Terminator Reboot

[Redeemer]

saw the trailer and I assumed I was going to see a reboot, but I am not sure now

I actually liked the previous movie "4".

[PangolinFeets]

I'm surprised how good Emilia Clarke looks as Sarah Connor. Pretty damn close!

I have no idea what to think of this yet. Terminator 1 and 2 are among my favorite movies. I really disliked 3 and Salvation was bleh.

[Wildcat]

That looks pretty cool. Looks like a mix of the original story and T2 in one plot.

Looks like we're gonna get Evil Arnold vs Good Arnold. Thats awesome.

I didn't think it needed a reboot but whatever this is looks better than I thought.

[Candy Kappa]

Looks cool, I'm excited.

I do like the in-canon reboot, since stuff like that can be done with time travel, and you don't have to completely reboot the franchise or ignore the previous movies (similar like the last X-men movie did).

I do wish it looked a bit... grittier, more like the first 2 movies, it has a bit too much of a modern movie shine to it. The future technology looks too "modern" to be a futuristic setting based from the 80's. Case in point; Alien Isolation, while being a modern video game, it still keeps the esthetics of the first movie's design of the future intact with casettes and olden times computer screens.

[Sumac]

That's what they spent the last ten years trying to eventually do, but geeks kept flipping their sh*t because Arnold wasn't in it. I swear, they're never going to move past that guy. He'll be 30 years dead and they'll be putting CGI stickers of his face over other actors' just to keep making Terminator movies, telling the same story a hundred times, instead of - God Forbid - making the franchise about more than just friggin' Arnold.

It's quite sad really. I consider Terminator universe developed enough, to not to be entirely focused on John ****ing Connot and T800s every time. But good luck trying to convince people that Terminator movie can be about something else...

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Looks like we're gonna get Evil Arnold vs Good Arnold. Thats awesome.

Only to people who never moved out of the 20th century

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Sumac

It's quite sad really. I consider Terminator universe developed enough, to not to be entirely focused on John ****ing Connot and T800s every time. But good luck trying to convince people that Terminator movie can be about something else...

HAH. You and I agree. Really MUST be "Judgment Day".

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa

Looks cool, I'm excited.

I do like the in-canon reboot, since stuff like that can be done with time travel, and you don't have to completely reboot the franchise or ignore the previous movies (similar like the last X-men movie did).

I do wish it looked a bit... grittier, more like the first 2 movies, it has a bit too much of a modern movie shine to it. The future technology looks too "modern" to be a futuristic setting based from the 80's. Case in point; Alien Isolation, while being a modern video game, it still keeps the esthetics of the first movie's design of the future intact with casettes and olden times computer screens.

Not to start an argument but it really annoys me when people say modern movies look too new or shiny. I recently got into a discussion over Jurassic World on imdb.

How do people expect movies to look? Of course they look new. They're made today. Just like 90s looked newer than 80s and 80s looked newer than the 70s etc. It just sounds like more "back in the day" talk when I see this.

Also what do you mean by the future technology looks too modern? This makes no sense. The future in the series is not set in the 80s.

The future looked 80s in the original because the movie was made in the 80s. Not because the future was meant to look retro or whatever.

The future is set in 2029. How is it supposed to look? It's meant to portray a long time from the present with really high technology. Obviously in real life were not close to this but in the series it's this way.

[TigerClaw]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Not to start an argument but it really annoys me when people say modern movies look too new or shiny. I recently got into a discussion over Jurassic World on imdb.

How do people expect movies to look? Of course they look new. They're made today. Just like 90s looked newer than 80s and 80s looked newer than the 70s etc.

Also what do you mean by the future technology looks too modern? This makes no sense. The future in the series is not set in the 80s.

The future looked 80s in the original because the movie was made in the 80s. Not because the future was meant to look retro or whatever.

The future is set in 2029. How is it supposed to look? It's meant to portray a long time from the present with really high technology. Obviously in real life were not close to this but in the series it's this way.

