Don't shoot the messenger 

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
Keep trying, Ace.

Here's another piece of argument I don't endorse or not. But'''Terminator salvation begs the question is the film trying to Save the Terminators, REALLY?, from what do they need saving. Tern=minator: Salvation not only makes clear it is another episode in the series but also seems to clarify the use of the term Salvation.<shrugs>

Skip

I know I'm late to the game on this, but based on the film itself, I would say that Terminator Salvation (without the colon) is not inappropriate, based on *SPOILER ALERT* what happens with Sam Worthington's Character.  Maybe that's why there isn't a single freakin' colon anywhere in or around the movie title.  Anywhere.

Therefore, the there is one Terminator that has achieved Salvation.  Hence, the title is appropriate without the colon... as the filmmakers intended.

And if we were to look at movies in a similar vein, why doesn't Alien Resurrection have a colon (see 024543-098621)?

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Taro:

Quote:
At the start of my thread here, I was thinking like Hal and since neither the cover nor the on-screen title has a colon, I thought it didn't need one.

Point of clarification.  I've always said the colon was needed.   

A bit late to respond but I just wish to say sorry for mixing things up 


Leiterfluid also makes an interesting argument. After watching the movie, the Salvation part made a lot more sense to me, especially in a sense of "Terminator achieving Salvation" or "A Terminator bringing Salvation" (SPOILER: because in the end, it was the Terminator that saved John Connor in more than one ways and in doing so, saved the Resistance). There's definitely a lot going on with this title and taking it from that perspective, I can see why one could argue it's not an episode describtor.

Quoting Leiterfluid:

Quote:
And if we were to look at movies in a similar vein, why doesn't Alien Resurrection have a colon (see 024543-098621)?

Yup, based on the criteria I set out, it would be "Alien: Resurrection".

Come on gang, Gerri has already given her support to Hal. He has a very firm grip on Titles. I have agreed with every point he has made. Rather than waste time arguing about some obscure way to interpret the rules, ask Hal. No, I'm not saying follow him blindly, just ask. I never quite had a grasp on this before, but through this thread, I now have a much better understanding of the nuance's of Titles. Thanks Hal and the others for questioning.    

Quoting Staid S Barr:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
I don't see the fact that they decided not to use a number mean anything. So they started with a number and then stopped. No different then the Star Trek titles.

But then how can we decide it is still part of the series.? Not just in this particular case, but generally.

If the movie uses the "main title" of the original movie, e.g., "Star Trek", "Die Hard", "Superman", followed by a word or phrase in smaller letters on the cover, then it's a pretty good bet that it's part of the "series".

I have to agree with, Hal on this. His logic is solid and he is absolutely correct that no matter how we say it, there is always going to be some oddball title that will throw us off. Would it be Terminator Rise of the Machines, I think not. It's not T2 Judgement Day (or Teminator 2 Judgement Day). Some users just seem to want to make everything difficult, and instead of shrugging it off and recognize the oddball title for what it is, throw up all sorts of straw man arguments that are clearly invalid. The one minor disagreement I have with Hal, is that I don't believe this particular title represents any sort of precedent or determinant, I think it is simply an oddity, for which good arguments can be presented on both sides and HAVE been. Oddballs will always have to dealt with one on one or case by case.

Skip