Terminator Reboot

[Raph's Girl]

Welp. Terminator's being rebooted. There'll be a new trillogy and a tv series (that's supposadly connected with the ORIGINAL Terminator film but will somehow split off into the new) to go along with it. Casting has already begun with Game of Thrones actress Emilia Clarke being cast as the new Sarah Connor.

The first movie is currently titled Terminator: Genesis.

http://collider.com/emilia-clarke-terminator/

[TheCanadiandrome]

Interesting news

[Wildcat]

Im glad this series is continuing. Wasnt Arnold officially back?

[Andrew NDB]

It's not a reboot. It's a prequel/sequel hybrid, with a Sarah Connor before we ever met her in T1 and a John Connor after T4. And yes, Arnold is in it.

[chrisdude]

I've been following this closely. After TMNT and Star Trek, Terminator is my third favorite thing. But I'm not still sure if I should be excited.

Presumably, if the TV show splinters off of the original timeline, Star Trek style, the movie trilogy is in that new timeline, as well. My least favorite thing is writing out canon events.

Terminator Salvation was bad. But it was also the first time in the Terminator movie series where we didn't have closure. Terminator 3 had issues, but 1, 2 and 3 all could have been a stopping point. Salvation feels like a new thing, and now we're left hanging...

At the same time, Terminator should be about people running from killer robots. That's what Salvation got wrong. And, at least, these sounds like a return to form.

As for Emilia Clarke, I've never heard of her, so I have no opinion...
I do think she favors Linda Hamilton, a bit. If they did her hair the same way for the spinning-off point, she'd be a dead ringer.
http://media1.break.com/breakstudios/2012/1/24/Sarah.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/1o3SJaY.jpg

[Andrew NDB]

Salvation feels like a new thing, and now we're left hanging...


Well, be glad you did with the original McG plan... for T5 he planned to have John Connor go back in time to our present to "prepare" our military for a time travel invasion from the future with an army of Terminators or something awful like that.

I wouldn't worry much about T4 being invalidated... it just probably won't be mentioned much, but T5 will be featuring a John Connor from after the events of Salvation. It's just, he has to time travel back to his mom's early adulthood for some reason, presumably creating a whole new timeline in effect (think Old Spock going back in time from the end of the TNG era in Abram's "Star Trek," which seems to be the template everyone is following for their "reboots" these days).

[Wildcat]

I see alot of people say Salvation was bad. I enjoyed it. It wasn't original but fighting robots in a futuristic world isn't anyway. I thought it was nice to have Skynet be multiple computers or it could have ended right on the spot.

I don't know what they have planned but with the time travel element this series could literally go on forever, constantly creating new time lines. Personally I would prefer they dont over use it. If Doomsday is gonna happen no matter what Id rather see more movies in the future taking down Skynet.

[chrisdude]

Well, be glad you did with the original McG plan... for T5 he planned to have John Connor go back in time to our present to "prepare" our military for a time travel invasion from the future with an army of Terminators or something awful like that.

I wouldn't worry much about T4 being invalidated... it just probably won't be mentioned much, but T5 will be featuring a John Connor from after the events of Salvation. It's just, he has to time travel back to his mom's early adulthood for some reason, presumably creating a whole new timeline in effect (think Old Spock going back in time from the end of the TNG era in Abram's "Star Trek," which seems to be the template everyone is following for their "reboots" these days).I don't like the idea. And I don't think it's panned out for Star Trek. But I also feel like "people chased by killer robots from the future" is what makes Terminator what it is. So, I can understand if they want to drop the future war setting, and return to that form. Terminator 3 was probably mistaken to let Judgement Day take place.

I see alot of people say Salvation was bad. I enjoyed it. It wasn't original but fighting robots in a futuristic world isn't anyway. I thought it was nice to have Skynet be multiple computers or it could have ended right on the spot.

I don't know what they have planned but with the time travel element this series could literally go on forever, constantly creating new time lines. Personally I would prefer they dont over use it. If Doomsday is gonna happen no matter what Id rather see more movies in the future taking down Skynet.My dream was to see the second set of movies end with Kyle Reese being sent back to save Sarah Connor from the original Terminator... :ohwell:

[Andrew NDB]

I don't know what they have planned but with the time travel element this series could literally go on forever, constantly creating new time lines.

I agree. It sets a stupid, repetitive precedent which ultimately gives us nothing new.

If Doomsday is gonna happen no matter what Id rather see more movies in the future taking down Skynet.

I also agree. That's really the only direction they can/should go in that will keep things fresh. If they want to tidy up some things like, "How did SkyNET get Arnold's skin/template for the T-101 CSM for the T-800/850?" then they can answer that by having some TechCOM forces getting captured by SkyNET in the Future War (imagine, TechCOM guys that all look like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Robert Patrick, and Kristanna Loken launching a last ditch mission to take out SkyNET but getting captured, their likenesses stolen).

But no more time travel (unless they want to make a "final" Terminator movie which ends with Kyle getting in that time displacement chamber), no more Sarah Connor (enough with Mom, already! how can the training wheels ever come off if they keep coming back to her?), and no more new timelines. Enough with that, already. Decide on a timeline and see it through, for once.

I don't like the idea. And I don't think it's panned out for Star Trek.

Oh, I agree there absolutely. It was fun for a one-off thing... but as the future direction of all Star Trek? No, no, no. Back to the 23rd century, with a Kirk and Spock who are inherently not Kirk and Spock? What's the point in that, and who is that even for? The old fans, showing us a time-altered different origin for Kirk and Spock which makes them not the same characters they care about? No? So it's for new fans, then? Well, why even use Kirk and Spock, then? It's stupid, stupid, stupid.

Star Trek is quintessentially about moving forward... not backwards.

Terminator 3 was probably mistaken to let Judgement Day take place.

I don't agree, that was the biggest thing that T3 really got right. And it was a fairly ballsy move... all that pretense and bam, there it is, the bombs actually dropping and the machines becoming self-aware. T4 wasn't terrible but it kind of dropped the ball on giving us the full-on Future War we all wanted to see which T3 succeeded in setting up, if nothing else. I hope T4 isn't being looked at by the producers as a reason why we can't ever get a proper Future War movie.

[Wildcat]

^ Oh I like that idea about their likeness being stolen. I would have loved to see the world being taken over by Skynet first like it started in T3. I really liked T3 equal to T2.

I wonder if theyve ever thought of explaining, or trying too anyway, the famous paradox. Some people really liked that but imo it was dumb to make Kyle John's dad.

Aside from it being impossible its almost comedic. Ive read some explanations on IMDb about parallel timelines but it still doesn't make sense and just digs it into a deeper hole.

Thats the only thing I try to overlook in the series. Theres bound to be contradiction in time travel stories but why did they purposely make a paradox?

[chrisdude]

They probably just thought it was clever. Surely there weren't thinking four movies down the road. It's a simple as it looks. One just has to accept that it is a paradox. I've also seen people try to explain it away, but it just is what it is.

[TigerClaw]

Matt Smith has been cast in the new Terminator movie, And its supposedly a major role, Since its part of a new trilogy.
http://www.deadline.com/2014/05/matt-smith-terminator-major-role-doctor-who/

[turtlefanforever]

already reported here didn't know about the tv series though

[TheCanadiandrome]

Interesting cast list that I've seen

[electric_sheep]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/10390422_851246088222422_5346375080320120516_n.jpg
So yeah, first pic.
What are they doing here, seriously?
Poor Emilia Clark, she tries so hard but she can't pass that one one that she's got and she's blander than a white wall and can't act to save her life. Also she's completly wrong for Sarah Connor and you can't see her as anyone else then Daneries...
And Jai Courtney, seriously?
Guy sucks, he just sucks isn't one Sam Worthington enough?

[Wildcat]

Oh nice to see things are getting started.

[chrisdude]

Resurrecting the thread, because discussion of this movie has resurfaced in the Toy Story 4 thread.

My opinion has changed a bit, over the past year, and I've warmed up to the idea since I posted here, in December.

The plot details revealed by Entertainment Weekly have a made a huge buzz: (EDIT: Not the good kind.)
http://popwatch.ew.com/2014/10/29/this-weeks-cover-first-look-at-terminator-genisys/

[TheCanadiandrome]

so...that all sounds rather interesting i guess

[Walkabout]

The EW photos look absolutely horrendous, the one of the Doctor Who guy firing his flame unit thing one handed is incredibly bad.

