is in the same universe as the other films, but where it says "preceded by", should Terminator 3 really be listed there? I would think since this is a reboot for a new franchise/trilogy (for the future war) it wouldn't be considered a direct sequel. Similar to something like the "Superman Returns" page.Senormime (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have a source stating otherwise, it should be considered a sequel. Anything else would be speculation. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

McG

At the top right, for "Director" it reads "McG". The guy has a real name, just b/c he thinks he's too cool for a surname does not mean he's too cool for wikipedia. I'm changing it to his official name. Paskari (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't think he's cool. From the blog:

Also, I realize my name is ridiculous. I was born Joseph McGinty Nichol. McG is short for McGinty. I have been called this since the day I was born to create separation from my Uncle Joe and Grandpa Joe. I realize it sounds like some Hollywood nickname, hip-hop choice. But the truth is, this is simply my name - for every day of elementary school, every zit-filled day of high school. I have been taking shit for it ever since. I get it, I would think it's lame too. But it's just a name, and to change it now would seem fraudulent.

The name just stuck, and now "McG" is what the official credits list him as. — Enter Movie (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I realize he prefers to be called McG, just as I prefer to be called Peter. Wikipedia nonetheless is about documenting factual evidence. If you want to include a line describing how the pressures of adolescence forced him to change his name, you are more than welcome to. However, this qualifies as a weasel term since it "offer[s] an opinion without really backing it up". You're proposing to change his name without actualy stating why. Madonna Louise Ciccone Ritchie is not introduced as Madonna, Curtis James Jackson III is not introduced as 50 Cent, Prince Rogers Nelson is not introduced as Prince, Robert James Ritchie is not introduced as Kid Rock. Paskari (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's not my problem. The Director's Guild of America gives all the credits. That's the reason. — Enter Movie (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more a matter of professional tone; referring to him exclusively by a stage name or nickname is quite inappropriate. Calling him Joseph McGinty Nichol, McGinty Nichol, or even McG Nichol, (and subsequently "Nichol") would be far preferable to the one-word name, unless and until he goes the route of Teller and legally changes his name to McG. At this point, I'm going to refrain from changing all the references to Nichol, but I do believe that the use of McG only sets up a confusing situation for our readers. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this assessment; McG is the widely-used name in trade papers as seen here. If readers happen to be confused, as it can happen with any word or name depending on the readership, there is a wiki-link to the director's article that can clarify matters. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrm... well you have a point. Considering MOS:BIO we should use the name by which the person is best known. If the name is used not only in trade papers but in the mainstream press as well (which I believe would be a better barometer of popular usage than trade press) I say go for keeping McG. Otherwise, I'm not so sure. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

McG should stay. Paskari's comments regarding those artists are irrelevant. This is the article for Terminator Salvation; not the article for 50 Cent, Madonna, or McG. If you look at all those stars albums, it lists their artistic name. Not their full name. In addition, the title of their articles are their pseudonyms. Same should be done in this case, just like all the others. As a side note, Paskari's comments regarding the "pressure" of high school, "too cool" or some such are fairly condescending to the man (not like he reads this though) and obviously from the quote above not even accurate. Mefanch (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not very encyclopedic to refer to someone by a nick-name though is it? If the articles about 50 cent and Madonna refer to them exclusively by their stage names then they should probably be fixed too. I'm sure the Norman Cook's article doesn't refer to him as "Slim", nor Trent Reznor's as "Nine Inch Nails". The fact that he's a director kind of changes things too - I'm not sure they're entitled to the same pretensities as rockstars by popular standards. I mean you can have people call you whateve you want, but surely there comes a time when one should have the dignity to use their proper name, just like everybody else?Fudge-o (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names notes to keep using nicknames for those without generally known surnames. A lot of people don't know who McG is. Again, remember, McG is the name he's used since birth. I'm curious as to what actors on set call him (Bale probably calls him "Mick"...) Alientraveller (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, 'Frank' is the name I've used since birth but when I apply for a driver's license or a home loan or have an encyclopedia entry written about me, I tend to use my full name, and then just my last name for any subsequent attributations. I would have thought the fact that no one knows who "McG" is would be all the more reason to use his actual name? It's not like his full name is some ailing disability is it? It just strikes me as a bit inconsistent to be striving to be pedantically encyclopedic in some ways and less so in others. I think the best solution would be to refer to him by his full name in the first instance and then McG for any subsequent.Fudge-o (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Trent Reznor's nickname isn't NIN though; so I'm not sure how that applies. However, I see what you are saying; but as was mentioned before wiki's manual of style says we should use "by which the subject is most commonly known." If the official credits list him as McG; then that is what should be used. On his actual page it should list his full name. My comments regarding 50 Cent & Madonna were in regards to their albums, which list their artistic name - not their birth names. Their albums/this movie; their stage names/his stage names is a similar situation. Mefanch (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair point on Trent. But are musicians and directors necessarily interchangable just because they both fall under the vague definition of 'artists'? There aren't any other directors who go by 'pen names' that I can think of that could be used to establish a convention, other than someone like M. Knight, which is a bit more fisable. But I stand by my former point that he should be referred to in full in the first instance, as would be typical of an essay.Fudge-o (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Can the moron who keeps reverting McG's name back to his legal name stop it? It is ridiculous, as it's not the guy's professional name, and it's not what he'll be credited as. See this: Official Press release

If you were to write an essay, you would still refer to him as "McG. So leave it as it, and show some respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizagaox (talk • contribs) 07:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How about you realise that not everyone reading this page (or any other page with his 'name' on it), maybe hasn't got a clue why he is called McG? This is an encyclopoedia, if someone has a stupidly unexpected 'name', convention is to explain that fact at least once on the page for the reader. You want to talk about respect while calling people morons? MickMacNee (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Connor & Wright.jpg

Currently, there is a non-free image of Bale as Connor and Worthington as Wright in the "Production" section. The image description page says that the purpose is, "Illustration of a specific point within the article." I'm not seeing what specific point the image illustrates. We don't even know the context of the scene. Can I suggest removing it and replacing it with other kinds of non-free images down the road, particularly the production design and visual effects? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Movie title

What's a meaning of a title? Does it mean "Salvation of Terminator" or "Terminator. Salvation"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanuan (talk • contribs) 14:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This violates WP:TALK, but I'll give a couple of clues: John Connor shares his initials not only with his co-creator, but also a certain Son of God. It therefore means "salvation from Terminators". Alientraveller (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm from ru.wiki. I need to know this for the correct translation of a movie title into Russian because there is no official translation yet. Thanks for a clue. Vanuan (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I got from a Russian-to-English traslator: спасение терминатора. Hope that helps. — Enter Movie (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Asking a question about the meaning of the title of the film about which this article is concerned is not a violation of WP:TALK. One of the stated objectives of talk pages is to offer communication on the matter at hand. In asking about the meaning of the film's title, we are - as a community - able to enter into discussion on an important issue: why the film has the title it's been given. Indeed, as the Russian contributor demonstrates, such discussion is useful. If, by way of such talk, we discover that questions concerning the film's title are quite common, then it might be useful to say more about the title in the article itself. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

altered in part

What does it mean "to be altered in part"? John Connor is altered in part? Is he changed somehow?Vanuan (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please observe WP:TALK: this is not a general forum. Perhaps if you read the official synopsis again and again it will make sense for you. Alientraveller (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Asking a question like this is not to engage in a general forum, and it is not contrary to WP:TALK. I think your tone here, and elsewhere, is a little demeaning and abrasive. Remember, one of the central aims of a talk page is to facilitate friendly communication (to offer a quote from WP:TALK, "Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you, and you get a proper understanding of others. Being friendly is a great help.") If anyone is able to offer additional information on what is meant by the term "to be altered in part" then please present it - as it may allow for elucidation with regard to the content of the article. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Add the sequel information as a section

My addition of a separate sequel section was reverted here, on the grounds that it is mentioned in passing under the cast members and development sections. So who looks for information on planned sequels under cast member or development sections? I certainly wouldn't. It does not belong as a footnote in other (long) sections, and should be re-added. MickMacNee (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe you added that section already to Terminator (franchise). Alientraveller (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't disbar it from this article. MickMacNee (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That makes it redundant though. James Bond (film series) and Indiana Jones franchise are examples of articles that discussed further films while the upcoming entry was still in post-production. The lead will need expanding though, so I'll probably do that to make the franchise link more pertinent. Alientraveller (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Terminator nomenclature

