I might as well offer my own two bits on that interview that Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins director McG did with The 213 recently; it’s been making the rounds today:
(213): How will the TV show play into the film in terms of timelines?
McG: It’s a little tricky, but I mean obviously there’s some liberties taken. What Cameron did with the second picture and what Mostow did with the third and certainly the TV show in the spirit of week in, week out episodic television has to take some license as well. We’re going to do what we can to respect them all, but there are indeed some timeline issues. We speak to the idea of one version of a future, which is clearly articulated by Michael Biehn in the first picture.
Good luck with that! One of the reasons I have always loved the first film is because it is such a tightly-plotted story that there is, quite simply, no way to make a sequel to it. So I was disappointed when I heard almost 20 years ago that James Cameron was, in fact, going to make a sequel to it — and then I didn’t know what to make of the fact that Cameron decided to jettison the first film’s underlying approach to time-travel altogether. The first film is defined by causal loops; the second film says these loops can be ignored, even though the story wouldn’t exist without them. And then, the third film came along and said the loops are still there, just kind of … wrinkled. So it has been a delight to watch The Sarah Connor Chronicles — I have only seen the first three episodes so far — and to see the way this series just ignores the concept of franchise continuity altogether. There is simply no way that this series and the third movie can exist in the same timeline — not unless they plan to wrap the series up in a deeply contrived and unsatisfying way. So really, why bother trying to “respect” all the various sequels and spin-offs? Why not just accept that each story takes place in its own parallel universe, and leave it at that?
And wait a minute, what’s this about Michael Biehn saying something about there being only one version of the future? Didn’t his character say the exact opposite, that there is no fate but what we make for ourselves, when he passed along a message from John Connor to his mother? And even if Biehn’s character did say that there was only one version of the future, haven’t the sequels and the TV spin-off all pretty much disproved that now?
(213): So is this taking off after number three or number two?
McG: This is the space between; this is post Judgment day. So there really is no continuation, you know what I mean? Its sort of a different animal, whereas the first two pictures on this thing are Terminators from the future, this picture takes place in 2019.
Uh, sounds like the answer is: “After number three.” The third picture in “this thing” also featured a couple of Terminators from the future, too. And it was the third film that ended with the missiles flying — apparently no later than 2004. Unless they rewrite the back-story all over again, this would mean the new film is taking place at least 15 years after Judgment Day.
(213): I was curious, you have your own signature style, which is obviously something that’s different from Terminator films we’ve seen before – how do you feel it will mesh with the new film?
McG: It was important to me to honor James Cameron’s pictures and I spoke to him for a long time, he’s down in New Zealand doing Avatar, and he was very encouraging saying “Look, I was in the same spot following Ridley Scott on the second Aliens picture – it’s like, what are you doing, it’s Ridley!” And he said, “I wanted to be respectful of the film by Ridley, but I wanna go in a direction where hopefully I can satisfy the hard core fans, but also build upon what’s put before us.” And I would never be so bold as to say that we’re going to be successful, but we’re certainly going to do our best and I think we’re greatly protected by Christian Bale.
I gotta admit, I like that James Cameron anecdote. And not just because I like Aliens (1986) a fair bit better than Alien (1979) — though in fact, one of the things I like about Aliens is the way it stays very true to the spirit of its predecessor, while building on it. I have no idea if McG can do half as good a job at sequelizing someone else’s work as Cameron did, but at least McG is paying some sort of homage to the guy who started this franchise.
(213): Come on, who would be McG’s “dream Terminator”?!
McG: You know, those are big shoes to fill. If you go back and look at the first picture it’s so funny because there’s such a decided difference between what Arnold was doing in the first picture and in the second and third picture. I mean there’s this decided physicality – look what Robert Patrick did to get ready for the role. He’s a guy who I adore, I put him in every movie I’ve ever done. And it’s very difficult to say because it’s a decidedly masculine role and I think we’re living in a time where a lot of actors are very effeminate and they’re sort of skinny, heroine chic and there’s really a masculine component to the role. And there’s guys out there like Russell Crowe and Eric Bana, bring a good physicality, they do what they do, but I don’t know if they’re exactly right at the end of the day. (Smiles) Josh Brolin is a very exciting actor – we’ll see.
Hmmm, I know Jeffrey Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere thinks this is a bad idea, but I kind of like the sound of that. Though it would be funny to see Brolin play a Terminator so soon after starring in No Country for Old Men, a film in which he played someone who was trying to get away from another character who was described by many critics as resembling a Terminator. In any case, won’t Brolin be busy with Oliver Stone‘s Bush pretty soon?
It’s also interesting to hear Crowe and Bana named so close together, since one was rumoured to be in the running for the part of the villain in Star Trek XI, and the other actually got the part.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In