[Leo656]

Yeah those photos are cheeeeeezy. That does not bode well.

[ObiWanFan4life]

I know it's been addressed already, but it bears repeating, those promos look cheesy as hell. I'll still wait until the first trailer debuts.

[TheCanadiandrome]

I'll with hold judgement til a decent trailor comes out

[Sumac]

Terminator: Genesys site (http://www.terminatormovie.com/livingonesheet/#close).

http://i0.wp.com/www.heyuguys.com/images/2014/12/Terminator-Genisys-Poster.jpg?resize=503%2C650

[TigerClaw]

Terminator: Genesys site (http://www.terminatormovie.com/livingonesheet/#close).

http://i0.wp.com/www.heyuguys.com/images/2014/12/Terminator-Genisys-Poster.jpg?resize=503%2C650
And the Trailer will debut this Thursday.

[TheCanadiandrome]

Or earlier lol like Star Wars did :p

[TigerClaw]

Here's a 15 second Sneak Peak of the Trailer

t_77GeNEzFQ

[TheCanadiandrome]

Oh my Mary mother Jesus Joseph!!!! :o :o :teek:

[Vicky82]

Teaser Trailer is up.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=367754833399461

Looks good but i'm confused, is this a reboot or a prequel or sequel.

[TigerClaw]

Teaser Trailer is up.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=367754833399461

Looks good but i'm confused, is this a reboot or a prequel or sequel.
Here it is on Youtube, Looks bad ass. :)

62E4FJTwSuc

[Sumac]

Looks good but i'm confused, is this a reboot or a prequel or sequel.
Reboot, but based on the first two movies.

[TigerClaw]

Reboot, but based on the first two movies.
It's both, Every Terminator film had different future timelines.

[chrisdude]

Well, it's different, because it's the first movie to change part of the timeline we've already seen. It's whatever you would call Star Trek...

[Sumac]

It's both, Every Terminator film had different future timelines.
Not confrimed really. About "every movie happens in separate timeline thing", I mean.

[Turo602]

As if Terminator wasn't confusing enough... Still, the trailer looks great, can't wait to see the film.

[ZariusTwo]

Looks s*ite. Will be s*ite

[Sumac]

Oh, cinemanastradamus in the house!!

[B-Man]

Gaaaaargh, knew this was gonna look bad :( At best, it'll be another 'T3'. At worst it'll be another 'Salvation'. Either way is lousy. Why is it so hard to make a good Terminator movie???

[TheCanadiandrome]

Ok I'm with the minority, this looks badass! I so can't wait

[CyberCubed]

This looks just like a remake of the first movie with slight variations. Its going to be not as good except the action set-pieces obviously.

How many times can they beat the same Terminator story to death? At least make a movie that shows us the entire war in the future with John Conner winning.

[Leo656]

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. :roll:

[Redeemer]

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

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...:cry:

[ZariusTwo]

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]

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...:cry:

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

[Wildcat]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Sumac]

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.
It's a stupid blind nostalgia and nothing else. Anyone with rational mind will be able to figure out that its impossible to make movie in 2010s to look like a movie made in 1980s or something. I am not talking about setpieces or effects, just about picture and overall feeling.

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.
Tell that to so called "old fans" AKA "True fans" AKA "elitists".
Even when they (some of them) nominally understand why its done that way, they still deny it and act like studios doing it out of spite to piss them off.
And I think Wildcat was talking about picture and not only use of CGI.

I can be mildly irritated, when stuff in the new movie don't much one in the past movie without any explanation, but, when it comes to Terminator, there have been so many (unexplaned) changes and retcons, so I don't care about particulars anymore. Just give me plasma guns, blue filter and atmosphere of desperation. Of course, ideally I'd prefer TG to have the same 80s atmosphere as the first Terminator movie, but its impossible, so I take what I can. At least, its not generic desert warfare like in Salvation.

HAH. You and I agree. Really MUST be "Judgment Day". :tgrin:
Don't you worry: I come here not to exlusively disagree with you on something. You are not center of the universe. :)

[Wildcat]

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.Oh ok I understand. To keep the look of the future as they originally portrayed it.

I really don't think they changed it on purpose or over multiple timelines. I think they just designed the future to make it look more cool.

I mean back in the 80s that's the way they designed it because that's as futuristic as they could make it. It was the stereotypical view of the future just like slick is the way now.

I don't think it's any deeper than that...just now they can make the future fancier and the way society views it nowadays.

[TigerClaw]

New Trailer got released, Shows a lot more footage, and a huge twist.

The Twist is a new Terminator that looks like John Connor.
rGSxss7gWak

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

This is my favorite movie franchise, and it's official dead to me.

[Candy Kappa]

Evil Connor looks awesome.

[Cure]

Wait, I'm confused. Worthingon is Kyle Reese? Wasn't he some cyborg thing in Salvation?

[Candy Kappa]

I thought Jai Courtney is the actor doing Kyle Reese?

[Cure]

Wooooooooooooooops I'm dumb. Phone screens are small, you see.

[Candy Kappa]

At least that's an valid excuse, I've been mixing jeremy Irons and Sam Neill for years... :lol:

[TigerClaw]

Wait, I'm confused. Worthingon is Kyle Reese? Wasn't he some cyborg thing in Salvation?
No, in Salvation, Worthington was Marcus Wright, and Anton Yelchin was Kyle Reese.

[chrisdude]

I was already looking forward to this, just because, but now I'm excited. They took a story where we all knew the beginning, middle, and end, and made it feel exciting and unpredictable, again. I think breaking the cycle was a great idea. Their only option, really.

[Wildcat]

Dang that looks awesome. What a cool way to mix things up.

I too was already looking forward to it but this makes it so much more interesting.

[M.O.D.O.K.]

Yeah. Spoiling the twist both killed the suspense for it, yet also could've just renewed curiosity on the movie.

[ProactiveMan]

Here's the unofficial trailer...

iRZ2Sh5-XuM

[TheCanadiandrome]

I'm gettin excited more and more for this movie

[ZariusTwo]

Why? It looks terrible

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

This movie is an abomination. I LOVE The Terminator franchise, but this looks like the worst one yet. Terminator 3's major downfall was having a serious plot, but making the T-800 a complete joke, and from the looks of the trailer, we're getting another T-800 clown.

I can get behind the idea of Sarah being trained by the T-800 after Skynet tries to kill her as a child, but the actress playing Sarah, and this will probably sound bad but oh well, she's too cute to be Sarah. Sarah who has lived her life training should look like Linda Hamilton in T2, not some cute girl who looks like she's having a hard time holding up a gun.

The problem with sequels is they try and top the last one, and I feel like they're trying to top ALL of them in one movie, and it's going to be confusing, and too much for one movie. They should have just rebooted it, and started over with a new T-800 and Kyle Reese.

I actually think Terminator Salvation was on the right path, the next movie could have been sending Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese, back in time and you could have essentially rebooted the franchise there.

[Leo656]

I didn't think Salvation was really that bad. I'd have much rather had more movies set during the actual war, rather than yet another "change the past to fix the future" story. At least for a couple of them; I felt like they hit the panic button and went "reboot" too quickly. I mean, was it really that big a deal that there were no lasers in the "Salvation" future? :lol:

I'unno. 3 and Salvation both had their ups and downs, and I have no real problem with either, but this one isn't doing it for me at all. There's just something really cheesy about it. I think it's officially been proven that the whole thing was better off as two movies.

Cue, "Well, it's Hollywood, so of course they were going to make more because money and blah blah blah". I don't care. Everything we've seen since proves that there was no GOOD reason to do more than two of them. First one was pretty good, second one was amazing, and everything since has been various levels of "Eh." I wish people would quit while they were ahead, I really do.

[shuriken]

I'm quite befuddled. Befuddled indeed. I dunno why trailers give you half of the story man. It's just enough info to not want to see but not enough to deter confusion. poop

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

I actually love Terminator Salvation *Directors cut*. I am a sucker for post apocalyptic worlds, and I think Salvation is a realistic take on what the world would look like. They follow canon too, in T3 they find out, the future cannot be stopped, only delayed. So because of the actions of T2, the future was re-written.