I notice people erroneously refer to the T-800 as 'Model 101'. The designation 101 refers to the T-800's cloned tissue, specifically Arnold Schwarzenegger's character. So, to refer to T-800s as "Model 101" is incorrect, unless it is specifically about Arnold Schwarzenegger's character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.136.127 (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it specifically refers to Model 101s because those are the characters Schwarzenegger portrayed. He played a T-850 in the third film. Alientraveller (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

These matters have been debated at length elsewhere (other talk pages on Wikipedia) - and they are not so straight forward. The terminator character portrayed by Schwarzenegger in the first two instalments of the franchise - The Terminator and Terminator 2 - is referred to in different ways at different times. On occasion, he is a “Series 800” (or “800 Series”) terminator; on other occasions he is a “Cyberdyne Systems Model 101” terminator. The official novelisations of the films enter into some detail, referring to a number of other sorts of terminator (e.g. “Series 600” and “Series 700”). The series refers to the chassis (the metal endoskeleton); with the Terminator Series 800 (or T-800) being “newer” and “tougher” then, say, a T-600 or T-700. However, the T-1000 (from Terminator 2) is superior to a T-800. The model number - e.g. 101 - is a designation associated with Cyberdyne Systems (the research company that was responsible for the development of Skynet, which produced the terminators), and refers to the specific skin camouflage adorned by a terminator. On the basis of the evidence - as presented in the first two films and their official novelisations (which I have fully cited on other talk pages) - the terminator character portrayed by Schwarzenegger may be referred to as a T-800 CSM 101. The third film, and its official novel - Terminator 3 - diverged somewhat from previous continuity. In this film, the “Schwarzenegger” terminator is referred to as a T-101; while in the book he is described as a T-850. While it is possible to decipher these designations - and say that he’s a Series 850 Model 101 - no single official source supports this, and as such it is tending towards original research (and thus must be discounted).

As I say, this matter has been discussed elsewhere. There are quite a few articles relating to the terminator characters and stories - and these articles interchangeably refer to the terminator character portrayed by Schwarzenegger (in The Terminator and Terminator 2) as a T-800 or a T-101. While interesting, the matter might be best discussed in more detail on the talk pages relating directly to this terminator character. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs a spoiler warning

Assuming I see the film, I'm going to have to try very hard to forget the plot detail given away in the article.

This article REALLY needs a spoiler warning!!

I won't repeat the detail; its stated in this talk page and in the article. XD

(Laughing Cheese (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC))

We don't use spoiler tags. It's the reader's responsibility not to read stuff that is likely to include spoilers (such as character descriptions or plot summaries). EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What plot detail? Alientraveller (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Headlines

• Exclusive Images Reveal McG's Terminator Salvation Vision

Headline to use. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There's some fantastic concept art we could use there. Maybe we could take a picture of the ruins, and combine them with a free one of Chernobyll. Alientraveller (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

MPAA Rating

What is this movie rated? I suggest adding a space for MPAA rating on the film infobox template for all movies. Mollymoon (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Jada Grace Smith

Wait a minute, Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith have only one daughter and her name is Willow Smith. Where is this "Jada Grace Smith" coming from? Perhaps that i09 website is wrong because their daughter isn't "Jada Grace." She doesn't even look like the little girl from I Am Legend, anyway. On a side note, back in May 2008, /Film said there was someone named Jadagrace Gordy, "a former student of Gary Spatz’s The Playground (started in 2005), a conservatory for young actors." So what do you guys think? — Enter Movie (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Marcus is a terminator?

It says that he is a decommissioned terminator... who has amnesia. Q 1. Does he know he is a terminator? Q 2. Does John know he is a terminator?

None of these questions are answered in the plot. How can a terminator have been on death row? Or was he just implanted with those memories? Or is he a cyborg?

-G

Wikipedia is not a general forum. Watch the movie and find out. Alientraveller (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia presents itself as an encyclopedia. If information is going to be stated it has to state it correctly. The questions bring up good points, because it might mean what's written in the article to be false or mixed up.

-G

According to the 2 sources given, it only explains Marcus as a "stranger" and early Terminator. The rest of wiki's info about him was taken from the false story WB released stating Marcus was on death row and gave his body for "Project Angel". Also the official sysnopsis says John wonders wether hes from the past or future. And if we know already all about Marcus, theres no mystery anymore and no point in saying John doesn't know, when we do. His info should possibly be considered for change. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

McG said Marcus replacing his flesh with John's was fake, not his back-story. Alientraveller (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, I meant dropped, not fake, it was in a previous draft when John was a supporting character. Alientraveller (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be spoileralerted? --Angelus1753 (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a spoiler, otherwise it wouldn't have been mentioned in trailers and screened at press conferences. Marcus is the new Uncle Bob. Alientraveller (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is the proof that Marcus is a "Terminator" perse? Why does the article say that the movie abandons the "formula of Terminators going back in time to save John Connor" This is not factual. Nobody has said that the movie will abandon this formula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.66.89 (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Arnie

Arnie has confirmed that he is not involved with the T4 project in any way. Although source is a fansite, it is publishing an interview with Arnie and that falls within verifiability. [4] magnius (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You misread it. Schwarzenegger is expressing annoyance that McG has promoted the hell out of a "second" of CG footage placed over Kickinger. Alientraveller (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This is from the page that Magnius linked to: "...everyone thinks that I'm the Terminator and in fact you only see one second of me in there..." So yes, he is in there. ColdFusion650 (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

An interview with McG himself casts further doubt on whether Arnie is indeed involved in this film [5]. I think that all references to Arnold should be removed until the situation is clearer. magnius (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course Schwarzennegger's not involved, someone else is portraying his character with CG makeup. On another level, perhaps McG is still trying to keep some surprise. Alientraveller (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Buggy sections

For some reason, the external links section does not show up until I click the ^ sign next to reference 85. Is there a way to fix this? --Addict 2006 00:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Unclear Sentence and Incorrect Source

Sentence in section Release: "One issue McG and the studio discussed was the inclusion of a topless shot of Moon Bloodgood,[6] though the former mentioned that he would refuse to cut out that scene should it compromise the film.[50]"

I didn't think it sounded right that McG would refuse to cut out the scene even if it were to compromise the film so I followed reference 50 and it doesn't say anything about this. Could someone either remove the sentence, clear it up, and/or find the correct source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.183.145 (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll fix it. - Enter Movie (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of rating

I understand there are articles criticizing the film for being PG-13, which I'd like to thank Andrew Bowen for pointing out. However, I feel since the movie has not been reviewed yet, I'd like to keep any discussion of fan/critic reception of the film's rating until the film is out, because on one hand, the MPAA could get criticized a lot for rating a very dark film PG-13. On the other, if people criticize the film for being softer than the other three, it would be more worthwhile to the reviews section. So I feel any criticism for now is probably baseless and unencylopedic, and should probably be left out so the article doesn't become a discussion of people accusing the studio of cutting up the film to be PG-13. Alientraveller (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The MPAA gets criticized a whole lot, and it's not really important for now anyway. Wait till a critic's review comes up that complains about its rating and compromise. - Enter Movie (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Viral Marketing campaign on Xbox Live

On May 13th, 12 viral videos surrounding the Terminator universe were released on Xbox live, 9 human survival chronicles , 2 videos supporting skynet, and another video of one of the previous supporting skynet videos being hacked into and bashed. I think this information is relevant enough to put on to this page but I can't find any sources. But if you have xbox live, Look up Terminator Salvation under the videos section and it's all there to see for yourself. Thanks for taking the time to read this and consider it's inclusion in the article. [[User:SonicNiGHT|SonicNiGHT]] (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

T-850?

Due to the hydrogen fuel cells seen in Terminator 3, would it be correct to assume that the factory at the end of the movie is producing T-850s and not T-800s? The T-850 in T3 basically said that those fuel cells are the only real difference between the two, and those fuel cells were very clearly the same design from T3. The series is already inconsistent about what they call them on-screen, so it wouldn't surprise me that they used the wrong name. 67.150.126.85 (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Could be another alteration of the timeline. T:SCC never existed in this altercation (Thank The Lord), so the T-101 (Arnold Terminator) was probably put together in advance, or maybe the cells were used for something else. All, and all I like that they has the same continuity of T3. (JoeLoeb (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

Director cut.

