« The Big Fisherman -- Disney's "lost" biblical epic | Main | Who are the greatest active directors? »
February 20, 2009
Will the original Sarah Connor "be back"?
If she does take the part, that would be interesting, as her character died between the second and third films. Also, while Sarah Connor provided the voice-over in Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991), her son John has been doing the voice-over work ever since, at least on the big screen, both in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003) and in the trailers for the new film.
So, will John be doing any voice-overs within the new film itself? Will both the deceased Sarah and the very alive John be sharing the narrating duties? And if they do share the voice-over chores, will their voices work together or will there be some sort of tension between them and their possibly differing perspectives on the story? (Recall how, in both the teaser and the trailer, John has said, "This is not the future my mother warned me about...")
Meanwhile, in related news, things are apparently not looking very good for The Sarah Connor Chronicles, ratings-wise. Variety says the show "opened meekly" when it moved to Friday nights last week, as a lead-in to Joss Whedon's Dollhouse.
Comments
One important note to add to this is that in the current series mythos, Sarah may not be dead after all. Why? The TV show has actually changed the mythology since the third movie.
While not completely confirmed, the new films will apparently be using the mythology built by the first two movies and the show. On the show, Sarah and John (with a robot protector) use time travel to skip over Sarah's death and thus change everything from the third movie. So, in a lot of ways, the third movie doesn't matter and, really, didn't happen.
So, because of the time travel, the future is changing and it wouldn't be that odd for Sarah Connor to narrate or even still be alive.
Posted By: Todd Hertz | February 20, 2009 2:20 PM
Todd wrote:
While not completely confirmed, the new films will apparently be using the mythology built by the first two movies and the show. . . . So, in a lot of ways, the third movie doesn't matter and, really, didn't happen.
I've heard the opposite, actually.
On the one hand, the guy writing the prequel comic for the new movie is on record as saying that there is no connection between the new movie and the TV series: "I've only seen bits and pieces of the TV series, but since it essentially takes place in its own timeline and continuity and is not referenced by the new movie, I won't be pulling in anything from it for the comic. This was at the request of the studio, which I'm fine with because it gives me more freedom to mold the setting and characters I'm interested in for the comic."
And, on the other hand, the new movie will apparently include plot elements taken directly from the third movie -- including, of course, the fact that there is a war with the machines in the first place, but also the fact that John Connor has a wife named Kate, etc.
Todd wrote:
On the show, Sarah and John (with a robot protector) use time travel to skip over Sarah's death and thus change everything from the third movie.
Not quite. In the continuity of the movies, Sarah died in the mid-1990s, but in the TV show, she is still alive in 1999, before she jumps into the future, and she still has something like six years to live. So it would seem that the TV series doesn't skip over an event in the third movie's timeline, so much as it just ignores the third movie's timeline altogether.
Though I suppose it's possible the series is just messing with the established back-story, the same way T3 did.
Posted By: Peter T Chattaway | February 20, 2009 5:49 PM
I don't believe in a prequel just because the movie was pretty bad...
Posted By: Voice Over Agents | February 23, 2011 2:44 AM