[...] we told you once, we told you twice, and now here it comes a third time: Linda Hamilton will definitely be making an [...]

Hopefully they keep the original story where Skynet doesn’t take over the world the second it is activated, but was being successfully used by the military to fly their aircraft and to perform other functions and only started to turn on the humans after it became self aware and the humans tried to kill it.

That makes so much more sense than them needing to fight a virus, so they release some crazy AI that has the power to take control of the world’s computers…

Pretty sure it follows T3 as well, even though McG did not like that movie. The Sarah Connor Cronichles is what he officially said T4 isn’t following.

I’m not saying this movie will be good, just saying I’m not bugged by the rating. I liked the PG-13 theatrical version of Live Free or Die Hard better than the “unrated” version with all of the f-bombs thrown back in… It made John McClane seem older and wiser. They intended to have him act a bit older, but the curse words were cut to lower the rating for the exact reason you’ve stated, to get a wider audience, but I think it also helped get that point across.

[...] Terminator Salvation panel in NYC this past week. Besides silencing skeptics and seriously amping up the buzz-o-meter for Salvation, McG informed our good friends over at Latino Review about his plan for the upcoming remake of [...]

Now that paragraph put a smile on my face! And, yeah, they try hard with SCC, but plotwise it’s still not much better than average. Better get Straczynski to write your stories and you won’t have that problem!

ZAR.

Actually the rating does (also) have to do with language and nudity. If I recall correctly movie bloggers were pretty annoyed over Slumdog Millionare getting an R despite the fact that (according to them, I haven’t seen it) the content didn’t warrant an R rating.

I don’t know of any film that has been given an R solely on the basis of its content and theme – with no f-bombs or nudity in it.

Vic

It’s about the content and accuracy of that content. This is a movie about a post-apocalyptic world where humans are slaughtered, hunted and are in constant combat against machines with the single goal of ending human life.

To do that justice, the themes must be adult and should be rated R like the first two films – afterall, the nature and plot of this film is highly violent and gruesome.

I also don’t buy that not targetting a rating – of course they are, they’re working for a studio who wants to max money through allowing the largest demographics into the theatres. Just like Live free or Die Hard, I’m sure this was planned all along to be pg-13.

He said in the interview they weren’t aiming for a PG-13, that’s just the rating the MPAA gave them.

Me, I don’t miss f-bombs just for the sake of having them, but what bothers me is violent movies that are “cleaned up” by omitting the bloodshed that should appear. Drives me NUTS to see bloodless movies that have hundreds of shots being fired.

Vic

I don’t care what anyone says, I watched Live Free or Die Hard in theaters and the unrated version on the DVD, and I have to say, I liked the PG-13 version better. Because Bruce Willis was playing a kind of “older and wiser” John McClane, and I found that toning down the language actually helped to convey that. When I saw the unrated version, all of the cursing sounded very forced like they were trying to sound “cool” or whatever, and was pretty annoying. But it was plenty violent, so saying this movie won’t be violent because it’s PG-13 is a pretty ignorant comment. It appears violence don’t set off higher ratings, just foul language. Because the unrated version didn’t add any more violence, it was all already in the PG13 version…

[...] more from the original source: MTV Confirms: ‘Terminator: Salvation’ Rocks – Screen Rant Share and [...]

The first three paragraphs of Eric Ditzian’s post describe how there have been lingering questions and skepticism since day one about McG’s ability to do T4 correctly.

In fact, paragraph 2 begins with the following sentence:

“Yet when McG played about 15 minutes of footage from “Terminator Salvation” at a special screening on Monday, he went a long way toward assuring skeptics our worries were unfounded.”

Paragraph 3 then immediately follows with: “Still the questions will linger.” (And there should be a comma after still, BTW.)

This clearly demonstrates (or at least suggests) a “still on the fence” opinion being put forth by your reporter, and therefore representing your site. No problem with that stance, either. It’s probably the more prudent one to adopt at this juncture.

However, on Screen Rant we have posts like “First Full Terminator Salvation Trailer (Rocks!)” That date back a month. Other sites had the same immediate reaction to the first trailer. It was that difference, in the fervor and immediacy of positive response to T4, that I was eluding to with the bandwagon comment.

Sorry for the confusion.

http://screenrant.com/full-terminator-salvation-trailer-vic-4526/