Is it just me, or does this movie have missing lines of dialogue or scenes? Like Sam's closeup of "My name is Marcus Wright"., Connor telling the command about the T-800, Serena's Two Face picture? Any word on it? If so, blame McG and the writer's, not Bale. (JoeLoeb (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

I wonder if you're right, JoeLoeb? It could be that when they had to re-work the end of the film due to the plot leak, Sam's closeup & other bits got reshuffled then left on the cutting room floor. 174.21.10.53 (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, did the half cyborg Serena make an appearance? I had to make a call to my girl during the film. (JoeLoeb (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

Please keep all forum talk on user talk pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No Time Travel?

"It abandons the time travel element of previous entries in the series, which centered on Terminators and other characters traveling through time to either kill or protect John Connor before the events of Judgment Day unfold."

Skynet plans to use the hybrid human/terminator character in the future but he is prepared for this in the past. How do we know that there was no time travel involved on Skynet's part? The dead doctor may have been implied as a Skynet agent who timetravelled to the past to get the guy to volunteer. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinssd (talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If the time travel wasn't mentioned in the movie, then it didn't happen. That's how we know. We can't go coming up with assumptions of plot points that never appeared in the film. --Wil2197 (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, Marcus (the cyborg in case people don't know whop he is) is not from an alternate future, so deal with it, fellas. It's a new take on it. (JoeLoeb (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

Explicitly mentioned? No. I'd have to watch the movie again, but the reference to their previous failures seems to imply that time travel was necessary to create Marcus Wright as a cyborg. --99.20.192.212 (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My take is that we havent gotten to that part in the future yet. Remember right now at the end of this current film Kyle is only a teenager. In the original he was a little older. Also remember in the first movie their was a part were they used dogs to sniff out terminators in their human form, because they tried sneaking in to the bunker. In this movie yet it appears that human looking terminators is something new. So this is 2018 maybe 2020 or 2021 or 20xx is when he travels back in time. So it maybe the same timeline. Also didnt we all learn in the last movie Terminator 3 that the past doesnt change. Terminator came back to put John in the bunker to become leader of the resistance not to keep the war from happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.225.196 (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok everyone, let's remember this isn't a forum for general discussion about the film. The talk page is for improvements on the article only. As such, I have removed the offending statement because it appears to have been added later without a source. In other words, it was original research.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is Owned by "Night @ Museum" 's Fox

In the interest of fairness, the article should point out that the Rotten Tomatoes movie review website is owned and operated by the same mega-conglomerate that produces and distributes the competing film franchise "A Night at the Museum". The second release of Night at the Museum was scheduled to occur only a few days after Terminator Salvation's release.

If Fox Broadcasting, part of the same mega-conglomerate, is notorious within its own industry for unfair and unbalanced reporting, (just as newspapers and other Rupert Murdoch-owned endeavors in media and politics end up profoundly "contaminated",) should their website Rotten Tomatoes really be relied upon to fairly and accurately report the likeability of another studio's film that is competing with their own product?

Perhaps non-Fox sources should only be included in the T-4 article. (Or should we ask Christian Bale, while on his press junket, to be fair and unbiased when suggesting to folks which movie they should spend their Memorial Day Weekend money on? 174.21.10.53 (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you really want to get rid of rotten tomatoes. Strangely, they gave negative reviews to both Night of the Museums. Hmm, according to you, they should be giving it positive reviews because after all, they're owned by the same company. So shouldn't they be giving Museums positive, and movies like No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood negative reviews since they aren't made by Fox and Fox movies like the Museums and Dragon Ball positive reviews according to you?

Basically, Rotten Tomatoes is a reliable source, and is pretty much used on every single movie. Why, It uses a whole bunch of critics, and get's a rough consensus from most of them. P.S, out of the top critics, only about two of them is owned by the same company that owns Fox. And they gave it a positive review. So according to you, that means Christian Bale would say no to his movie and possibly go see Museum instead.Deavenger (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Flailing attempts at logic and reasoning aside, you should allow other contributors a chance to weigh in, and save the personal attacks for someone who will read and engage with you in them. 174.21.10.53 (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If I have offended you, I am sorry. However, you made a claim that could easily be broken by just looking at the site itself. Another thing, IGN Entertainment owns Rotten Tomatoes, which is owned by News Corporation. The News Corporation happens to hold what is one of the most biased news show on earth. Fox (Faux) News. While at the same time, it owns what is a more balanced and respected source of the Wall Street Journal. Plus, Rotten Tomatoes does not do actual reviewing. All it does is it has certain critics, like Roger Ebert, People from Variety, and other well known newspapers, and some small time critics, and just get a general consensus. Metacritic (owned by the CBS corporation) does something that is the same but primarily sticks to the top critics. Then we have IMDB which the score is given to us by the users. All three of those combined give us a balanced score. Rotten Tomatoes deals with critics in general in it's overall score, Metacritic deals with top critics in it's overall score, and IMDB deals with the regular people in it's overall score. Metacritic and Rotten tomatoes are just aggregate sites that give us some idea of the overall picture. As Wikiproject Films/Style guideline says :review aggregate websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews. If you want the review from the people who own Rotten Tomatoes, and not an overall thing from lots of critics, go to IGN.com (T4 got 3/5. both Museums got 2.5/5). Deavenger (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you should point out the RT is owned by Fox unless a reliable source does so. However, I agree that its ratings are often dubious. Whether they are in this case or not I have no idea. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is nothing to indicate that News Corporation exerts any influence in how a film is rated on Rotten Tomatoes. The rating is determined from the aggregation of external reviews. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are appropriate to include in film articles if their sample sizes are sufficiently large. However, user ratings are not appropriate since these are subject to vote stacking and demographic skew, so I removed these particular ratings. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you guys arguing about using a review by Rotten Tomatoes, or using the statistic number they calculate? If it's the first, I could see not using it. If it's the latter, then their affliation is irrelevant, because they don't pick and choose reviews to include and their FAQ page explains how they calculate all of the reviews. So, who owns them makes no relevance to the number they calculate - that's because all of the reviews they collect are not from FOX owned media corporations.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

RT is an aggregator of critics, and the calculation they use is quite open. If you could prove that every single FOX or News Corp film got higher score for that reason then that would be a reason to remove all RT links, however they don't. As for the edit in discussion, it adds nothing to this article. That 174.21.10.53 would make the same edit five times in a couple of hours and also have the gall to tell others to stop edit-warring shows a distinct lack of self awareness [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. I suggest in future that Deavenger hits the editor with a 3RR warning [11]. I suggest the IP editor leave this article alone, there is no problem with RT and the edits you have made have been unconstructive. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Next time I would. But if you look at the comments I have made, I've been rude, and me giving her a warning would by hypocritical. Deavenger (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, doesn't matter how rude you are a 3RR is a procedure. After three edit give them a warning. Then let them revert a fourth time and make a report. This IP was reverted by other editors, and they are in the wrong, the tone of your posts is unimportant to someone breaking policy and make 4 reverts. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Good job, User:Deavenger. Kudos for resisting the above attempt to goad you into needlessly petty behavior. Reverts had already stopped (per my TALK page) and you too had already apologized and moved forward with better behavior, in keeping Wikipedia's standards for treating others. That user's page is rife with antagonistic behavior which intimidates or puts off people from wanting to contribute to WP. Let him continue his own pattern, not brush aside your effort to improve collaboration on this article.

Thanks too for your clarification on Rotten Tomatoes. Checked the site but I guess not close enough to understand why T-4 ends up looking, esp. at first glance, worse off as a film worth seeing than Museum. The stats are included below, but bottom line is Rotten Tomatoes/Fox does in fact end up recommending it's own Museum film product above T-4 by at least 10%. This is despite the (presumably more reliable) prof. critics rating the films equally. It seems like RT account holders are skewing the results, which seems to me imminently exploitable by Fox.

