Talk:Terminator Salvation/Archive 1

Blasphemous??
Who added that section about robot baby jesuses. I was tempted to remove it, but if anyone has some sort of source for the information I figured it'd be best to let someone else do that... so can anyone confirm or deny baby jesus bots? Ashaver 19:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Potentially Epic, but?
The ideas posted here in regards to the storyline for T4 have some good points and bad ones. The overall flow seems nicely epic, and the idea that the first iteration contained no John Connor, but that he resulted from Skynet's messing around is a good idea. On the other hand, extending this into his original existance as a fictional character who was then miraculously made reality seems a bit silly. Partially this goes back to the problems inherent in some previous speculations in which originally he had a different father. More than the difference in one parent, the simple matter of biological timing would have created a fundamentally different person. There are lots of siblings out there who have very little in common, so the usefulness of any alternate versions of Connor is questionable. From a production standpoint, there seem to be issues of cast as well. It seems that story posed here requires young versions of Linda Hamilton and Michael Biehn who haven't existed in twenty years. Recasting could either work, or end up disastously cheesey.

Arnold?
Is there any source as to that line about Arnold confirming he'll be starring in this movie?

Possible Writing Process Source
This article from CHUD.com goes into significant (and, to my knowledge, unequaled) detail regarding the various rewrites that led to the finished film. Would anyone object to its content being referred to and quoted under Wiki reliability standards? Best, Mdiamante (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Target Stores: Director's Cut
Although Target claims to be the only store to distribute the Director's Cut, it is possible that this is only applicable in the United States. I purchased the Director's Cut at a Walmart in Canada (Ref: http://www.walmart.ca/Movies-Music-Books/Movies-TV/DVD-Movies/TERMINATOR-SALVATION-WS-SPECIAL-EDITION-2-DISC-BIL). As such, the entry should probably be removed. --66.110.6.119 (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC) (RedKnight... login difficulties)

Arnold's about-face on the film
http://www.movies.com/movie-news/arnold-schwarzenegger-slams-39terminator-salvation39-still-open-to-39true-lies-239-more-39terminator39-movies/7371

Should this be mentioned in the critical reception, something added to the end of the first line referencing his initial reception? Something like "but he later stated that he felt the film was "awful" and that it "missed the boat". ggctuk (2005) (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Williamsburgland (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

2 links for you to GREATLY expand the development section

 * http://www.chud.com/19577/exclusive-what-went-wrong-with-terminator-salvation/
 * http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Terminator-Salvation.html

--Niemti (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

In particular, the article should explain how the title (Terminator Salvation, and Project Angel too for that matter) in the original script actually meant something (and what exactly). --Niemti (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Very interesting reads - I'd say as long as they're reliable go ahead and work the info in there. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

