Alternate 'Terminator's?

Pio2013 said:
Nicholas Cage for Terminator, if he can do all the body build transformation the main character requires.
I don't see it. I can picture him as John Connor, tho; he has the crazy...:p (Or maybe Chris Walken.)
 
Actually, there are two Grandfather Paradoxes in Terminator. One of them is that Reese is the father of John Connors, but there was a deleted scene. The man who owns the industrial plant the T-800 is destroyed in picks up a piece of the T-800, and hands it to another guy. I forget the exact dialogue, but it was something like this:

Owner: What do you think this is?

Other guy: It's a processor, but not a type I've seen before.

Owner: I haven't seen it either. Probably Japanese. Let's get it down to R&D, see what they make of it.

Then the camera goes to the outside of the facility, which is owned by Cyberdyne. Not only is Reese the biological ancestor of John Connors, but the T-800 is the technological ancestor of Skynet!

Seriously, people miss the point of Terminator. It's not so much a science fiction film as a creature feature. You've got an invulnerable monster who wants to kill a pretty girl, and a man who wants to save the girl. That's the plotline of King Kong or Creature From the Black Lagoon! T2 was the same -- unkillable T1000 after a child victim (the young John Connors), and a masculine figure (the reprogrammed T800) assigned to save him. The greatest of the many failings of the later Terminator movies was that they missed this essential point.
 
Emote Control said:
Actually, there are two Grandfather Paradoxes in Terminator.
:eek: Which does not make it better.:eek:
Emote Control said:
people miss the point of Terminator. It's not so much a science fiction film as a creature feature.
Fair enough. The trouble is, if you're making a monster movie, it's different than making "genuine" SF. "Alien" was a monster movie, too--but it didn't just throw out the SF conventions. Even Bishop was, arguably, a nod to Isaac's 3 Laws.

Either way, IMO, a fix that avoids violating the GP in the opening minutes of the film:eek::eek::confused: would be a good idea.
 
So what if there's a grandfather paradox? Time travel isn't real (as far as we know), so you can make up whatever rules you want, like for kaiju or mecha or FTL. What matters is whether or not the movie hangs together thematically and evokes the desired emotions in the audience.

While Terminator 1 and 2 did that for me, 3 and 4 didn't. I haven't seen Genisys yet, so I can't comment on it.
 
TimPhillips said:
My memory of the novelization of the movie is that Sarah was nineteen. Hamilton was 28 in 1984 when Terminator was released.
If the casting & performance are good, IMO it won't matter if she's older. (Younger, you can get some social commentary out of it.)
 
If the casting & performance are good, IMO it won't matter if she's older. (Younger, you can get some social commentary out of it.)

I don't agree. Assuming both actresses were the same in acting ability I think a younger (or at least younger looking) actress would provide a subtly different emotional reaction - questions of vunerability and so on.
 
Another alternate Terminator - or Kyle Reese - could be Christopher Reeve. Matthew Broderick or even Paul Reubens could work as Reese too, they would have to buff out a lot for a Terminator but it might be doable too. What about Christopher Walken as a Terminator? How about Grace Jones, Farrah Fawcet, Maryan d'Abo, or Tanya Roberts for Sarah Connor?
 
RossN said:
I don't agree. Assuming both actresses were the same in acting ability I think a younger (or at least younger looking) actress would provide a subtly different emotional reaction - questions of vunerability and so on.
On that, I agree. I meant, it doesn't affect the quality of the film. That subtle a difference is a bit hard to gauge. If she comes out being very capable, as Sarah Connor does, how big is the difference? (This is a bit like asking, does it matter if Buffy is 16 or 19?)
M79 said:
Another alternate Terminator - or Kyle Reese - could be Christopher Reeve.
Maybe. IMO he's got the "stiff" down.:rolleyes:
M79 said:
Matthew Broderick
Maybe, for Reese, given Connor is played by somebody younger, like Jodie or Tatum.
M79 said:
Paul Reubens
:eek: If you want it to tank... (Which, TBH, wouldn't bother me--but I've been defaulting to a "better" outcome.)
M79 said:
What about Christopher Walken as a Terminator?
That could work, too.
M79 said:
How about Grace Jones ...for Sarah Connor?
I'd be more inclined to use Grace as the T800.:p
M79 said:
Farrah Fawcet, Maryan d'Abo, or Tanya Roberts for Sarah Connor?
Maryam d'Abo, you meant? I might see them in a "worse" version; never particularly impressed with any of them. TBH, if I was going "worse", I'd probably prefer Betsy Russell & go for skin.:p
 
dissentcontinues said:
Rutger Hauer, given his proven track record of good performances as homicidal androids, might be as good a T-800 as he was a Nexus 6.
I'd like him for it, if it didn't risk conflict with "Bladerunner". I wouldn't want him not to do that.