All that aside, even if RT/Fox just quietly boosted its own products by a minor percent at their site, they would still be successful in boosting their own products' chances in the film marketplace. I will decline the suggestion to do original research on RT/Fox, since it would then be rejected at WP as original research. I think disclosing a conflict of interest should be enough. 174.21.10.53 (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(I've removed the stats chart b/c it's not formatting properly. Check the RT site to verify. Thanks.) 174.21.10.53 (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

←the problem is not about using Rotten Tomatoes. The problem is that it's being used as an excuse to remove so many positive reviews about the film, like Total Film or hollywood.com. That way, WP:RS are being removed because they contradict the silly Rotten Tomatoes review. 216.165.2.165 (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean from the page? The page should be neutral, and contain an equal number of positive and negative reviews. It should merely point out that based on 130+ reviews, statistically critics have not liked the film, but here are a few opinions from both sides about what was right/wrong about the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I guess a whole bunch of critics that don't work for fox are advertising for Fox? By giving both movies rotten ratings. But now, only by 10%. So, that means Fox is advertising for Star Trek despite the fact that they are not owned by Fox. And IGN, the company that owns rotten tomatoes is advertising for the company that owns Warner Brothers by giving T4 a better review then both of the museums. And that's the actual site that does the review, not rotten tomatoes, which just gathers a whole bunch of reviews. Also, in the T4 movie review, only 3 of the 171 critics for T4 were owned by the same company as Fox. only 1 of the 3 gave the movie a negative review. Another thing, you can't compare T4 and Museum easily. T4 is an action film. Museum is a comedy film. Like Rogert Ebert, "When you ask a friend if Hellboy is any good, you're not asking if it's any good compared to Mystic River, you're asking if it's any good compared to The Punisher." Like the other users have said, unless you can prove that EVERY single fox film has a higher rating then other films, rotten tomatoes stays like the way it is. And that is already been proven wrong as Star Trek, has a higher rating then T4, despite not being owned by Fox. Look at some of the films coming out that have a higher rating then Museum and some of them are even certified fresh: Up, Drag Me to Hell, The Brothers Bloom, Pontypool, Departures just to name a few. A couple of films in theaters owned by Fox have lower ratings then T4 such as 12 rounds, Dragonball Evolution. In fact, 2 of the 12 films at box office are owned by Fox. And rotten tomatoes clearly shows that the critics didn't like either. In fact, according to rotten tomatoes, the critics only really liked Star Trek and Monster vs. Aliens, neither of which is owned by Fox, and the two that are certified fresh by rotten tomatoes. If people are going to make an argument. Saying that Rotten tomatoes is advertising Fox is completely baseless since you are basing it off one movie. Especially when the featured trailer at the time is Up, a movie by a company not owned by Fox. And the only movie advertisements I've seen on rotten tomatoes are the blu-ray for original Batman series and Drag me to Hell, neither of which is owned by fox. If we can't use rotten tomatoes because it is "owned" by fox, then metacritic should not be used because it's in cooperation with Warner Brothers in one of it's company. Or, we could keep both, add no notes or comparisons, as they're both reliable sources that gather a whole bunch of critics aggregates them. Especially, when they both gave roughly around the same score to Terminator Salvation. Metacritic gave about a 5.2/10, Rotten tomatoes said the average was 5.5/10. Plus, you're the only user objecting to the Rotten tomatoes source. Every other user has agreed to rotten tomatoes, even after you claimed that fox news is trying to advertise museum. Also for museum, 2 of the critics are from fox companies. Both of them gave museum negative reviews Deavenger (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot in all of the above to break apart and individually correct, but suffice it to say that people are generally better off when they get a heads-up about the potential for conflict of interest. That sounds like a pretty reasonable and succinct statement to make, so I am moving on.

Do you think any clean up or clarification is in order for the article's segment that seems to state both that T-4 opened at number 1, and a bit later, that it opened behind Museum? 174.21.10.53 (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to talk about that, you need to start a new section. However, I think the article states the box office records and number clearly enough for the average reader. Deavenger (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning it up, whoever did so. That was a worthwhile edit, as was fixing the "aint it cool" review links. 174.21.10.53 (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this article worth mentioning?

It talks about the original script [12] --98.229.37.119 (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Great freaking article contrib, 98. My own interest in improving the WP article comes from wanting a better understanding of why TS appears to be struggling with some fans or in the press despite being an enjoyable flick. Does anyone else see a possibility for including a sourced segment in the article about how TS might be missing the mark with some? --174.21.10.53 (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What you want is a section which says "some members of the public didn't like the film", and that statement could never be accurately sourced. The blog above makes statements is cannot back up, and there is never a reliable way to put public reaction to a film into an article, outside of box office performance. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Memo to self: Inform Darrenhusted what "anyone else" means. ; ) Just kidding. Glad you expanded on your earlier response. 174.21.10.53 (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Marketing

Are these websites: [13] , [14] , [15] (a faux corporate homepage for "Skynet Research") and [16] (the Resistance) worth mentioning as viral marketing tools (seperate Marketing-section) from Warner Bros. (the bottom of the pages mentions "© 2009 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.")? --Froztbyte (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This poster is fake

I'm sorry but this poster is a fake. The orb is of poor quality and you can see that the Halcyon Company logo comes from another source, since it's set in a lighter black rectangle. Even with what can be read on the source page, this is not reliable enough. It's a joke, that's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klow (talk • contribs) 18:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, man. I got the poster here from RottenTomatoes. - Enter Movie (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this poster is genuine, Not fake, and the Halycon logo is barely visible so just plain shut up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.148.8 (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

216.246.0.0 is the IP of douches, evidently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.68.134.132 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Both of you, please be civil. Alientraveller (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused myself looking at it. I work at a theatre and we recieved multiple posters for the movie. 1: the explosion that vaguely looks like a T-800 skull. 2: The T-600 image seen on there without any words besides the title and date. 3: The same T-600 image with the cast, crew and rating info. That's it. None of them had John or Marcus on them. It looks like it is a composite of #3 and some other image. 66.53.215.78 (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It is both a composite and an official poster. When they make posters they often will do composite posters from other images they have. See [17], [18], [19]. Not all theaters get every single poster, most don't get any beyond the first couple that are issued out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm this exact poster, along with about 7 other different ones, has been up at my local cinema for the last month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.228.40 (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

New york times quote

"With its clanks and creaks and broken-down contraptions, this movie is a battered Wall-E to “Star Trek’s” sleek and seamless Eve." I like the quote, but some might not find it says anything about the movie, would any oppose to me putting this in with A. scotts section in reception? Also the latino review citation is not correct and in accurate ive falgged this, thanks Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Its a good quote. --EchetusXe (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Uncredited Writers

There's been some discussion about whether to include the uncredited writers, and I think Jonathan Nolan, Anthony E. Zuiker, Shawn Ryan, and Paul Haggis deserve to be credited. There are tons of pages where uncredited writers are listed, with prominent ones including The Godfather, Minority Report, and Alien. It's very much a fact that they contributed to the script as much as the fact that James Cameron and Gale Anne Hurd created the characters. And seeing that Alan Dean Foster decided to rewrite the whole novelizaton because the original draft anf final shooting draft were so different adds to the fact that these script doctors changed a lot. - Enter Movie (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the difference between Cameron's contribution and the other people's contribution. In order to be given credit for writing a script, the WGA requires you have to contributed a specific percentage on original information to the script in order to receive the credit. That is why they are "uncredited" to begin with, because doing simple copy edits isn't considered actual "writing". The infobox is not for giving credit where credit was never given originally. Otherwise, you'd have to start giving credit to assistant directors, second unit directors and anyone else that has to pick up the slack when a schedule is running behind. The infobox should be concise and limited to the pertinent info (i.e. who is credited as a write and who created the characters, since the latter is different than the former), while prose content should be used to clarify that there were other writers involved in the development of the script. It's misleading to say "these are the uncredited writers" because it insinuates that they had a large hand in crafting the script but were merely shafted by the studio. Nothing in the prose actually says how much of a hand they had (sorry, vague notions that changes were so great that someone had to rewrite the novelization doesn't actually indicate any real idea of what or how much was changed and by whom) in writing the script, just that everyone did some rewrites. Also just because other pages are doing doesn't mean this page should, or any page should. When you have 4 additional people who had a hand, in shape or form, in developing the script, in addition to the 2 people that wrote the bulk of the content and 2 more people who actually created the characters being used for this story, you have way too many people flooding the infobox. Keep it short and sweet, and let the prose explain that there others involved in the script, just not to the degree that these people were.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, we might not need to list Cameron either. I don't recall if they gave him credit in the film, but if they didn't it could be because he no longer owns any rights to the characters. Thus, the studio would not have to, and would not want to, give him credit for creating them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's not exactly it. McG himself said Jonathan Nolan was the lead writer and that he had a large hand in the script during Comic-Con (look below). Moviehole.com also reported that Nolan rewrote the entire third act because WB was angry that the original ending got leaked.

