Comments on: Comic-Con: You’ve been warned — ‘Terminator Salvation’ is ‘not for pansies’!

By: Hemant

Hemant — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 08:38:12 +0000

Oh,, so finally future is turning over.This will b the greatest hits of all time “Hope” so, Terminator salvation will always exist inn?

By: Lag

Lag — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:48:51 +0000

Hey Strepsi, stop being such a pansy.
On topic, I can’t wait for Terminator Salvation. It is easily my number 1 most anticipated movie. I’m also glad that it’s not going to be for pansies.

By: Nat X

Nat X — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:01:08 +0000

Why is everyone always doggin’ on T3? I’ve loved all the movies. Nick Stahl was an awesome John Connor. Christian Bale is hot, but I’m beginning to think he can only play one type of character. This movie better be awesome! (I haven’t had the guts to watch the TV show. It looks terrible.) And I think the Terminator franchise outgrew Arnold a while back. I seriously don’t want to see him naked EVER again. Ever. He’s like a hundred years old now!

By: Kaitain

Kaitain — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:40:56 +0000

Or try to imagine if they did a sequel to The Godfather without Marlon Brando! What a joke…that would be terrible. (Ahem.)
It’s actually great that they’re doing a sequel without Schwarzenegger. Having to crowbar creakie old Arnie in would require stupid amounts of hoop-jumping contortion in the script. Forget it; take the great premise of the war between humans and machines, and go tabula rasa with it, constrained only by the few things we already know must be there: a 600 series with rubber skin, HKs appearing long before the inflitrator units etc. The Terminator’s greatest strength is its concept and its narrative universe, not Arnie.

By: Rob Grizzly

Rob Grizzly — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:09:00 +0000

I can never trust a director that doesn’t have a name. I hated Charlie’s Angels. A terminator movie without James Cameron is bad enough, but one without Schwartzenegger? How about Die Hard without Bruce Willis or Rambo without Stallone. Isn’t the Fox TV Show bad enough? I love Christain Bale (Rescue Dawn, 3:10 to Yuma) but I have a bad feeling about this one…

By: Kaitain

Kaitain — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:27:30 +0000

I wish people would realise that it wasn’t Terminator 3 that “twisted the story up in knots”; it was *T2*. T2 DOES NOT MAKE SENSE AS A SEQUEL, no matter how much people may love it. The whole point of the first movie was that history was a loop, that the act of time travel DID NOT CHANGE and COULD NEVER HAVE CHANGED the future. That’s the take-home message: any attempt to change history unwittingly creates the history that was always there. (That’s the whole point of the inclusion of the photo of Sarah.) It’s a genuinely smart, brilliant movie. T2 is routine popcorn fare that completely retcons the mechanics of time travel in the narrative universe. And it was unnecessary: just a rehash story. I wanted to see the actual future war being fought. Even though it’s McG, I’m oddly excited by the prospect of Salvation.

By: Sarah L.

Sarah L. — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:03:24 +0000

I’ve never heard the term “pansy” in reference to gays. I’ve only ever heard it used with the implied meaning of “scaredy-cat”. I’m sure that’s exactly what the director meant by his comments.
I’m excited about this movie!

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:42:04 +0000

This is roughly equivalent to a recent story about a Dallas County judge who was offended by the phrase, “black hole” (A celestial phenomenon). He assumed it was a racial comment, but the city commissioner was merely making an analogy. The office was neither a singularity that sucks up all matter, even light (and pansies) nor was it a reference to race. People….lighten up!
http://yourdailychum.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/black-hole-apparently-is-an-offensive-racial-term-or-how-race-baiting-is-a-political-ideology/

By: t3hdow

t3hdow — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:59:13 +0000

To Strepsi:
Dandeman is absolutely right. Although you’re technically right about pansy being a denotative synonym for f*ggot, I highly doubt most people correlate the two in that context. In fact, I read it as another term for ‘scaredy-cat’, ‘coward’, ‘wimp’ or the more un-PC ‘p*ssy’. To this day, I haven’t heard any gays rant against the word and Worthington most likely didn’t mean that, so cut him some slack. He said it to emphasize the militaristic machismo that’s probably going to influence the film, not to belittle gays.
Speaking of which, in the ’50s, more people used the word gay to mean happy and in 17th century England signified the word f*ggot as a bunch of twigs instead of how Isaiah Washington used it to T.R. Knight back in 2006. In other words, next time you argue about someone’s terminology, don’t take the perp’s words completely out of context.

By: dandeman

dandeman — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 05:54:55 +0000

Like all things, words and their meanings change with time. So don’t be a pansy; Strep