T2 is a nearly perfect movie in my opinion, it's part of my "depending on the day" it's my favorite movie rotation. 90's TMNT, Se7en, Big Lebowski and T2 are the 4 movies I consider to be my favorite movie. The new one isn't going to "wreck my childhood" or whatever, but it looks like a poorly slapped together mess, and I am guaranteeing that I will not like it. I will be eyerolling the whole time.

[ObiWanFan4life]

Good god, didn't anyone learn from The Amazing Spider-Man 2 marketing? They've pretty much showed the whole movie. Maybe there's a twist that they're hiding, but until then, there's nothing to look forward to anymore.

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

Good god, didn't anyone learn from The Amazing Spider-Man 2 marketing? They've pretty much showed the whole movie. Maybe there's a twist that they're hiding, but until then, there's nothing to look forward to anymore.

I hope the twist is that the movie is actually Last Action Hero 2

[chrisdude]

This movie is an abomination. I LOVE The Terminator franchise, but this looks like the worst one yet. Terminator 3's major downfall was having a serious plot, but making the T-800 a complete joke, and from the looks of the trailer, we're getting another T-800 clown.

I can get behind the idea of Sarah being trained by the T-800 after Skynet tries to kill her as a child, but the actress playing Sarah, and this will probably sound bad but oh well, she's too cute to be Sarah. Sarah who has lived her life training should look like Linda Hamilton in T2, not some cute girl who looks like she's having a hard time holding up a gun.

The problem with sequels is they try and top the last one, and I feel like they're trying to top ALL of them in one movie, and it's going to be confusing, and too much for one movie. They should have just rebooted it, and started over with a new T-800 and Kyle Reese.

I actually think Terminator Salvation was on the right path, the next movie could have been sending Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese, back in time and you could have essentially rebooted the franchise there.
I don't really agree that T3 made to T-800 a joke. It was T2 that turned that killing machine into a lovable big brother that every kid in the 90s wanted to give orders to and teach to play freeze tag. (Don't ask me how every 90s kid saw this R-rated movie, but we all did.) T3 seemed to go out of its was to point that out as silly, and do away with it. Storywise, it was a extremely similar plot, almost beat for beat. But seemingly with an effort not to be silly or childish. Personally, I think T3 was a waste of a film, in that it did very little new, and served primarily to write the franchise into a corner. That's why I like what this new movie is doing. With Judgment Day having been allowed to take place, we knew the whole story.

Emilia Clarke is the spitting image of a young Linda Hamilton. It's uncanny. I have no idea why they won't give her similar hair and makeup.

[Wildcat]

Ha, movies are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Enough with all the reboots, Hollywood is out of ideas!

This is too different, it's stupid, should have done a straight reboot!

Ahh the interwebz :lol:

[Leo656]

(Don't ask me how every 90s kid saw this R-rated movie, but we all did.)

No female nipples, is how.

Tons of blood and guns and a heaping dose of Arnold's man-ass, but you can show your kid all that. Not tits, though. That'll warp 'em.

[chrisdude]

No female nipples, is how.

Tons of blood and guns and a heaping dose of Arnold's man-ass, but you can show your kid all that. Not tits, though. That'll warp 'em.That would explain why I didn't see the original until way later...

[shuriken]

No female nipples, is how.

Tons of blood and guns and a heaping dose of Arnold's man-ass, but you can show your kid all that. Not tits, though. That'll warp 'em.

You get to see quite a bit of braless Linda Hamilton though.

[Leo656]

And god bless 'em for it. :lol:

[CyberCubed]

New movie has a 33% on rottentomatoes. I haven't bothered to check but I wonder if that's worse than Terminator 3 or Salvation there.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/terminator_genisys/

[Leo656]

I heard that most of the effort is in painstakingly recreating sets and scenes from the first two movies. One review I read said the whole thing only seems to exist as a PG-13 Cliff's Notes version of the franchise for kids whose parents won't let them watch the originals.

I'll see it at some point in the near future, but based on what I've heard... it's kind of a worst-case scenario, to me, as a big fan of the franchise in general. Mentally I'm already checking out. I mean, why care? The whole story is shot. They have now done 3 movies in a row, where the entire premise is, "No, FORGET the last one, it doesn't count. THIS one counts, so everything is Really Important." And then it's not. The whole over-reliance on the time travel gimmick means they can just throw out the entire premise - which is what made Terminator semi-unique in the first place - and every single time, say "Yeah, paradoxes, stuff happened, forget it, WE GOTTA BLOW SOME SH*T UP!" and then it's just another movie. :ohwell:

I kinda liked where Salvation was taking the franchise. I know I'm in the minority, but I thought it was pretty okay. Was it REALLY so bad that Arnold wasn't in it, and that the Future War didn't have as many lasers as T2 promised us? We barely got to really see the future. Now we're already recycling the recent past, while ignoring the more RECENT recent past. It's funny, the entire franchise is about fighting against the future, and now, it's quite literally become that very thing: A franchise bound and determined NOT to evolve, but to simply re-enact stuff we've already seen from a slightly different angle, Forever. A franchise living eternally in its own past as an ironic love letter to itself. There really IS no future.

So I guess... they're going for some kind of "meta" thing? :ohwell: Nobody but me is gonna get it.

[TheBlueTurtle1]

I have my doubts about this film.

[ProactiveMan]

I saw it last night - it's much better than I had expected it to be. Sort of like Jurassic World; the trailers made it look really bad, but I had a good time.

It's not a flawless victory by any stretch of the imagination, but it's better than Terminator 3, and I don't care much for Salvation, so for me, it's better than that too - your mileage may vary.

They don't really make Arnold do anything too degrading either, which is something I was worried about. I didn't want him to be a robot goofball, and he isn't for the most part.

[sdp]

Now I haven't seen any of the movies in a long time so maybe my memory isn't very clear but I think this franchise is both overrated and underrated. The first Terminator film is great but the second one while cool changes the idea of what the first one was about and how time travelling basically works. Cool movies but they're definitely overrated. Now the third movie has plenty of cool stuff but I don't think it damages the franchise anymore than the second movie, in fact the only problem with the movie is that it recycles for the most part the plot of the second movie. The TV show Sarah Connor Chronicles was pretty cool, I didn't expect to like it but ended up doing so. I only watched the first half of S1 though but I've heard it only gets better. Now I've never seen Salvation but at least the premise sounded awesome, maybe we didnt' have the technology in the 80s and 90s but we were finally able to make a movie about the war, now that was an interesting angle, the whole sending one fighter can only be done so much before it loses interest. Did they really screw up the movie that much? The new movie looks decent, but nothing special. I don't know what people expected you can only do so much with the original premise. To me the only way to continue the franchise is in the "future" with the war. I think those could make some very interesting movies. I can't believe I'm agreeing with Leo on something.

[PangolinFeets]

I hope the twist is that the movie is actually Last Action Hero 2

This is the best thing I heard tonight.

[turtlefanforever]

I saw it last night - it's much better than I had expected it to be. Sort of like Jurassic World; the trailers made it look really bad, but I had a good time.

It's not a flawless victory by any stretch of the imagination, but it's better than Terminator 3, and I don't care much for Salvation, so for me, it's better than that too - your mileage may vary.

They don't really make Arnold do anything too degrading either, which is something I was worried about. I didn't want him to be a robot goofball, and he isn't for the most part.

i plan on seeing it this weekend. How Prominent is Arnolds role?

[chrisdude]

I saw it tonight and had a great time. It was exciting, and it actually felt like a Terminator movie. The story turned out better than I expected, and I'd already felt they were on the right track. We were actually standing outside the theater discussing it for a long while. The thought of Terminator being interesting again, instead of just fun and exciting, blows my mind. Definitely feels like the franchise climbing back onto its feet.

[XERO]

I'm checkin' it out this Thursday. Should be good.

[ProactiveMan]

i plan on seeing it this weekend. How Prominent is Arnolds role?

Integral I would say.

[TigerClaw]

I plan on seeing it Saturday.

[turtlefanforever]

Integral I would say.

Alright good.

[XERO]

I enjoyed it. Arnold's ever gonna be as big as he was in his prime, but it was still cool to see him back in the role. Got a few chuckles out of me with some of his lines.

[TigerClaw]

I finally saw Genisys today, I loved it, It's right up there with T2.

So far, The movies are T1, T2, Genisys, T3, and Salvation.