When asked if Nolan would receive screenwriting credit for his work, McG responded "I don’t know how the WGA rules work but honest to goodness, we did the heaviest lifting with Jonah." [20]

"I thought we changed the script a great deal. But Jonah did some, Shawn Ryan [The Shield] did some, Anthony Zuiker [CSI] did some and Paul Haggis [Casino Royale] did some. I guess they can only credit so many people, but it’s not like the Ferris and Brancato draft deserved that writing credit. That’s a decision of the WGA which I have no part in."' [21]

To be honest, that seems so much more than what Robert Towne did for The Godfather, which was just creating the Al Pacino-Marlon Brando tomato-garden scene. Furthermore, I know you once said you can't look over every film article and correct mistakes. But if you're not gonna give an uncredited credit for at least Nolan here, then you mind as well delete Towne from The Godfather article since you now know about that mistake and you're part of the WikiProject Films, which aims to improve film articles, no? - Enter Movie (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There must be something going on here that people are not saying, because Nolan is part of the WGA. I don't know about the other guys, but if he did a fair share of the work, the WGA would actually make the studio give him writing credit on the film. The only thing I can conclude is that they read all the scripts and decided that not enough was changed (though, if he changed an entire 3rd act, that screams writing credit). This should all be covered in detail (since you clearly have the sources) in the Writing section of the article. As for The Godfather, I'd remove it from the infobox and start a section (since you have a source...which I assume based on your comment explains what he actually wrote) on the page for Writing. I'll start a new thread at WP:MOSFILMS asking for some response on this, because a lot of times people just list names as "uncredited" because there is a source saying that, but no actual explanation as to what they did or why didn't get credit. I know that Ron Kurz didn't get credit for writing half of the original 1979 Friday the 13th script because he wasn't a member of the WGA, even though he contributed 45 of the 90+ pages of script.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, because I'd say that Nolan should at least be credited on there. Here's that Moviehole.net site. [22] And here's a full description of the changes. [23] But Nolan apparently didn't contribute to more than 50% of the script, which is required if a script doctor is brought on board according to the WGA rules. That's the only reason I can think of of why he isn't credited. - Enter Movie (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, where is David C. Wilson? he's also Uncredited Writer. but why where is he? I don't understand. - Kuover (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Second sentence, first paragraph of Writing section. Quote: "Tedi Sarafian was hired to write Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, which he eventually received shared story credit for, while David C. Wilson was to write Terminator 4.".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Cast section too long

Now that the film is released the Cast section seems too long and redundant. It repeats a lot of plot details that are better explained in the Plot summary, especially since the plot summary is chronological and users can read a bit about the story without needing to read poorly written spoilers like "General Ashdown: The resistance leader before John". It does contain some interesting fact and trivia but they could be presented under production details. Hopefully things will settle down soon and the article can be tightened up a bit. It will inevitably get fatter again with the DVD release and as more production information becomes available. -- Horkana (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Prequel and/or Sequel

Okay, let's discuss this issue. How can it be a sequel and prequel at the same time? I'd like someone to explain this. — Enter Movie (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's because of the time travel. The future scenes in The Terminator were flashbacks from Reese's perspective (since he had already experienced them) but flashforwards for Sarah and the audience (because they took place in our future). This movie shows where Reese comes from. So from the perspective of the Reese character, the events of this movie take place before the events of the original Terminator. From the perspective of John Connor and the audience, it is a sequel because it takes place in our future. It's kind of crazy, but kind of works. ColdFusion650 (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

But we're the audience. We're looking at it from our perspective, not Reese's. And the audience can consider it either a prequel or a sequel, not both at the same time. - Enter Movie (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I guess it is a prequel and sequel at the same time. McG sad that the time-traveling from the previous movies doesn't erase the timeline from which Kyle Reese from the first movie came from (which means this whole franchise may be one whole predestination paradox; perhaps the film will explain it), and he also mentioned that they "do honor Judgment Day as articulated in 'T3.'" [24] [25] - Enter Movie (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

a dictionary is written without consideration for the implications of time travel, therefore the standard definition of "prequel" and "sequel" do not apply to a story like T that is loaded with predestination conflicts. therefore, both terms can apply without contradicting each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewax (talk • contribs) 04:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.197.249 (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's set in the future, it's a sequel. Stop trying to be too smart 83.147.174.212 (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a sequel, because it doesn't match up with the timeline set before T1. If it were a prequel, the timeline would be that found in Kyle Reese's pre-timetravel days of halcyon that he passes on to Sarah. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Human/Skynet hybrids

I saw a piece of the page that described the main baddie of the film being a human-Terminator hybrid. Wouldn't that be in fact an I-950 unit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart-16 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No. This film has nothing to do with S.M. Stirling's T2 trilogy. Marcus is a Terminator hybrid as well. - Enter Movie (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

They should just call Wright a cyborg b/c he technically is, a Terminator is an android/droid/robot, etc. Not human. (JoeLoeb (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

No, the 600 and earlier series are androids, as are the 1000 and later. They have no biological components. The 800 versions are cyborgs, because they have living tissue. You're right, he is a cyborg, but so are certain models of terminator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.228.40 (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the T-X is an android, the T-1000 is not an android, since it's a bucket of liquid. It's a robot. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm changing the part of the text that describes Marcus's artificial brain - there's no evidence it affected his cerebral cortex and he tore it out from the back of his head.GG The Fly (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The resistance characters who examine him discuss his physiology & mention that his cerebral cortex is partially artificial. The part that he tears out is not a part of his brain, it's his link to Skynet. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Review examples

Just an observation to those who care: This film has received mostly negative reviews from critics, as mentioned in the article itself, yet the overwhelming majority of the quotes and examples given in this article are positive ones. Would it not be more appropriate to have the review samples mentioned here reflect reality? It seems rather contradictory to say that the film has received mostly unfavorable reviews (which it has) but then present examples that are pretty much only positive. --213.114.137.93 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Damn critics rip into anything that's entertaining. T3 was no classic or anything, only worthwhile because of Schwarzenegger, my opinion. Bale was good (Hate that Bat voice though), Worthington was quite a shock as Wright, and Yelchin was great as Reese (He looks like a young Biehn). The writing was crap, and McG is a horrible director, along with Ratner (see X3), Bay (HE"S BAY, EXPLOSIONS), and others. All and all it's much better than T3, and that crap FOX-TV show and it tries something new for a change. (JoeLoeb (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

All interesting points, but if theres a credible source with negative review you want to source it can have a place so long as you arent POV pushing. The concern for the section is when too many of one type (which in this case seem to be positive reviews) begin to present themselves and tip the balance over. The section should repreasent a neutral point of view WP:NPOV of the films reception (both positive and negative).Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, guy, all my opions. :)/:( Try an online review like film rejects, etc. (JoeLoeb (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

I agree. The majority of critical reviews for this movie are poor, but the many examples given in this article are from positive reviews. Even with seemingly negative examples, only praise for the film is quoted. A quick scan of the Rotten Tomatoes page would give many negative review quotes from major film critics. The critical reception section is definitely not NPOV. --76.102.161.25 (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to barge too much into any hater-frenzy, but many people LIKED the film a lot, and satisfied people aren't usually bursting to rant in blogs about it. I feel the article would be best served by representing both sides equally, rather than re-mouthing the snarkiness of critics hoping to be quoted.