What's more, some of the Project Angel stuff was even actually filmed: http://www.hopeofthefuture.net/deletedscenes/t4del00.html --Niemti (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article
Just wondering, what's stopping this from becoming a Featured Article? - Enter Movie (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I might push it to FA later as I did to give that green shield on the main page. But fixing these is a good place to start. igordebraga ≠ 03:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Continuity
Since John Connor is show to be married to Katherine Brewster from T3, does this mean that it's in continuity with the T3 timeline as compared to the TSCC timeline,or is it in a new timeline of its own? I believe the movies are more canon then the Dynamite comics where Brewster dies in 2008 hence, a separate branch from the T3 timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.154.115 (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Proper title
Isn't the proper title Terminator: Salvation, and not Terminator Salvation? different references used in the article itself mention the film as Terminator: Salvation... Kintaro (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Negative Vs. Mixed, Take 2
I'm adding a new section because the old one has degraded such that it no longer serves its purpose in gathering a consensus either way. Given that, in an orderly fashion, could each of the editors involved simply vote once as to whether the lead of the article should reflect "Mostly Negative", "Negative to Mixed" or "Mostly Mixed"? Include your reasoning if you wish, but let's try to keep it to one post per without this turning into an argument. Once a concensus is reached, perhaps we can all simply leave it that way regardless of who 'wins'. I'll go first. --Williamsburgland (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I vote for "Mostly Negative"--Williamsburgland (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer "Generally Negative" myself. In any event, "Mostly Mixed" sounds completely unhelpful, and "Negative to Mixed" strikes me as needlessly ambiguous; I don't believe we should use a range like that. Doniago (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I generally like to avoid "mixed" where possible unless something is clearly polarising. "Middle of the road" review scores aren't "mixed", they're mediocre - and even at that, they're usually negative. GRAPPLE   X  21:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Metacritic says "mixed to average". There are many prominent positive reviews, also in the article itself. As for rotten tomatoes - Mostly negative in Rotten Tomatoes I would consider as 20% or even less. Above 30% especially with a score of 5/10 is definitely mixed. One could define it more interestingly - there was definite disappointment with the script with many reviewers but at the same time admiration of some of the actors' work, many (like WSJ) defining them even as revelations, especially Sam Worthington but also Anton Yelchin, Bloodgood, not to mention special effects etc. Rolling Stone summarized it very well: "T4 is a mixed bag, but it's not fucking amateur". 94.230.85.129 (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The actors aren't the subject of the review, the film is. Including a note saying that some of the actors were praised may be appropriate, but that doesn't alter the fact that the film itself received a negative review if that's the case. I might call 40-60% mixed, and that's being generous, but I certainly wouldn't call 35% mixed. In any event, if we're going to get wound up about this perhaps we should remove the terminology entirely and just state exactly what the sites themselves state rather than interpreting. "Many prominent positive reviews" doesn't mean anything if there are many more prominent negative reviews, and I would be wary of citing what's currently in the article, as that may indicate the article is being inappropriately weighted. Doniago (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Anything that goes to sources and not saying "mostly negative" without any sources is better. Metacritic is a good source saying "mixed to average". The article I posted saying "mixed bag" is another good source as examples.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.85.129 (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Again - Let's try to keep this from being a debate with multiple posts - just a simple vote to create consensus. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree. A simple vote among 3 or 4 editors will not suffice. This is a debate issue, and we can go through the Wikipedia lines for moderation and debates, and third party opinions on the matter. The discussions above showed strong support for "mixed". My approach clearly showed there's no merit to saying "negative" without explaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.85.129 (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Metacritic shows 52, which I'd call mixed. RT says 33%, which I'd call negative. I loathe phrases like "mixed to negative" and will not support that type of ambiguous language. I'm not familiar enough with the underlying rationales behind the scores to comment on that, but it may be relevant in this case. That being said, the RT score appears to involve a larger sample size, which I'd think means it paints a better picture overall. Consequently, provided I'm interpreting the data correctly, I'd go with "negative". Doniago (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Personally, I enjoyed the film, but with it getting mixed reviews at Metacritic and slammed by Rotten Tomatoes, I'd call that negative. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Mixed" is the simplest and most straightforward way to categorize the metascores. Rottentomatoes uses a simple up/down system to categorize votes, while Metacritic attempts to interpret reviews into numerical scores. Since very few movies are utterly, completely, 100% awful, this tends to (more accurately) pull Metacritic scores closer to the 50% middle. Ylee (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So at the moment we have 3 for negative, 1 for mixed, and another editor who refuses to accept anything but his view. Unless someone steps in, the consensus is negative. --Williamsburgland (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus means unanimous so I don't see any. This discussion and the above make it clear that there's a majority of people who think it's mixed actually. 213.8.56.118 (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus does not mean unanimous.
 * Consensus may not mean unanimous but the statement that 3 are negative, and 1 for mixed is a clear lie. There at least 2 here for, and the first discussion had 3 more "for". Willamsburgland has continuously displayed bad faith here and tried to hijack the article. He claimed people were vandalizing the page simply because he disagreed with them. That is obscene. As to the point, I wouldn't say this is slammed by RT. Again, it has a 5/10 score. That's average. I would say that the movie either had mixed reviews, or perhaps - mediocre/average. But negative is far too harsh in this case. That's simply the fact of the matter. People shouldn't be this sensitive. I realize fans were angry, but "mostly negative" films and this are completely two different things. 213.8.56.118 (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * YOU are the monkey wrench in the gears, and YOU are the reason this article is locked. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And by the way, there is one verifiable vote from Ylee - I'm in favor of ignoring yours all together since you've A) ignored the process for consensus and B)Used multiple IP's to vote. There are now at least 4 votes for negative. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your conspiracy theories are better left to the trash bin of history. There are many users here who agree that the general view of the film is that it is probably more leaning to mixed than negative. I think leaving it out altogether from the lead, like it was before this childish name-calling (mostly by you), is the best course of action. 212.68.144.42 (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit- comment retracted--Williamsburgland (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC))--Williamsburgland (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of thread that needs to stop if we are to reach consensus. I am going to ask each of you to halt the personal attacks.  Malinaccier  ( talk ) 16:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's all cool down :). Looking at your discussion of the issue, I would like to offer a third opinion and refer you to some Wiki policy (though you may already know about it of course--I am not trying to talk down to anyone). We can see in WP:VERIFIABLE that Wikipedia articles are not to make biased or normative statements. I have heard it explained this way: "In the article about Hitler, we do not need to write that he is a very evil man. We let the facts stand for themselves and the result is the same." While this is a little drastic, we can apply this here. No qualifier signifying positive or negative review should be used; instead, provide a wealth of sources and let the reader judge for him or herself. Also, I want to remind everyone to keep their cool from now on. Perhaps we can take a short break from this discussion for 24 hours and come back to it with a clean slate? Lastly, consensus is not unanimity--neither is it a vote. We just need to get a general sense of what is right.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. 212.68.144.42 (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds rather familiar to me. Also, agreed. Doniago (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Great, so can anyone suggest the new wording and add it? Something that combines both the metacritic view and the rotten tomatoes, or something else, using sources. Until that is used, I propose to remove "received mostly negative reviews" from the lead. Thoughts anyone? There is no particular policy that says we have to have that determination in the lead. Just looking randomly at a recent film, for example, Immortals (2011 film) I observed that it has no such saying in the lead, and the film, which currently holds 36% on RT, 27% with top critics and a LOWER metacritic score, is described as "mixed to negative reviews". This is just one example that reflects that there is no sourced justification in saying that Termination: Salvation had mostly negative reviews. Another example which I've noticed one of the users above actually edited, is The Expendables (2010 film). This film has a 40% RT, but a LOWER score on Metacritic than T:Salvation. This is interesting because it has 45 and is described as "mixed". Salvation has 52 (!) and is described as negative. This is absurd. I think Malinaccier explained it well. The sources say both. We can either use both, or remove the sentence from the lead, for the meantime (like it used to be for a long time in the article). Best, 11:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.56.118 (talk)
 * ...I thought we'd agreed to remove the negative/mixed wording entirely and stick with the facts of the case... Doniago (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I really like this idea, just display what scores the film got on those websites and the reader can come to their own conclusion. So not having any wording like this at all, it's forcing the idea of the editor on the reader anyway. --Peppage ಠ_ಠ 15:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, for both. Added. 213.8.56.118 (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