I liked that this movie borrowed from T1 and T2 and change things around.

This is the 1st of a new trilogy, So the sequels will answer some of the questions in this one.

Such as Who sent the T-800 to 1973 to protect Sarah Connor
Matt Smith being Skynet from an alternate universe.

Btw, the movie theater I go to, Were giving away these posters.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJBqktdUcAAlrKX.jpg

[Leo656]

This is the 1st of a new trilogy,

So was "Salvation". :lol: We'll see.

[TigerClaw]

So was "Salvation". :lol: We'll see.
It better be, Cause Genisys did setup things for the next one, During a post credit scene. Inside the ruins of Cyberdyne Systems, You see a glowing red sphere, And then a hologram of Matt Smith as Skynet looking at it.

[Leo656]

When the plot of every movie is "The last one didn't count", is it even fair to call it a Trilogy? Or even a sequel, for that matter? :lol:

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I thought it was badass... Jai Courtney and Emilia Clarke really impressed me.

[Vicky82]

I just came back from seeing it. I didn't know there was a post credit scene but I couldn't stay anyway because I had to catch the bus.

I did enjoy it but I thought the storyline wasn't all that. It wasn't as good as T1 and T2 but it was better than T3, I've never seen Salvation.

[MikeandRaph87]

I saw it last night. Its the first Terminator film I ever saw to be honest. I know parts of the back story, but not all of it. How does this connect to the Salvation film with Christian Bale? Does it take place afterward? Interesting twist forcing the "chosen one" to become what he was destined to destroy. It guess it makes up for the obviousness of who John's father was right from the beginning. 50 years apart in age, creepy but time hops make any romance game I guess.

[TigerClaw]

I saw it last night. Its the first Terminator film I ever saw to be honest. I know parts of the back story, but not all of it. How does this connect to the Salvation film with Christian Bale? Does it take place afterward? Interesting twist forcing the "chosen one" to become what he was destined to destroy. It guess it makes up for the obviousness of who John's father was right from the beginning. 50 years apart in age, creepy but time hops make any romance game I guess.
Genisys ignores T3 and Salvation completely.

[MikeandRaph87]

The only thing that sticks out about Salvation was Christian Bale's onset temper tantrum. I was thinking it was chronological and this was the fifth so happened fifth with all the time travel it gets confusing. I guess this is like Superman Returns taking cues from Superman and Superman II while ignoring the 3rd and 4th films.

Trying to explain the whole mess to me will likely make my head explode.

[member_removed]

Don't they mention in the first film that time travel only works by going back in time and that you can't travel forward?

I enjoyed the parts of the film that were set in 2029 and 1984.

What I really disliked about this film was the trailer giving away a major spoiler. I had hoped that the reveal in the film would come sooner.

It would also seem that movies that place in 2015-2017 must contain product placements for Nike and Pepsi :D

[TigerClaw]

Don't they mention in the first film that time travel only works by going back in time and that you can't travel forward?

I enjoyed the parts of the film that were set in 2029 and 1984.

What I really disliked about this film was the trailer giving away a major spoiler. I had hoped that the reveal in the film would come sooner.

It would also seem that movies that place in 2015-2017 must contain product placements for Nike and Pepsi :D
The whole idea of going forward in time happened with the Sarah Connor Chronicles.

[chrisdude]

Genisys ignores T3 and Salvation completely.I think it ignores T2, as well. Hear me out. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Genysis opens with Reese narrating. He says that Judgment Day was in 1997, which is the original year Judgment Day, from the first film. But in T2, they blew up Cyberdyne in 1995. Even without T3 to tell us that the new JD is in 2003, we have to assume destroying Cyberdyne set it back some, don't we?

We also know that the T-800 from T2 was sent back by John Connor, and he probably wouldn't have done that if he'd already been turned into a machine by SkyNet.

The questions are:
Did this physical embodiment of Skynet attack John Connor in the time displacement machine room because the events because the filmmakers are ignoring T2, or did SkyNet already use time travel to place Skynet in that room?

From what time(s) and from what timeline(s) was the force that killed Sarah's parents and/or "Pops" sent back? How is Reese from the timeline of the original 1984, but doesn't get sent back to the original 1984? I know, the timeline was altered, but when?

The time travel elements that make this all happen may be from a timeline that includes all the previous films, but we don't know yet...

[TigerClaw]

I think it ignores T2, as well. Hear me out. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Genysis opens with Reese narrating. He says that Judgment Day was in 1997, which is the original year Judgment Day, from the first film. But in T2, they blew up Cyberdyne in 1995. Even without T3 to tell us that the new JD is in 2003, we have to assume destroying Cyberdyne set it back some, don't we?

We also know that the T-800 from T2 was sent back by John Connor, and he probably wouldn't have done that if he'd already been turned into a machine by SkyNet.

The questions are:
Did this physical embodiment of Skynet attack John Connor in the time displacement machine room because the events because the filmmakers are ignoring T2, or did SkyNet already use time travel to place Skynet in that room?

From what time(s) and from what timeline(s) was the force that killed Sarah's parents and/or "Pops" sent back? How is Reese from the timeline of the original 1984, but doesn't get sent back to the original 1984? I know, the timeline was altered, but when?

The time travel elements that make this all happen may be from a timeline that includes all the previous films, but we don't know yet...
There's an interview with the writers about this movie, And they talked about Matt Smith's character being Skynet from an alternate universe, And not from this timeline.

This Skynet has the ability to time travel, But to different dimensions as well.
http://www.slashfilm.com/terminator-genisys-matt-smith/
You see in the beginning. He grabs John. He’s not from this timeline. He’s from an alternate universe, in the multiverse, another of the many universes that exist. That Skynet is not from that timeline. […] This Skynet has been to this universe, and this universe, and this universe. That’s why he says, “I came a very long way to stop you.” He’s not from here. So he’s watched it. He’s watched it happen a bunch of different times, and each time he’s seen it there is a different result but the same result.

It is the understanding that for Skynet, finally realizing that “I cannot just wipe out the humans, I can never defeat the humans unless I have the best weapon that humans have, and that is him.”

[chrisdude]

There's an interview with the writers about this movie, And they talked about Matt Smith's character being Skynet from an alternate universe, And not from this timeline.

This Skynet has the ability to time travel, But to different dimensions as well.
http://www.slashfilm.com/terminator-genisys-matt-smith/
That makes a lot of sense, but I wonder why the screenwriters would just drop a bomb like that in an interview. :ohwell:

They only briefly alluded to alternate universes in Genysis. Clearly, we weren't supposed to know this until a sequel.

[CyberCubed]

Wait, this movie is actually good? It has a 27% rotten on rottentomatoes:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/terminator_genisys/

The movie is being torn apart by critics. I guess this is one of those films where people will love but critics will hate.

[member_removed]

I think it ignores T2, as well. Hear me out. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Genysis opens with Reese narrating. He says that Judgment Day was in 1997, which is the original year Judgment Day, from the first film. But in T2, they blew up Cyberdyne in 1995. Even without T3 to tell us that the new JD is in 2003, we have to assume destroying Cyberdyne set it back some, don't we?

We also know that the T-800 from T2 was sent back by John Connor, and he probably wouldn't have done that if he'd already been turned into a machine by SkyNet.

The questions are:
Did this physical embodiment of Skynet attack John Connor in the time displacement machine room because the events because the filmmakers are ignoring T2, or did SkyNet already use time travel to place Skynet in that room?

From what time(s) and from what timeline(s) was the force that killed Sarah's parents and/or "Pops" sent back? How is Reese from the timeline of the original 1984, but doesn't get sent back to the original 1984? I know, the timeline was altered, but when?

The time travel elements that make this all happen may be from a timeline that includes all the previous films, but we don't know yet...

During the film, I had a theory that Arnold/Pops was playing the same T-800 from T2, just in an alternate time line.

I've given up on trying to create a (head)canon for the Terminator franchise. Just gotta enjoy each film on it's own merits.