I also think it's noteworthy that Rotten Tomatoes, which at first glance gives the impression of widespread credibility, also rated a killer-crocodile yarn at 100% favorable. Noting such a telling comparison in this article would give the reader a much needed adviso to take these ratings with a grain of salt. --174.21.10.53 (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No. That's not needed. who knows, maybe the killer-crocodile yarn was the greatest movie ever made. It's not needed, and has nothing to do with Terminator Salvation and it's review. Especially since Rogue has only 9 reviews, with only one from a top critic, compared to the 161 reviews of Terminator Salvation, 29 from Top critics. Putting the comparison is only your opinion because you disagree with the score. The Comparison is absolutely useless, and is trying to say the source is bad because somebody disagrees with the score, and goes against NPOV. --Deavenger (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, none of User:Deavenger's conjecture above is my opinion. The facts speak for themselves: Rotten Tomatoes, as you say, has identified through their rating system that the greatest movie ever made was a crocodile yarn, and T-4 pales vastly by comparison in that same rating system. If our article includes Rotten Tomatoes' rank to describe reception of the movie, our article should also give unbiased perspicacity to the reader about the value of the source quoted. Or doesn't the truth value of data matter to Wikipedia's audience? Improve the article with clarity, not blathering or questionable statistics that are too few in number to accurately describe reception (like 161 bloggers with accounts at Rotten Tomatoes, out of the actual millions of audience members who have currently seen it. --174.21.10.53 (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

So, improve it with clarity, not with stats, while at the same time adding a stat that is completely useless to the article. So, 9 critics = 151 critics. There are probably over 20 movies that have over 100%. What do those rating have to do with T4. Absolutely nothing. 4 editors have disagreed with you. Nothing is wrong with the source. Over a hundred critics said they liked or disliked the movie. The Rogue movie had only 9 critics, only one of them being notable. And the 9 critics all liked it. If you don't like it, maybe you should call up the critics who reviewed T4 to go and review Rogue. Who knows, maybe Rogue will be clarified Fresh, maybe it will be like T4, with negative reviews on that site. By the way, it goes against NPOV, doing the useless comparison. --Deavenger (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Found the same argument with the Gourman Report(University ranking system), I think a good solution about defining credibility of a review is to supply a link to the wiki article of the reviewing board ie just wikify rotten tomoatoes. As for the article the only thing that really should be done is a balance between good and bad reviews where they are equally repreasenated with credible sources, At least thats my thoughts for it. thanks --Ottawa4ever (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info re: Gourman Report, Ottawa4ever. I agree that the article would be best served by representing both sides equally, and do not wish to participate in the back-and-forth attacks on contributors that are occurring here. --174.21.10.53 (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

←Gentlemen, potentially misleading information that could hurt the profits of all the hard working people involved in the creation of this movie should be extremely well sourced and justified. I have seen the movie and it is great, easily best summer blockbuster this year, but we all know how so called "critics" like to moan and moan and whine and whine, their opinion is utterly worthless. So keep the reception section positive like it is right now, don't be a killjoy. --87.161.99.20 (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well said, 87. (I'm a girl, though, but whatever.) Unfortunately, Sam rocked so now I have to dig up the gator flick. --174.21.10.53 (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The anonymous users posting about how critics savage (what was, IMO a truly terrible) movie should not influence the fact that we have the following objective facts: a movie with a 33% aggregate on Rotten Tomatoes. Its mostly negative, and the examples should reflect that. --Bobak (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

the reactions to the film were very mixed. Rotten Tomatoes is not more credible than Total Film. It's very subjective to say that because the biased refuted non credible rotten tomatoes say one thing, reliable sources are removed by POV users. That's almost vandalism. Wikipedia is about sources, not "truth" or personal opinions. --216.165.2.165 (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

33% is a number. Theres no interpretation involved. Lol. --Thunderlippps (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

While the movie did receive 33% positive reviews from the critics, the RT community rating is 72% positive, which seems to indicate that the average person did in fact like the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.131.2 (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

More likely it seems to indicate that goo fingered fanboys are an obsessively vocal bunch. Does not represent "the average person" so much as the average posters/voters on the RT forums (which I certainly hope are not an indication of the national average these days, jeez!). Never the less, anonymous twitch voting is not a professional review, only a quick measure of popularity among a segment of people over a segment of time. 67.169.117.124 (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with having an equal number of positive and negative review examples in the Reception section, which had a lot. Actually, it had too much, probably due to the fact that this is a recently released movie. Someone started to delete the middle paragraph, which started to shift the number of positive and negative reviews to a reasonably equal number. I just deleted the rest of that same paragraph- which started with a sentence that referenced an already deleted sentence anyway. Please let me know if you think the Reception area still has too much positive or negative press quoted there.Piratesforpedro (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Purported Casting of Mariusz Pudzianowski origins from tabloid

In may 2008, polish tabloid "Fakt" published yet another fake news, this time about Mariush Pudzianowski being caster for T-800. Then the news propagated via various websites up to here. 90.156.20.65 (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

I've noticed that this, and several other pages, only mention the Rotten Tomatoes Critics Pages and the Top Critics Pages. There are a few though that mention the actual community's score, and salvation got a 71 percent. Does their word count for nothing? --75.27.39.106 (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much, because the RT community (which is just registered users) is not a special community, nor do they represent the opinion of the people that saw the movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It should be mentioned. 66.235.38.49 (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Bignole is right. It has no notability. BOVINEBOY2008 17:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It has notability because it clarifies the value of "critics" contrasted with "community". To say a movie was "poorly received" indicates one thing; to say it was "poorly received by critics" is quite another. 66.235.38.49 (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's good point.--87.94.230.53 (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

These user ratings aren't always credible. See here. - Enter Movie (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Box Office Performance

Several established industry publications projected this film making between 250-350 million in the domestic market. This information was added by another person, removed on the basis that it's tone, and then reworded and added by me, with citations to two respected and often noted industry websites. I think it is of note that this film performed below industry expectations. --Williamsburgland (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The source you provided predicted a gross of $290 million. To date, the film has grossed $365 million. If you can provide a source stating that "Terminator Salvation did not stand up to expectations" or can find a notable, established film publications predicting considerably higher than what it has grossed, then you can include it. BOVINEBOY2008 21:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That source is clearly a reference to domestic gross, not total international. The international market is clearly important, but the barometer for success, espescially with big budget summer movies, is domestic performance.--Williamsburgland (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I missed the domestic point. But what makes domestic gross the "barometer for success"? That is very American-centric. BOVINEBOY2008 21:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you there, but frankly, it's true of the industry, for two main reasons. One is that America, is by far the biggest market for films, and the second is that the return on domstic is far better than international. Studios/Investors see a 40-45% ROI on domestic; that number can sink to 15 or even 10% for international. --Williamsburgland (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And as an after-thought, I'll also point out that even looking at it's international performance, it ranks low against similiarly budgeted movies this year, as well as against it's two predacessors (T3 was also considered a disapointment).--Williamsburgland (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But a film can still be "successful" and do poorly in the American box office, even though the numbers aren't as big. BOVINEBOY2008 22:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The word 'successful' ins't in the article, it just notes that the movie didnt match expectations. It's not a slam on the movie. Obviously there are films considered massive successes outside the NA Box Office; but this was an american film, and this is a reference to it's performance in the domestic box office, where it was expected to make roughly twice what it did.--Williamsburgland (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Can I suggest a reword? "As of August 2009 the film ranks ninth for the year, which is below initial expectations" -> "As of August 2009, the film ranks ninth for the year. In the United States, the film did not match expectations in the box office." The way it is worded now is incorrect. The first part is talking about international gross while the section is talking about domestic. BOVINEBOY2008 22:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sequel

I have noticed that before the movie came out there was a section on a sequel, which is now gone. Why is this? ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlefatmonkey (talk • contribs) 03:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Because there were (and still are) no reliable sources to verify that a sequel is actually in the works. The whole thing was based on speculation, and Wikipedia is not a crystall ball. In any case, details about a sequel would belong in the Terminator (franchise) article, not here. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is biased.