Yeah, I don't like how people complain about everything looking so brand new, instead of how they were back in the days, They don't understand that these movies are made today to make it more modern and relatively with today's technology.

[Leo656]

Everybody "understands" just fine, nobody's F'n retarded. It's just that a lot of people think that when everything on screen is blatantly not there and literally everything but the actor's FACE is some CGI paint job, it really doesn't look very good.

When it's used as excessively as is the norm nowadays, CGI looks fake as hell. Whether it's a forgivable sin is up to the individual viewer's choice. I personally say it's lazy when in a lot of cases, practical effects would both look better and not be all that cost-prohibitive. Lots of times the studios Just Don't Feel Like It, and I don't agree with that at all.

I mean when it's all blown up in theaters sometimes you can't tell, but watching some of these newer movies at home on a TV it's literally like watching a video game. It's just NOT the best way to do SFX, because the effects simply aren't as convincing.

CGI has its place but the fact that it's The Only Way anymore is stupid. It was never supposed to go that far. I understand it's easier to just paint a gun in an actor's hand on a screen than build a goddamn prop, but it sure doesn't look very convincing. It looks like a step up from Roger Rabbit, really.

[TigerClaw]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Everybody "understands" just fine, nobody's F'n retarded. It's just that a lot of people think that when everything on screen is blatantly not there and literally everything but the actor's FACE is some CGI paint job, it really doesn't look very good.

When it's used as excessively as is the norm nowadays, CGI looks fake as hell. Whether it's a forgivable sin is up to the individual viewer's choice. I personally say it's lazy when in a lot of cases, practical effects would both look better and not be all that cost-prohibitive. Lots of times the studios Just Don't Feel Like It, and I don't agree with that at all.

I mean when it's all blown up in theaters sometimes you can't tell, but watching some of these newer movies at home on a TV it's literally like watching a video game. It's just NOT the best way to do SFX, because the effects simply aren't as convincing.

CGI has its place but the fact that it's The Only Way anymore is stupid. It was never supposed to go that far. I understand it's easier to just paint a gun in an actor's hand on a screen than build a goddamn prop, but it sure doesn't look very convincing. It looks like a step up from Roger Rabbit, really.

CGI is only used when creating worlds that do not exist or creatures, I think people tend to have a problem with CGI is when, They use it to create backgrounds, Rather then built these giant sets, They would have the actors play in front of the green screen, and they just paint in the sets later.

[Leo656]

Not quite, it's that it's become over-used even in places where it's entirely not necessary, to an overall detrimental effect. It's NOT just used to "enhance" things; they don't even make costumes anymore in some cases. When it's actually used right, you can do some neat things, but just slapping it all over everything because you can usually looks terrible.

[TigerClaw]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Not quite, it's that it's become over-used even in places where it's entirely not necessary, to an overall detrimental effect. It's NOT just used to "enhance" things; they don't even make costumes anymore in some cases. When it's actually used right, you can do some neat things, but just slapping it all over everything because you can usually looks terrible.

Oh you mean when they had the actors wear a green suit and they just paint over the costume, They usually do that because, it would be uncomfortable for the actors to wear them, And be cost effective.

[Leo656]

I'm familiar with the common list of Excuses.

"We're not gonna work, we're gonna push buttons" is all it really comes down to.

[Wildcat]

Well cgi aside I see the "too new and shiny" complaint for movies that aren't about action or don't require special effects. They're talking more of the look of the movie not the environment or actors.

I've seen people suggest some movies be made to purposely look like they were produced in the 90s or another era. How absurd is this?

I know it's more of the usual "older movies were better" thing but some of it is just outrageous. I guess that there's always been stuff like this though. Some people must have criticized the 90s and 80s.

Ooh you kids and your new fangled color/animatronics/cgi/high definition resolution...lol

[Candy Kappa]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Not to start an argument but it really annoys me when people say modern movies look too new or shiny. I recently got into a discussion over Jurassic World on imdb.

How do people expect movies to look? Of course they look new. They're made today. Just like 90s looked newer than 80s and 80s looked newer than the 70s etc. It just sounds like more "back in the day" talk when I see this.