Thinking of making changes that would help, what about Wolfgang Peterson as director? (I liked "Enemy Mine", even if it didn't do really well.) And what about David Gerrold or Dorothy Fontana on the screenplay? (This would probably help avoid the studio getting sued for stealing from Harlan...:rolleyes:)
 
Last edited:
T1 Alt Cast

Kurt Russell as Kyle Reese.
Dolph Lundgren as T800.
Kim Catrall/Holly Hunter as Sarah Connor

T2 Alt Cast

Wesley Snipes/Holly Hunter//John Claude Van Damme as T1000
Dolph Lundgren as T800/Uncle Bob
Kim Catrall/Holly Hunter as Sarah Connor
Johnny Depp/Keaunu Reeves/Jerry O'Connell/Nicholas Brendan as John Connor

T3 Alt Cast (Please change the damn Film! Especially the Fated Inevitability crap that goes against the No Fate message from the first two films.)

Michelle Rodriguez/Jet Li as T-X
Summer Glau to replace Dolph Lundgren swapping T800 for Tok850
Jensen Ackles as John Connor
Milla Jovovich as Kate Brewster
 
Nitpicking here but they are not Grandfather Paradoxes - those have effects negating causes - but Predestination Paradoxes where effects create the cause.

That aside, Lance Henriksen is obvious choice for a stalking assassin (basically what a Terminator was supposed to be!)
Wouldn't have been a blockbuster but could have gained cult status and spawned some low budget technohorrors or remake or earlier series.
 
Then we disagree on what good SF is, & isn't.

It's suspension of disbelief. Saying Terminator is a bad movie because you don't like how they handle time travel is like saying King Kong is a bad movie because of the giant gorilla, or like saying Hamlet is a bad play because you don't believe in ghosts.
 
The Professor said:
Nitpicking here but they are not Grandfather Paradoxes - those have effects negating causes - but Predestination Paradoxes where effects create the cause.
I would agree, but argue there may be both: if the T800 succeeds, sending it is moot, & there's a paradox; sending it creates the future in question, which also creates a paradox. Either one, let alone both in one film,:eek::eek: is a bad idea.
The Professor said:
That aside, Lance Henriksen is obvious choice for a stalking assassin (basically what a Terminator was supposed to be!)
Wouldn't have been a blockbuster but could have gained cult status and spawned some low budget technohorrors or remake or earlier series.
I'd agree with that. I seems likely, too, it would mean no sequels. At the least, it would mean no "franchise": maybe "T2", but nothing after.

Some variation on it might happen. (If it's going to, I have to ask why it didn't, in the face of an even more successful film: because OTL's so dominated the field, nobody thought there was $$ in it?)
Emote Control said:
It's suspension of disbelief. Saying Terminator is a bad movie because you don't like how they handle time travel is like saying King Kong is a bad movie because of the giant gorilla, or like saying Hamlet is a bad play because you don't believe in ghosts.
I don't say it's a bad movie solely because of that, only it's implausible from the get-go, which means I don't like it. (I also dislike "King Kong" for the giant gorilla. Hamlet I dislike for being by Shakespeare,:rolleyes:) so the ghosts are down my list of issues.)

I do say it's bad SF, because it ignores the paradox & presumes I'm too stupid to know it exists.:rolleyes: "Timecop" is no better with not creating paradoxes (& if you actually stop & think about that ending, it's far from the happy one the blindered screenplay leads you to believe:eek::eek:), but at least it deals with the issue.

"Days of Future Past" takes an interesting approach, & one that plays into the character history in an interesting way: it wipes out the history Logan came from & effectively leaves him with no memory...:cool: (I doubt that's quite what the writer had in mind, tho.:rolleyes:)
 
Top