The article is biased, the "reviewers" and "editors" are biased. It is not a "good article" as it does not accurately reflect reality. The noise level surrounding it has increased to the point where even honest attempts to add referenced material are undone by "qualified" reviewers. This article represent a failure of Wikipedia and makes me think that certain "reviewers" are accepting money from PR firms. Disgusting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.123.83 (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem lies in your efforts to repeatedly add a particular reviewer that doesn't appear to be notable in and of himself. In fact, your only edits to date involve trying to add this one guy. Keep in mind that there are many, many critics with more established credentials who would be quoted before this guy. As for your claims of "bias", your critic's comments echo those already present in the section, and add little or nothing to the Salvation article. The guy certainly isn't notable enough to be the only critic quoted in the franchise article, as you've been trying to do. If you really feel he is notable, stop edit warring to insert him, and instead focus on trying to convince the regular editors here as to why he warrants inclusion. That is a far more effective (and less disruptive) way to achieve your goals. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Region 2 release

Why are we only mentioning region 1 release, and not region 2? Region 2's release date was 23rd of November. All UK stores which sell the DVD confirm this, but apparently, none of them are sources. Ggctuk (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source that isn't a retailer. We don't accept Amazon.com as a source. If you can find a news source announcing its release date or something, that'd be much better. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.194.57 (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? It should be fairly easy to track down a mention of its release date in some kind of news source that isn't a retailer. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of reliable entertainment websites that report on the DVD/Blu-ray release dates of major films like this. --IllaZilla (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternate Ending

What About the reported alternate ending? why is that not in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.124.18 (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Target Stores / Director's Cut

Is the notation that the Director's Cut only available at Target Stores valid? I have a copy of the Director's Cut and I do not believe Target Stores exist in Canada, or at least in my city. I believe it was purchased for me from Wal-Mart. The link simply connects to the Target shopping page for the DVD.

Some details on the differences between the original version and the Director's Cut would be worth noting in the article as I have not seen the original version. --RedKnight (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have confirmed that the edition indicated on the linked Target website is the exact copy I purchased from Wal-Mart in Canada. Two possibilities: Is the "only at" applicable only to the United States? Is there an affiliation between Wal-Mart and Target that I am not aware of?--RedKnight (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that this is not a Target exclusive. I bought it at Target simply because I happened to be there and it was on sale, but I'm certain I saw the exact same edition on the shelf at Best Buy during my holiday shopping. Further searching shows that the version available at Target appears identical to those avaiable at Best Buy and Wal-Mart, so I feel safe saying that this is not a Target exclusive. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fuel Cells

I keep editing the part about Connor detonation fuel cells to destroy Skynet Central. In both Terminatior and T2: Judgement Day, they say that the T-800 is powered by one nuclear fuel cell. In T3: Rise of the machiens, the terminator says he is an upgraded version of the T-800, called the T-850, and that the upgraded model is powered by two hydrogen fuel cells. In Terminator Salvation, they distinctly say that these are T-800 models and that (on screen, it is spoken in the movie) that the fuel cells are nuclear.m --Shadow Android (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Will you people stop editing my post about the fuel cells? Watch the movie. It states that the fuel cells are nuclear, not hydrogen. If this keeps going on, I will ask an administrator to temporarly lock this page. --Shadow Android (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You can try, but that's not likely to happen over a content dispute. The Terminators' hydrogen fuel cells are nuclear. Ever hear of an H bomb? Hydrogen fusion is a nuclear reaction. I'm not a physicist, but in terms of wording "hydrogen fuel cells" is correct: they produce power through hydrogen fusion, which is a nuclear reaction. It's like saying diesel engine vs. combustion engine. Both are correct, though "diesel engine" is more specific and more accurate because a diesel engine is a type of combustion engine. Hydrogen fusion is a type of nuclear fusion. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What is depicted in Terminator salvation is inaccurate. Hydrogen fuel cells where used by the T-850 and not the T-800, which is powered by an iridium cell. In T4 however, the T-800 uses hydrogen fuel cells. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.161.79 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You would need to cite a reliable source to verify these claims. To my knowledge the word "iridium" is never used in any of the films. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In T2 the terminator explicitly says that he is powered by a single nuclear cell which can last for 120 years. In T3 he says he is powered by 2 hydrogen nuclear fuel cells which are also shown when he discards one and shoves the other in the T-X's mouth. It is clear from that that the 8oo series did not utilize hydrogen cells. This was added to the 850 series. This shows that T4 made an error, but it is plausible since the timeline was altered and the T-800 became operational sooner than expected, so in this timeline these improvements could have been added to the T-800. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.161.79 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is all speculation on your part. As I stated above, hydrogen fusion is a nuclear reaction, so the T1/T2 Terminators' power cells very well could be hydrogen as well. The only concrete difference is that the T3 Terminator has 2 power cells rather than 1. Nuclear fusion has to be generated from something (say, plutonium or in this case hydrogen). Again, I'm no physicist, but you can't have a nuclear reaction without a catalyst, just as you can't have fire without fuel. The only stated catalyst in any of the Terminator films is hydrogen. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What i'm saying is that as you said, the T-800 in all other films has 1 fuel cell and this is confirmed. T4 shows T-800's as having 2 which is inconsistent with previous films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.161.79 (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that statement that the T1 and T2 Terminators had only a single fuel cell while the T3 Terminator had 2; this is explicitly stated by the Arnold Terminator in T3. However, it is never shown or stated in Terminator Salvation how many fuel cells are in any of the Terminators in that film. John merely finds a rack of fuel cells and riggs them to a detonator. I don't know where you're getting the idea that Salvation somehow contradicts the first 2 films in this regard, as it never shows or says anything about how many fuel cells the T-800 in that film has. Also I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the T-800's fuel cell is powered by iridium, as this is never shown or stated in the films either. The only source element for the cells' nuclear fission mentioned in any of the films is hydrogen, and the only distinction ever mentioned between the fuel cells in the different models is that the 800 series had 1 while the 850 has 2. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In Terminator the Frakes novel, it is revealed that the T-800 is powered by an iridium cell. This means that Terminator salvation was wrong in showing the T-800 as being powered by Hydrogen cells. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.72.150 (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Novelizations do not take precedence over the films themselves in terms of canoninity. It is not "revealed", though it may be stated (this is not a mystery for unraveling), and Salvation is not "wrong" merely because it uses something different. There are often many differences in detail between films and their novelizations. We are talking about the films here, and so we go by what is said and shown in the films. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted "hydrogen"/"nuclear" from the Plot section because the exact type is irrelevant in what is meant to be a brief summary of the story.

That said, the word used in the film is "hydrogen"; the word "nuclear" is never used to describe the fuel cells. Yes, while hydrogen can refer to nuclear fusion (thus "hydrogen bomb"), a "hydrogen fuel cell" is a well-established term for a type of non-nuclear power source that has been used for years, such as in American spacecraft. (If the explosion that consumes the Skynet base at the end were nuclear the chopper with Marcus and John on board would never have survived!) YLee (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Updated its yearly proportional gross

16th worldwide. The amount it made the first weekend is irrelevant. it was number 1 in Thursday for instance. 30% is "mixed to negative". You can see it every article. Some even say that for %20. 10-15 is negative. Proof that this is not regarded negatively is that it wasn't nominated for any razzie award. So the articles for Transformers, GI JOE and the others should reflect that... [26] this was written too negatively in the lead.

Just so you see the bias in the lead, Transformers ROTF which will probably win the Razzie award, has %20 in Rotten tomatoes and yet its lead says "Despite negative to mixed reviews by film critics". hmm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.77.48 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

30% approval is not "mixed", it's negative. If you got 30% of the answers right on a test, you'd get a D or an F. I'd accept anywhere in the 40%-60% range as being "mixed", as this is the median range. That said, it appears that its current metacritic score is 52%, which is described as "mixed or average". However, its rating at Rotten Tomatoes is only 31%. It not being nominated for a razzie isn't evidence that it isn't regarded negatively (as negative proof is a logical fallacy). If it were nominated for a razzie, that would be evidence of it being regarded negatively, but its lack of nomination means nothing one way or the other (just as a film not being nominated for an Oscar isn't evidence of it being a poorly regarded film, whereas an Oscar nomination is an indication of it being well-regarded). When it gets down to it, the most accurate way we can present this is to just give the scores and quote MC's "mixed or average" rating. We can leave it to the readers to interpret the figures on their own. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I accept your argument and your suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.77.48 (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sequel/Trilogy?

I swear that when this film first came out magazines were reporting that there was a planned sequel or trilogy. Can anyone verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.250.77 (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

See [27] Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

My edits to Cast section

I wanted to discuss my edits to the Cast section which IllaZilla just reverted, stating that "some of this doesn't sound correct". Either the edits are correct, or they're not, and the changes I made are based on a viewing of the film today.