Also what do you mean by the future technology looks too modern? This makes no sense. The future in the series is not set in the 80s.

The future looked 80s in the original because the movie was made in the 80s. Not because the future was meant to look retro or whatever.

The future is set in 2029. How is it supposed to look? It's meant to portray a long time from the present with really high technology. Obviously in real life were not close to this but in the series it's this way.

I thought I made it pretty clear what I meant in my comment, but apparently not.

and as a note, it's isn't about CGI, as a 3D modeler and animator, so I of course love CGI.

What I meant, was that as a Terminator film set around the time of the first one, It didn't convey the future we saw in the first Terminator movie (granted we didn't see a whole lot). It's not about "new and shiny" It's about esthetically looking in-canon. each decade have their own idea on how the future will look like, for instance, a lot of modern futuristic movies, the future is very "iPad", sleek, minimal deign and touch screens. The future in the 80's not as much.

And that's why I used Alien Isolation as an example, as they kept the esthetics of the first movie. Yes, it's set in the future, but it's set in a future designed from the late 70's early 80's, small computer screens with only black backgrounds and green letters, cassettes and big clunky radios. They kept the visuals like the original movie, instead of making a futuristic setting with the mindset from the 201x's.

I personally, did not feel that the trailer showed us a similar visual esthetics when it came to the design of the future stuff we saw (like the time traveling machine). The efects are good, but not imo visually and design-wise too much "the future seen by 201x's eyes".

Another example. Imagine that the Millennium Falcon, suddenly had a sleek modern Apple design with touch screens and Siri installed in Ep7, because the movie was made in 2014.

[TigerClaw]

Its like that whole argument over film vs digital, Some prefer the look of film over digital, cause they like the graininess, other like the more clean look of digital. the advantages over digital is, they don't have to go through the trouble of scanning the film on a computer, with film they have to scan the entire 35mm to digital format, when they have to work on post production effects and stuff.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa

What I meant, was that as a Terminator film set around the time of the first one, It didn't convey the future we saw in the first Terminator movie (granted we didn't see a whole lot). It's not about "new and shiny" It's about esthetically looking in-canon. each decade have their own idea on how the future will look like, for instance, a lot of modern futuristic movies, the future is very "iPad", sleek, minimal deign and touch screens. The future in the 80's not as much.

I don't think that's the reason for the change though.
I think they wanted to be able to explain why the future (our present) doesn't look like they thought it would in the 80's, or again, in the 90's, etc.

I think they're trying to straighten out the multiple timelines, the way X-men did this year. They also want to reconcile why the predicted events that were suppose to unfold over the last few decades, didn't.

Time travels tricky, so they say.

[Candy Kappa]

It was a minor nitpick, that I apparently had to explain in better detail.

It had nothing to do with film vs. digital, or cgi vs. practical. It's simply about the esthetics and the looks, and that they did not mesh as well between Terminator 1 and this movie. From the trailer it didn't look like they went the extra mile to make it seem like a post-apocalyptic setting in the vein of an 80's movie (which the future in Terminator is) the atmosphere wasn't there, close but no cigar. But then again its only a trailer.

[sdp]

I'm a casual fan of Terminator, I like the movies but while I do agree the first two are better I don't think they're classic films by any means, just good action movies. I thought 3 was good for what it was, sure it rehashed ideas but it was entertaining in its own right. I wanted to see Salvation but the bad reviews stirred me away but I love the concept of it actually taking place during the war, to me that was the only way to make the franchise interesting. This new trailer looks like a fun action movie but it doesn't seem to offer anything new, just another alternate timeline rehashing ideas but in a "What if" scenario, that's cool too but its nothing new, so yeah this is sort of a soft reboot the way I see it. Hell with the contradicting ways the timetravel works in this universe I don't see why people said Sarah Connors Chronicles was not in continuity, it fits perfectly in this convoluted mess of a timeline. And talking about that show I only saw the first half but really enjoyed it.