The “Terminator: …What The Actual HELL?” trailer.

I got sent this.  By one of my horrified readers*.

My response was reflected in the title above, only I didn’t use the word ‘Hell.’

Moe Lane

*I don’t want anybody blaming said reader: it’s not his or her fault.

28 thoughts on “The “Terminator: …What The Actual HELL?” trailer.”

  4. This looks like it might, just might, be bad enough to be watchable, with lots of popcorn. It’s certainly not going to fall on the good end of the watchable spectrum…

    1. Seriously this! Looks pretty awesome to me.
      .
      .
      I’m not expecting, nor wanting, Shakespeare. Although in Shakespeare they kill off most everyone too…

    1. What it is is the way that the movie is not so much rebooting the franchise as it is dropping a thermite grenade into the mainframe and then running away as the hard drive ignites. I don’t know what I was expecting out of a new Terminator flick, but it certainly wasn’t THAT. 🙂

      1. I dunno, I kinda like how they make the retcon explicitly part of the plot, instead of just rebooting it.

      3. Well, this franchise unlike say – Star Trek – can more plausibly stand an explosive retcon like this and succeed.
        .
        It’s the difference between exploring the possibilities of the core conceit and a plot point used to destroy what has come before.

  7. This looks okay to me. I mean, anything better than the last two movies (which is not much of a bar to clear) will be a win, IMO.

    .

    There’s a few goofy things evident in the trailer (like the fact Arnold is really too old to be playing an ageless killing machine) but I kinda like the whole “the past is much worse than you remember” premise. And the woman they got to play Sarah Conner looks like a good choice. I’ll remain cautiously optimisitic.

  8. I liked Terminator Salvation *ducks head*
    *slowly stand up*

    So I’m not sure If I’ll hate this movie. I’m not invested in this series nearly as much as I am in others.

    2. I’ll defend it. Not the worst film in the world and it didn’t leave the franchise a tattered mess. It was more or less a self contained side-story that could be embraced or rejected safely. I enjoyed it for what it was.

  9. At the risk of mixing franchises, this seems a bit “Wibbley-wobbly,” even for a franchise founded on a “timey-wimey” premise. So much so that the only way I see them getting around it is to hang a lantern of pure corn and cheese on it. I’ll probably enjoy it if I’m bored and it’s in syndication.

    1. Nice ref.
      .
      The Terminator series has always messed with its’ understanding of time. The first one was entirely a paradox.
      .
      The key to understanding is that these are not science fiction stories, they’re fantasy, because going backwards in time isn’t possible.**
      .
      Mew
      .
      .
      .
      ** If it were, then we’re either all in the matrix and there’s no point in *not* pretending, eh?

      1. As a long-time viewer of the various Star Trek TV shows and movies, I have long ago accepted the axiom that time travel works any way the writer finds convenient.

        .

        (Watching Star Trek is also useful for crushing any hope of consistency/continuity between outings, so I’ve got that going for me too, which is nice.)

        1. Exactly. Once there’s no particular reason to believe that there’s actually, you know, *SCIENCE* behind it .. it’s just fun.
          .
          Star Trek is, indeed, excellent training for this, as is managing to listen to an entire Al Gore speech on AGW, in part because they both have about the same actual science content.
          .
          Mew

      2. Oh clearly. Unless one approaches it from a non-linear, non subjective view….[hold on. *ahem*]…deterministic view. Then any time travel back to the past will have already happened and become part of history, thus avoiding a paradox because the future already happened as well.
        .
        .
        .
        OTOH, that would mean discernable time travelers in our history and a disappointing lack of multi-verses. Where’s my blue pill…

  11. Is there actually a plot? Or is this one of those modern action flicks that’s just a string of violent scenes loosely strung together?

    1. Bing! Give the man a cigar.

      Probably, anyway.

      And don’t forget, apparently also strung together by the Temporal Law Of Preservation Of Catch-Phrases.

  12. I was thinking this might be worth the ticket price.. if popcorn and milkduds were also available. I have always liked Arnold.

    Completely off topic: but my auto spell correct turned “milkduds” into “milkweeds” and then “mildews” too funny.

  13. Given all the time travel plotlines these days, I’m kinda wondering if we’re going to see the Doctor show up in his TARDIS…

Comments are closed.