• I describe Connor as "a leader in the resistance" rather than "a soldier." Yes, Ashdown describes Connor at least once as "soldier," but as the Resistance's leader he outranks everyone else in the organization. "Leader" is more appropriate given the importance of the role Connor plays:
  • While he is not necessarily among the very top leaders (otherwise he'd likely be on the submarine), everyone knows who Connor is. He is a legend within the Resistance.
  • Connor is #2 on the Skynet kill list that also includes those on the submarine.
  • When he makes his periodic speeches via radio, he merely identifies himself as "John Connor"; no further elaboration needed.
  • When he appeals to the Resistance armies to not attack Skynet yet, people listen.

• I removed "As a former commander from the United States Armed Forces" from Ashdown's description. I agree that it is possible—even likely—that Ashdown and the others on the submarine are former high-ranking officers in various nations' military forces (US, Russia, an east Asian nation, a south Asian nation, etc.), but I am not aware of any specific on-screen depiction of this. He does wear dog tags, yes, but other than generals' stars on the lapels of his trenchcoat he wears nothing that is US military-issue. (Losenko, by contrast, wears a Russian Army cap.) This may have appeared elsewhere (A novelization? A biography on the film's official Website?), but my understanding is that such details are then to be identified as such.

• I changed Ashdown's description as one "who views John Connor as a nuisance" to one who "is skeptical of John's prophesied role as savior." "Nuisance" implies that he barely tolerates Connor's staying around in the Resistance because of his "extensive knowledge of the Skynet machines." This isn't the case:
  • Connor is a valuable, high-ranking member of the organization, one who has visited the leaders' submarine before and is familiar with each of them.
  • He can be trusted with knowledge of the Resistance's #1 secret of the new machine-disabling shortwave signal (and its first field test). "Connor's and his tech-comm unit have an excellent record."
  • He has earned enough credibility to not be court-martialed or summarily shot after defying orders, visiting the submarine, and jeopardizing the lives of "every man and woman" on the submarine.

That doesn't mean, though, that Ashdown necessarily believes in Connor's role as savior; he doesn't. That's why he, in their only on-screen meeting, calls him "prophesized leader of the Resistance" with considerable sarcasm, and that's why when Connor tells Ashdown to hold off on the attack because Skynet holds Kyle Reese—the "key to the future, to the past"—the general, while he's heard the prophecy before and so doesn't ask the the heck Connor is talking about, still relieves him of duty. (And, again, if Ashdown really believed that Connor was the intended savior of all mankind, he'd not be ever allowed off the submarine!) YLee (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of your explanations are fine, but I disagree on the first point. John isn't the "leader" of the Resistance in this film. Ashdown and the others on the sub are clearly the leaders. Ashdown outranks John and orders him around. Being a "legend" doesn't make John the leader. Central to the story of the film is John's journey from soldier to the "leader" he's prophesied to become. Ashdown makes it quite clear that he (Ashdown) is the one in charge, depsite John's mythic status. He's #2 on the kill list because Skynet knows that he'll eventually defeat Skynet; hence the whole motivation for terminating him in the first place. The whole thing about people listening to him, and choosing to follow him instead of Ashdown, is part of that journey from soldier to leader. He isn't "leader of the Resistance" at any point in the film, but is on his way to becoming so. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree! That's why I wrote "a leader," not "the leader" or just "leader of the resistance." YLee (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Skynet's motivation

I wanted to discuss the changes I made to the Plot section, outside the "hydrogen" issue that I discuss above.

It's important to be precise in why Skynet created Marcus and what he accomplished for it. Skynet mentions more than once in its monologue how its "best machines" had failed "time and again" for "so many years" to kill John Connor. Having failed so often, Skynet decided that it had to "radically" change its thinking. Since it could not kill John on its own, it would no longer try. It would get someone else to do the job. By bringing Kyle Reese and John Connor to its base, Skynet would accomplish the following:

• If the Resistance kills Kyle by destroying the base (the original plan), Skynet wins.
• If the Resistance kills John, Skynet wins.
• If the Resistance kills both, Skynet wins.

Rather clever, Skynet is. Its plan almost worked. In any case, the important distinction my edit makes is that it is the Resistance that is to ultimately accomplish Skynet's mission. YLee (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Continuity

It would to have section on how this ties in with the other 3 movies and the Sarah Connor Chronicles. Is this perhaps a direct sequel to Rise of the Machines, or some alternate timeline where Sarah is still alive like in TTSCC? Which events from the previous 3 movies did or didn't happen in this film's timeline? The snare (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless reliable secondary sources have seen fit to devote coverage to this, then it's not a suitable topic for this article. Its connections to the other films are summarized quite simply in the Plot section. In short, it is a sequel to the previous 3 films, and continues their continuity. Everything from the 3 previous films "happened" as far as this film's plot is concerned. Sarah is dead; it was explained in T3 that she died of leukemia. The Sarah Connor Chronicles takes place in an alternate timeline in which Sarah and John are whisked from 1999 to 2007, thus "skipping over" Sarah's death and setting in motion a separate timeline from that of T3 and Salvation (and presumably any future sequels continuing on from Salvation). But like I said, the relevant story elements from the previous films are already touched on in the Plot section. I don't know of anyone who has viewed this film and assumed it occurs in some alternate timeline, as the continuations from the previous films are quite clear and the creators never mentioned any plans to deviate from the plot elements of those films. If they had chosen to go the "alternate timeline" route, then that would be something worth covering. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 92.12.134.84, 3 June 2010

{{editprotected}}

First paragraph: "the franchises' central character" should be "franchise's".

92.12.134.84 (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reduced the protection to semi-protection, the full protection must have been accidental. As for your request, is there any particualr reason to change it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Because it's a singular franchise, not multiple ones. Millahnna (mouse)talk 23:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done --IllaZilla (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Negative vs. Mixed

The last sentence of the lead section currently states "The film was met with negative critical reception" and cites Metacritic, which gives a score of 52 and labels the reviews "mixed or average". Prem555 (talk · contribs) continually changes the sentence to say "mixed", and I've reverted him because he never leaves an explanation as to why he's doing so, but I thought we'd better discuss the sources and wording here to see if "negative" is indeed the best phrasing.

• Metacritic, as noted above, gives an average score of 52 based on 35 reviews, summarizing the review opinions as "mixed or average".
• Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 32% score based on 250 reviews, labeling it as "Rotten", with the average critic's rating being 5/10. Among RT's top critics the approval rating is even lower at 29%
• The Critical reception section of the article focuses on negative reviews, with only a couple of positive critics' opinions among a number of negative ones.

In my opinion, we could keep the "negative" wording in the lead if we switched the cite to Rotten Tomatoes rather than Metacritic. If we're leaving it as Metacritic, then Prem555 is justified in changing it to "mixed", as the site clearly gives the summation "mixed or average". However our Reception section is clearly heavier on negative opinions than positive ones, and "negative" would be a better summation of the article's contents, which is what the lead is supposed to do. Thoughts? --IllaZilla (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The race between "negative" and "mixed" is close but the section as it stands reads as mixed to me as well. Yes, the majority of the critics it quotes is negative towards the movie, but it mentions at least three critics who like it. The mixed Meatacritic score reinforces this sense. Can we say "Negative to mixed" in the infobox? YLee (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'd say that we shouldn't be changing a lede review to justify a phrase in the article. Average both scores (52+32)/2=42 which to my mind falls at the lower end of mixed reviews, so I think that the "mixed to negative" is acceptable.

However, I'd also say that Prem555 (talk · contribs) needs to learn how to use the summary field - especially as they've been taken to task over edits in the Terminator universe before: [28] [29] etc. My concern is that they express no desire to enter discourse. a_man_alone (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that this is still going on... the film was met with largely negative reception by the critical community, top critics, and even more so by the Sci-Fi fan base. The fact that MC weighs reviews so that the film scores a 52 may justify saying "Mostly negative" rather than just "negative", but there is nothing mixed about it.--Williamsburgland (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, you are absolutely correct Williamsburgland - I've followed this article for a while and it's clear to me that someone (or someones) are attempting to prevent negative PR about the film. No idea why. 76.17.123.83 (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment If Metacritic says "yellow/mixed", that's good enough for me. Best, Mdiamante (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus here that it should say mixed to negative, or yellow/mixed, and so on. IllaZilla is therefore advised not to change it back to "negative" in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.56.118 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is no consensus so far, the discussion just sort of petered out. 213.8.56.118 (talk · contribs) is advised not to change the wording without discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

if you think there is no consensus, then leave it out of the lead. Your constant meddling and reverting here is not allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.80.173 (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)