[Leo656]

See, for me the canon being all shot to hell kind of ruins it. All the alternate timelines and parallel dimensions are a cop-out. The story is what made the whole premise "different"... now it's just one more "Robots shoot at each other and bust each other through walls, plus car chases" movie when we're over-saturated with them. It just happens to be called "Terminator". It always had those elements, sure, but the story itself was the hook, because it was a good story that stayed within its own "Rules" and was entertaining on its own even without all the flashy effects. Having a built-in excuse to explain any contradictions in the story is just a way to have Maximum Explosions with minimal reasoning. I mean, part of the fun of each new Terminator flick used to be, "How are they gonna expand the story without just plain breaking it?" Now it's like, "Eh, screw it. Just do whatever." I totally get it, it just seems kind of lazy, to me.

I'unno. :ohwell:

[DarkFell]

I feel that the production of the Terminator movies should have just stopped after Judgement Day. I mean, the protagonists blew up Cyberdine Systems just so that SkyNet couldn't be existent in the future, am I right? Since T2, the other movies made the destruction of Cyberdine a bit pointless now since SkyNet continues to find ways to threaten John Conner yet again.

Whatever.

This should have been the focus of Genisys instead. Credit goes to Nebezial for the image.
http://img.memecdn.com/arnold-finally-got-to-da-choppa-terminator-genisys_o_4790287.jpg

[chrisdude]

Well, the first movie existed in a closed loop in time. Kyle and Sarah fought to preserve the future, but the big twist of the film was that everything went according to history. All that time travel was a part of the original history. It was a purposeful paradox. They broke the rules with T2, when they decided there there was "no fate but what you make," and allowed the characters to change the future. That's the cop-out where they broke the rules of their story, so they could tack on a sequel and make more money. And it's everybody's favorite.

[Sumac]

July 3, 2003, I was in the cinema watching Terminator 3. Fast forward 12 years and its once again July 3 and I once again in the cinema watching new Terminator movie.

TG feels like it took parts from all previous movies and series and mixed them into some crazy cocktail of which I can't make head or tails.

On one had, its plot looks like a crazy fanfiction, which make stuff from T4 development sound like a mere child play. Actors were not really good, though, Clarke sometimes looked like Linda Hamilton in certain shots. Reese was a prominent as a sofa. Arnie was cool as well as the guy who played T3000. He was deliciously evil.

While plot, kind of make sense, it's still far from being coherent or at least from being nicely explained. It's just some things appear out of nowhere and people must take as is. World building sucks.
Episodes where characters talk to each other were kind of boring, due to not very convincing actors.

On the other hand I can't say that movie felt like it was lacking scale. On contrary: it felt even more epic than Salvation, which should have been a war movie set in the Terminator universe and thus EPIC beyond measure.

Now about what I liked: actions scenes were awesome. The best in Terminator series (after T2). Everything related to T3000 was cool. T1000 was also awesome (I liked couple of his new tricks). Pops was cool.

Beginning of the movie made me scream internally: "YES!! That's what Salvation should have been, instead of boring desert with boring Bale and 1/2 Terminators".

Just as I thought, TG is not better than T1 / T2, but it's a good action movie. While not groundbreaking it's rather pretty and fun, which is all I care, when I go to see action movie like this. So, I feel like time and money were spent wisely.

Though, TG definitely lacks in wholenes and plot, why theoretically, interesting, presented in a way that can confuse the hell out of people with its pseudotechnobabble, overall I liked this move a lot more than T3 and especially T4.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

I just saw it yesterday before work and while I liked the film, I thought there were a lot of plot points that made the story confusing and convoluted. It took me near the end of the film to sink in what was going on. Time travel has almost always been an issue with me in movies because it usually causes so many plotholes and contradictions. The pacing of the film felt rushed to me and I felt that it did little to further the series' plot.

The action was great though, much better than what we got before. There's a lot of fight scenes in this movie where I can actually see what's going on! I miss that in a lot of movies today where they instead focus more on shaky cams for the suspense.

[Sumac]

Trying to explain the whole mess to me will likely make my head explode.
There is no mess really. TG just ignores everything after beginning of T1.

Genysis opens with Reese narrating. He says that Judgment Day was in 1997, which is the original year Judgment Day, from the first film. But in T2, they blew up Cyberdyne in 1995. Even without T3 to tell us that the new JD is in 2003, we have to assume destroying Cyberdyne set it back some, don't we?
TG happens before events of T2. And apparently Skynet (from one timeline or the other) sent T1000 into 1973 and not into 1992.

[QUOTE=Leo656;1479350]The story is what made the whole premise "different"... now it's just one more "Robots shoot at each other and bust each other through walls, plus car chases" movie when we're over-saturated with them. It just happens to be called "Terminator". It always had those elements, sure, but the story itself was the hook, because it was a good story that stayed within its own "Rules" and was entertaining on its own even without all the flashy effects. Having a built-in excuse to explain any contradictions in the story is just a way to have Maximum Explosions with minimal reasoning. I mean, part of the fun of each new Terminator flick used to be, "How are they gonna expand the story without just plain breaking it?" Now it's like, "Eh, screw it. Just do whatever." I totally get it, it just seems kind of lazy, to me.

I'unno. :ohwell:
You are a bit too late...like 23 years late.

[chrisdude]

Well, that was my point. I was arguing that this film ignored T2. And that T2 is when the franchise jumped the shark the way Leo describes.

[MikeandRaph87]

Reports suggest the box office was a disappointment with Genisys making 44.2 million in five days quite a bit below the others with inflation. Yet viewers tend to enjoy it. Being a non-Terminator fan and going on a whim I thought it was a really good action/sci-fi film and delivers to the casual audience.

[THGhost]

Saw Terminator Genisys on Thursday night. I thought it was (obviously) better than Salvation and a lot better than T3. Nowhere near as good as the first 2 movies but still very good in its own right. I loved Arnie and Emilia Clarke's chemistry. Thank God the trailers didn't spoil every twist. :P The story was fun too, not over-complicated enough to melt your brain over.

[ProactiveMan]

You know one thing that annoyed me about Genisys and Salvation was...

...the idea that Skynet can be destroyed by taking out a central compound, like it's a program running on a server somewhere. Skynet is a network, so you would assume that if it had a sense of self preservation, it would have employed pretty robust and widely distributed data redundancy.

I really don't like the anthropomorphism either. Simplifying the idea of a networked intelligence down to a ranting hologram takes some of the novelty and threat out of the idea. Skynet is frightening because its not like us, and it doesn't perceive the world emotionally like a human being. The way it thinks is probably totally unrelatable to a human, and the idea of fighting an enemy that you can't relate to in any way is pretty terrifying, so when Skynet gets all chatty and personable, it wrecks that tension.

[Leo656]

"Superman/Terminator: Death to the Future" is my official headcanon. :tgrin:

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

I just got back from the movie. I want to state that TMNT, Terminator/T2, Rocky(all of them), Big Lebowski, they're all "My favorite movie" depending on the day you ask me. But when it comes to Terminator...I was OBSESSED with the first two movies pretty much up until T3 came out. Once that piece of trash was added to the canon I rarely watched Terminator or T2.

So before I went today, I started last night watching all the movies again, I've seen each one no less than a dozen times, even T3. I am just going to say this, Terminator Salvation was a great Terminator movie. I don't give a crap what anyone says. I love it. It was never going to succeed the second McG was attached to it and Arnold wasn't in it. Also the Christian Bale rant I believe also had a bit part in it's failure because people were disinterested in seeing Bale after hearing his rant. Also it not being rated R. Anyway, Salvation is great. Terminator and T2 are the best movies in the series by far. T3 is a complete joke. Literally. They mock the Terminator the ENTIRE movie. He's a goofy sidekick. Every location looks like a set piece. Nothing looks realistic. John Connor is a whiny crybaby. The only thing they got right was having Skynet destroy the world.

Now after that diatribe...Terminator Genysis. There will be spoilers. I liked the explanation of why the T-800 is old. It's totally conceivable that they would try and send ANOTHER terminator back to kill Sarah as a child. This is where I would have been all in if this was the movie. Grown up Sarah Connor...the actress is SO cute, that I cannot for ONE second believe she's been preparing for the Terminators. What is so great about Linda Hamilton, is that she completely turned herself into a warrior for T2. She knew what was coming and you believed the character because she LOOKED like a soldier. This Sarah, she's got cute puffy cheeks, she's 5'2, not in any athletic shape what so ever, and now she acts like John Connor from T2. Jai Courtney as Kyle Reese...I didn't have a problem of how he played Reese because his character looks the part of a soldier, but I preferred Michael Biehn's take on his character. Aside from having some scars, Jai's Reese doesn't seem all that messed up from being in war. He doesn't seem to have the sense of urgency that Biehn's Reese did. This new Sarah and Reese came off like one of the scify romance movies we see every year now with Hunger Games, and Divergent etc...Like some scify rom-com.