How is an average rating of 5/10 (and 4.9/10 for Top Critics) on RottenTomatoes "predominantly negative?" The percentage only reflects a split between positive and negative reviews. Thor is 77% with a 6.7/10, but that doesn't mean critics thought it was better than Crash with its lower percentage of 76%, yet higher average rating of 7.1/10. I suggest changing it to generally mixed. Enter Movie (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It has a 33% approval rating, with 87 "fresh" reviews compared to 178 "rotten reviews". ⅓ positive and ⅔ negative is "predominantly negative". The critics were not kind to this film. Fans constantly want to whitewash this by saying "mixed", even when the actual text of most reviews reflects negative opinions of the film. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, just as a hypothetical scenario, not that it's happened to this movie or any other, but let's say, if a film miraculously had a lot of 5/10 reviews, which is considered "negative" by RottenTomatoes, and the score is 0%, but the average rating is 5/10, would you consider that film having "overwhelmingly negative" critical reaction? Enter Movie (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, if it's "mixed" on Metacritic and "negative" on RT, why not call it "mixed to negative"? It's that simple! The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because "mixed" includes negative and uses ranges in that manner strikes me, at least, as imprecise and unclear wording? Doniago (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this movie was panned as indicated by the RT score and general public perception of the film which many press articles at the time indicated. Just stumbled across this and as a veteran/semi retired who can now take a step back and see things for what they are this is one of those times when you can see the systemic bias of WIkipedia where articles are mainly written by fans of a certain topic. AaronY (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I just removed all mentions of it. There is no consensus whatsoever here so its better to leave the review facts from RT and Metacritic in the first section of the critical reception section and let them speak for themselves. The idea one over the other because it was there first when there is no consensus is just using wikilawyering to cheat your view into the article. AaronY (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Terminator Salvation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090521005702/http://terminatorsalvation.warnerbros.com/media/downloads/ProductionNotes.pdf to http://terminatorsalvation.warnerbros.com/media/downloads/ProductionNotes.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123139441
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718140807/http://www.boxoffice.com/featured_stories/2009-05-early-weekend-predictions-9 to http://www.boxoffice.com/featured_stories/2009-05-early-weekend-predictions-9
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829054425/http://terminatorsalvation.warnerbros.com/machinima.html to http://terminatorsalvation.warnerbros.com/machinima.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/film-review-terminator-salvation-1003973886.story
 * Added tag to http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008032601/http://www.pressacademy.com/satawards/awards2009.shtml to http://www.pressacademy.com/satawards/awards2009.shtml
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65olbBrXC?url=http://www.saturnawards.org/nominations.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/nominations.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100507083206/http://www.visualeffectssociety.com/group/ves-member/ves-announces-nominees-8th-annual-ves-awards to http://www.visualeffectssociety.com/group/ves-member/ves-announces-nominees-8th-annual-ves-awards

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)