John Connor...ugh...The actor Jason Clarke...first of all he rules... If you haven't seen him in the unfortunately canceled show "Chicago Code" do yourself a favor and watch him in that. He was a good villain. I just did not like that he was John Connor. I did not like the idea of Skynet being a physical being who can basically "hack" humans. I just didn't like it...no other reasoning. It just screamed "What can we do to make our Terminator movie stand out...oh I know we'll make JOHN the Terminator!" UGH..VOMIT.

Arnie was pretty good...I just hate that they have to make him a joke. He's a protector, a guardian, a killer, not a comedy act.

Few other things I disliked...the fact they just threw T2 out the window. The T1000 sucked compared to T2's T1000.

Things I and everyone in the audience loved, the shot for shot remakes of scenes from the original movie...so much to the point where I would have been ok to see some Back to the Future 2 type trickery where they see the original timeline happening in front of them. OR...Just remade the first movie...I really enjoyed the opening of the movie, we FINALLY got to see them get sent back. Should have just remade it, and added some extra story telling in it.

Overall it's not the worst Terminator, that gets saved for T3...I'd say its 4th behind the first 2 and Salvation.

[Leo656]

Pretty much confirmed all my worst fears I had from reading about it. :ohwell: Still gonna see it on DVD or whatever, but man, I'm so not down with any of that.

[TigerClaw]

I'm fine with the direction they took in Genisys, You wouldn't want the movie to rehash things, we already seen happen in the other movies before.

[Leo656]

Some of us think that things were Perfectly Fine with two movies, one good one and one Great one, and Zero Mixed-To-Sh*tty ones.

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

Some of us think that things were Perfectly Fine with two movies, one good one and one Great one, and Zero Mixed-To-Sh*tty ones.

Hell doth frozen over...I agree with Leo...although again, I LOVE Terminator Salvation...Genysis basically says, "here is everything you love, and drops it in the toilet, then pulls two or three things out of said toilet, but now they're covered in toilet water. Then they flushed the toilet.

And I would have been OK with the plot of this movie being the T-800 goes back to protect Sarah when she's a child. You could even include Reese going back in 84. But Sarah HAS to be in shape, and looking like a soldier. Don't get it twisted either, the actress who plays Sarah is very attractive and she's physically fit. She just doesn't look like she's been training.

[Leo656]

I know what you mean! :lol: I almost used the fact that you and I never agree as proof of my objectivity, but I thought it was kind of catty. :lol: But yeah!

And I like Salvation just fine also. I'm probably never gonna drop my stance of, "Two movies is all you need," and that "No Fate but what we make for ourselves" is a helluva line to go out on. But I also agree that T3 was too comical and I'm much more interested in seeing the Future War than I am endless rounds of Time Travel Retcons, and if you HAVE to do more movies in the Terminator universe, I'd rather go Farward than Backward, or endlessly in circles.

I'm as uncomfortable with these recent developments as you are. If you and I are to be what's left of The Resistance, humanity is f*cked. :lol:

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

I liked the direction of Salvation, and someone else said they hated the fact in Salvation there was a central hub that needed to be destroyed. That was not the case in Salvation. In Salvation they tricked the humans. The plant they destroy in the end was only a manufacturing plant, and cattle farm. The movie ends with John Connor talking about how the war is only beginning. UGH I wish this would have been a success because I would love to know where it was going. I hate when movies just get buried before anyone sees them, and then everyone jumps on the bandwagon of hate because they're incapable of forming their own opinions.

And to add to my Terminator Salvation love, lets not forget it had maybe the greatest trailer of all time. MAYBE...it's in the running for sure. It's definitely right there with The Watchmen trailer with the Smashing Pumpkins song.

-Czz-TcWCkA

One more thing, there were rumors much like White Shredder...of John Connor dying and being fitted with Marcus' machine body and the internet exploded with hate...so what do they do with the next installment? Make John Connor a terminator...just DUMB.

[Leo656]

Well if there's anything you can always count on Hollywood to do, it's throw out the good and original ideas and endlessly recycle the bad ones. I knew they weren't going to let that one go to waste.

[DarkFell]

Genisys got pushed to third place by Jurassic World this past weekend. https://www.yahoo.com/movies/s/jurassic-world-stomps-rivals-n-american-box-office-183238393.html

[chrisdude]

Pixar is a force to be reckoned with, burnt kinda feel sorry for Genysis, because no one could've known Jurrassic World would be that big.

[THGhost]

no one could've known Jurrassic World would be that big.

Wanna bet? :P

[MikeandRaph87]

Here is an interesting write up I thought you all might be interested in reading and commenting on. http://m.hitfix.com/harpy/4-baffling-questions-terminator-genisys-refused-to-answerand-3-it-did

[chrisdude]

Wanna bet? :PYes.
By all means, show me the person who said Jurassic World would be the biggest movie ever.

[THGhost]

Yes.
By all means, show me the person who said Jurassic World would be the biggest movie ever.

C'mon, practically everybody knew Jurassic World was gonna be a huge hit. It's a Jurassic Park movie! :roll:

Here is an interesting write up I thought you all might be interested in reading and commenting on. http://m.hitfix.com/harpy/4-baffling-questions-terminator-genisys-refused-to-answerand-3-it-did

All very good questions. I still enjoyed the movie though. :P

[Sumac]

Hell doth frozen over...I agree with Leo...although again, I LOVE Terminator Salvation...Genysis basically says, "here is everything you love, and drops it in the toilet, then pulls two or three things out of said toilet, but now they're covered in toilet water. Then they flushed the toilet.
Puh-lease, no need to be so melodramatic.
It's not like first two movies ceased to exist or what not. Genesys is nowhere near close to T1 / T2, but it's not the end of the world either. Fun action movie. I don't see any problems with it. I don't see why some people have problems with it, unless they hoped that somehow Taylor will deliver Cameron-like work, which was clearly not in the cards.

Besides, considering what franchise has become 12 years ago, I think, Genesys is much better, than I have expected. It's not like RoboCop reboot from past year.

I'm probably never gonna drop my stance of, "Two movies is all you need," and that "No Fate but what we make for ourselves" is a helluva line to go out on.
Good thing you are not in charge of anything related to movies. :lol:
World would have been quite a boring place.

I liked the direction of Salvation, and someone else said they hated the fact in Salvation there was a central hub that needed to be destroyed. That was not the case in Salvation. In Salvation they tricked the humans. The plant they destroy in the end was only a manufacturing plant, and cattle farm. The movie ends with John Connor talking about how the war is only beginning. UGH I wish this would have been a success because I would love to know where it was going. I hate when movies just get buried before anyone sees them, and then everyone jumps on the bandwagon of hate because they're incapable of forming their own opinions.
I can tell where it was going:
SkyNet sends his army of cyborgs in the present. John Connor follows them as well and teach modern army how to fight terminators. At least, that was the general gist of the T5, if McG was still attached to production.

Now, if anyone gonna say that "Battle for Los Angeles" / Bay's "Transformers" rip-off was a good direction for the Terminator franchise...:tlol:

Also, I like how people using excuse about "people incapable of forming their own opinions" if majority disagree with them. :trolleye:

Emotions aside, Salvation was a mess. The idea was good, but they did absolutely everything to ruin it, from rewriting script, because Bale wanted more screentime to changing the whole third act of the movie, because of the leak. Even then final version of the story doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Marcus is bland, Bale is Bailing, as usual. T800 blunders. Meh.

I said before and I say it again: Genesys scenes in the future is what Future War (and Salvation) should have been.
Also, it receives bonus points for using quite a lot of unfilmed parts from the beginning of T2.

[Leo656]

So just making generic movies, endlessly, forever, that have nothing special or unique or even particularly Good about them, and then slapping a well-known Brand Name Label on them because it will sell based on nostalgia alone. That's Better, to you.

I'd say it's a good thing YOU, sir, have nothing to do with making films. Because all we would have, it seems, is a never-ending stream of recycled, unoriginal trash.

So it'd be exactly like Right Now, basically. But at least I'd know specifically who to yell at for it. :lol:

I wish most of you kids were old enough to remember when the very IDEA of a sequel or a remake to a popular film made you an outcast. It wasn't that long ago that Hollywood actually DID have some restraint, and "We already did that movie, we don't need to do it again" was a thing people said. Now it's the exact inverse. "We made money once, let's milk this thing until it's bleeding." :roll:

There has to be a reason to keep doing things. There was NO reason to keep making Terminator movies past the second one unless they could actually do something better. Every one since T2 has been a huge step backwards. So there really is no argument. "Why not?" is not a good enough reason to do anything, ever. It's just Generic Explosion Bullsh*t now, the entire story is shot to hell.

By all means, though, keep "shutting your brain off" and let the mindless swill keep you thoroughly entertained. I got a shelf full of Good Movies.

[Commenter 42]

Saw it in Imax 3D yesterday.

I though it was going to be a huge pile of steaming crap.

Honestly, I'm not sure why, but I enjoyed it. It felt like the most natural T3 you could expect.

I'm glad they flushed the other two sequels.

I hated all the trailers. I had 0 expectations. It has some weak points, but miles better than Jurassic world, and infinitely better than PDMT.

It's a fun farewell.

The ending, was a little wankish...

All this talk of a confusing plot, worries me. It was really straight forward.
It also didn't erase T2, anymore than BTTF3 erased BTTF2.

Sarah did seem really soft for a soldier. Emilia Clark was easily the least present actor of everyone. I didn't buy her 100%.

I think Arnie won me over. I'm not huge on his persona, or his typical Schlick, but he's really watchable in this. His quiet moments are perfect.

[THGhost]

Saw it in Imax 3D yesterday.

I though it was going to be a huge pile of steaming crap.

Honestly, I'm not sure why, but I enjoyed it. It felt like the most natural T3 you could expect.

This seems to be the most common response to it. Critics hate it but audiences like it. Who'da though? :P

All this talk of a confusing plot, worries me. It was really straight forward.
It also didn't erase T2, anymore than BTTF3 erased BTTF2.

Agreed. I understood the plot just fine. I don't know why people are getting confused by it. It was no more confusing than the first 2 films.

I think Arnie won me over. I'm not huge on his persona, or his typical Schlick, but he's really watchable in this. His quiet moments are perfect.

I was surprised by how many quiet moments there were. All really well done.

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

Everyone always complains about the setting of Terminator Salvation...and that it didn't look like James Cameron's future war. Well Salvation takes place ELEVEN years before James Cameron's future. They had 3 films planned. Eventually showing us John sending the protectors back. The story was supposed to be that he sends Kyle back after Skynet sends the first Terminator, then only minutes pass before Skynet sends the T-1000 and John reprograms a T-800 and sends him back. It would have been an awesome end to the series because it makes it a complete circle. You want to know what happens, well put T1, and T-2 in and find out.

I will go see Genysis again, I mean I've seen T-3 over a dozen times, so this won't be hard to watch multiple times. It just felt like Hunger Games, or Divergent, more than it felt like a Terminator movie. I am not a fan of jumping forward in time, specifically since Kyle tells Sarah there is no going back. HOWEVER, they do have a decent logic to having the time machine back in 1984.

I personally am not a fan of having a million timelines. I prefer the original Terminator and BTTF logic of the past effects the future. Multiple universes is a cop out, and it can become too confusing. It's a cheap way to "preserve" the past while making a new path. I give credit to T-3 for putting it's foot down and saying look, changing the past only delays the future. Judgement Day happens no matter what. But I also enjoy them never giving up hope that they can stop Judgement Day.

And I never thought I'd see the day when Leo and I on the same side, and then being taken to task in the same post. It's like the reformation of the Mega Powers.

[Leo656]

That's even more confusing, as I rip off both Hogan and Savage in my gimmick and so which friggin' one am I? See? This time travel sh*t is just ripping holes in the fabric of everything!

I like the original idea as you've described. Can't we do that instead? Can't we go back in time and do THAT idea instead of this one? I'll do it. :lol:

[MikeandRaph87]

That's even more confusing, as I rip off both Hogan and Savage in my gimmick and so which friggin' one am I? See? This time travel sh*t is just ripping holes in the fabric of everything!

I like the original idea as you've described. Can't we do that instead? Can't we go back in time and do THAT idea instead of this one? I'll do it. :lol:

The thing I like about Genysis is it caters to the Terminator fan and the casual movie audience which I am the later part of. It plays upon its history and gives it new twist at the same time.

Not being a follow of the franchise I am curious, is Kyle Reese a regular character through the series or is John's father of the future exclusive to this film?


Off topic, there needs to be a Mega Powers DVD.

[Commenter 42]

The thing I like about Genysis is it caters to the Terminator fan and the casual movie audience which I am the later part of. It plays upon its history and gives it new twist at the same time.

Not being a follow of the franchise I am curious, is Kyle Reese a regular character through the series or is John's father of the future exclusive to this film?


Off topic, there needs to be a Mega Powers DVD.

You, you.....

Wait, did you watch TGen, without watching T1?

[Leo656]

You knew, statistically, that at lease ONE person had to. You knew this.

Although the dismal box office seems to indicate that many Existing fans did NOT go see it. Huh. Wonder if the next one is gonna ignore this one and launch another new new trilogy? That'd be hysterical.

By like Terminator X it's gonna be full-blown Hot Shots parody style territory. That'll be neat to see. :lol:

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

That's even more confusing, as I rip off both Hogan and Savage in my gimmick and so which friggin' one am I? See? This time travel sh*t is just ripping holes in the fabric of everything!

I like the original idea as you've described. Can't we do that instead? Can't we go back in time and do THAT idea instead of this one? I'll do it. :lol:

I've been perfecting my Macho Man impression recently, and I own a pair of Macho Man sunglasses (check out rasslor.co).

Info on the cut original opening where we see Kyle go back in time for T2
http://www.hopeofthefuture.net/deletedscenes/t2omit04.html

Puh-lease, no need to be so melodramatic.
It's not like first two movies ceased to exist or what not. Genesys is nowhere near close to T1 / T2, but it's not the end of the world either. Fun action movie. I don't see any problems with it. I don't see why some people have problems with it, unless they hoped that somehow Taylor will deliver Cameron-like work, which was clearly not in the cards.

I have a problem with it, because they took everything that made the first two GREAT, completely removed it, and made it a typical 2015 action movie. I will say at least this isn't as bad as Point Break will be, a reboot which literally took everything from the original movie and removed it, except for the main character's names.

Besides, considering what franchise has become 12 years ago, I think, Genesys is much better, than I have expected. It's not like RoboCop reboot from past year.

Good thing you are not in charge of anything related to movies. :lol:
World would have been quite a boring place.

You completely contradict yourself here...Basically you are saying meh, movies suck now a days so at least this one didn't suck as much as this other one. Then you say that Leo's statement to have original ideas would make movies suck...OOOOOOK.


I can tell where it was going:
SkyNet sends his army of cyborgs in the present. John Connor follows them as well and teach modern army how to fight terminators. At least, that was the general gist of the T5, if McG was still attached to production.

This is not where it was going at all. McG talked about focusing on the creation of the T-1000 in the Salvation sequel, and then eventually leading to the time traveling.

Now, if anyone gonna say that "Battle for Los Angeles" / Bay's "Transformers" rip-off was a good direction for the Terminator franchise...:tlol:

Also, I like how people using excuse about "people incapable of forming their own opinions" if majority disagree with them. :trolleye:

Emotions aside, Salvation was a mess. The idea was good, but they did absolutely everything to ruin it, from rewriting script, because Bale wanted more screentime to changing the whole third act of the movie, because of the leak. Even then final version of the story doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Marcus is bland, Bale is Bailing, as usual. T800 blunders. Meh.

This is exactly what I mean about people incapable of forming their own opinions. You are regurgitating buzz words or phrases you've heard in reviews.

The movie has a giant robot...therefore it's a MICHALE BAY rip off of Transformers...oh god the OBSESSION of people with Michael Bay on this forum...Skynet has always had GIANT machines, it's completely conceivable that they would build something like that to collect humans. You know, besides that scene this movie mostly uses practical effects, they partnered with Stan Winston's studio. That is one of the reasons I love this movie.
"Bale is Bailing"...This is something that was attached to him after his melt down on set. I will admit he's the worst character in the movie, but it's a pretty damn good performance still, and the last portion of the movie he's great.

"Marcus is bland" This is an opinion, but it's an opinion I've heard a lot. I disagree with it, because Marcus is the only "Terminator" to have a conscience and actually has a redemption story.

"T800 blunders" what?

Bale is not even in the movie that long. He wanted less action which is a GOOD thing for the Terminator movies, because the first two, although they had a fair amount of action, there is a LOT of down time. And a LOT of character building. The "bad" Terminator movies are the ones that jam the movie with 30 minute chase scenes where the T-800 is swinging through buildings...or a bus does a 450 splash on the Golden Gate Bridge.

The original story was John dies, and they put Marcus' terminator skeleton in John's body and Marcus is John in disguise. And then when he wakes up after surgery he kills everyone in the room. That is an AWFUL ending. The fans got wind, and they voiced their displeasure and it was changed. Now...How does the movie not make sense? Elaborate.

I said before and I say it again: Genesys scenes in the future is what Future War (and Salvation) should have been.
Also, it receives bonus points for using quite a lot of unfilmed parts from the beginning of T2.

I liked the scenes to open Genysis. But Salvation was BUILDING to that. They had 3 movies planned. It would have ended up looking like it you wanted it to. There is no James Cameron 2018 future. McG made one up. I personally love the setting.

One last thing about this movie. It is one of the BEST sequels at giving nods to the previous movies. This goes for ANY sequel. There are SO many little easter eggs in this movie.

[MikeandRaph87]

You, you.....

Wait, did you watch TGen, without watching T1?

I went on a spark of spontaneity without having seen anything Terminator before. All I knew before was Arnold Schwarzenegger's terminator character was sent to kill Sarah Connor so she could not give birth to the chosen one who would end the machines' reign of terror and did a 360 to protect her kid years later not to mention a couple of classic quotes. :oops: Forgive me?

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I went on a spark of spontaneity without having seen anything Terminator before. All I knew before was Arnold Schwarzenegger's terminator character was sent to kill Sarah Connor so she could not give birth to the chosen one who would end the machines' reign of terror and did a 360 to protect her kid years later not to mention a couple of classic quotes. :oops: Forgive me?

Same here. Never saw T1-4. Then I tried T1... did not like it, but then, I don't like many 80's movies. Different time, different style.

I did get convinced to give T2 a try, though, so I'm gonna try to make that happen this weekend.

[Commenter 42]

I went on a spark of spontaneity without having seen anything Terminator before. All I knew before was Arnold Schwarzenegger's terminator character was sent to kill Sarah Connor so she could not give birth to the chosen one who would end the machines' reign of terror and did a 360 to protect her kid years later not to mention a couple of classic quotes. :oops: Forgive me?

Not knocking you, just, without the the background, there's a ton of references you'd miss - not huge things, .... but cool, to each their own. :)

[TheCanadiandrome]

thought it was a good movie although, and i'm sure i'm not alone, i found it to be full of too many plot holes and not enough time explaining things. i feel that if there's a sequel, which c'mon we know there will be, hopefully more time is taken to explain things

[chrisdude]

I was originally excited for Salvation. I thought I wanted to see the lead up to the Terminators and Kyle Reese being sent back. But really, there's not much thrill to it. It made sense to create a new character, Marcus, and focus on him, because we know John and Kyle's story. But, at the same time, people were disappointed that John wasn't the focus. They couldn't really win.

[Sumac]

So just making generic movies, endlessly, forever, that have nothing special or unique or even particularly Good about them, and then slapping a well-known Brand Name Label on them because it will sell based on nostalgia alone. That's Better, to you.
Burying franchise forever, because, nobody will ever be capable to touch greatness of originals is not the way to go. I'd better to have a fun simple romp based on familiar universe, than never ever see anything related to the old series. Besides, there is always a chance that somebody will make it good again. I am all about giving chances, as opposed to killing franchise, because of pathetic nostalgia or snobbish sense of self-entitlement you clearly demonstrate here (and pretty much everywhere else).

I'd say it's a good thing YOU, sir, have nothing to do with making films. Because all we would have, it seems, is a never-ending stream of recycled, unoriginal trash.So it'd be exactly like Right Now, basically. But at least I'd know specifically who to yell at for it.
Ha-ha-ha. Gee...it burns!!
However, since such a "bold" statement comes from somebody, who knows next to nothing about me, and also, who by all accounts, loves his own words and opinions too much, to the point where he remains oblivious of reality and other people, I only can dismiss it, as yet another fallacy of a very sad broken mind.

If I was in charge of a movie, I would have been all for originality, new ideas and new approaches. However, since I've nothing to do with T:G, I take what I can. Hence my opinion. But of course, if you think, that somehow, being realistic about quality of the movie I have nothing to do with, makes me less of a person, be my guest. It's not the first laughable delusion I've encountered, won't be the last, I guess.

I wish most of you kids were old enough to remember when the very IDEA of a sequel or a remake to a popular film made you an outcast. It wasn't that long ago that Hollywood actually DID have some restraint, and "We already did that movie, we don't need to do it again" was a thing people said. Now it's the exact inverse. "We made money once, let's milk this thing until it's bleeding."
Playing oldschool elitist card? In this place?! Does not compute.
You made a funny, Colonel Blimp.

There has to be a reason to keep doing things.
Money, my dear grandpa.

[Leo656]

Wow. Guess I got "got". :roll:

First of all, of course you can make things good again, in theory. Notice how "They" never do? And how everyone immediately just stops caring if it's good anymore, and unanimously decide, "Well, I liked the original, like 30 f*ckin' years ago, so I'll go see the 8th one, too, even though it sucks." It's so stupid. People just bend over every time they see a familiar label. Your logic - coming from a good place it may be - falls apart because out of every time a franchise has gone to sh*t, it almost NEVER turns it back around. Like 3 or 4 times in history, that's happened, out of hundreds of remakes and reboots. So statistically, that's a crummy argument. Things CAN get better, but they almost never do, and eventually people stop giving a sh*t and just give up any hope for something better. That's Reality, not Cynicism. And it's not how things should be.

As to the rest of that nonsense you felt fit to spew: Don't take things so personally, hepcat. You took a poke at me and I took a poke back. The rest is just you trying to rip off my gimmick and doing it poorly. I'm not interested in getting involved in a "thing" with you. The only thing I need to "know" about you as a person, that would be relevant for this conversation, is that you apparently like corny movies based entirely on brand name. Well, that's all I need to know to know that I'd rather not talk about this or any movie with you. :lol: Feel free to keep talking, however. I've mentally checked out. But feel free. I wasn't attacking you as a person. You just seem to have questionable taste in movies and some faulty ideas about how things should be done, and thus I'm not going to extensively engage you in a conversation about them, because your "logic" and apologist thinking makes my head hurt.

Like most people here, you seem to have a huge issue with "You hate this thing I like, thus you are attacking me as a human being." Not exactly. Your taste or opinions, maybe. But you should be able to handle that a little better than this, no?

***This is where I'm apparently supposed to add fake laughs and obscure "insult" references in a feeble attempt at "one-upmanship". I'm not really into it right now. We can, but... if I were you I'd just Agree To Disagree.

[chrisdude]

C'mon, practically everybody knew Jurassic World was gonna be a huge hit. It's a Jurassic Park movie! :roll:Sure people thought it'd be huge. But a $200m weekend? Biggest opening weekend ever? It's already about to outgross The Avengers. No one even got high and daydreamed of that.

[Sumac]

Everyone always complains about the setting of Terminator Salvation...and that it didn't look like James Cameron's future war...
Except for the fact that it was not Future War people wanted to see on the big screen. To add to it, Salvation's setting was quite generic and unmemorable. Also, about three movies, I've heard these rumors, but McG words paint entirely different picture for its sequels

I personally am not a fan of having a million timelines.
Same here. I don't like "time travel creates another reality" approach, because it makes time travel quite pointless.

I have a problem with it, because they took everything that made the first two GREAT, completely removed it, and made it a typical 2015 action movie. I will say at least this isn't as bad as Point Break will be, a reboot which literally took everything from the original movie and removed it, except for the main character's names.
For each its own. Considering who was behind the production, I've expected typical 2015 movie and received what I was expected.
I approach it like this: can I influence production of the movie, if it most likely will be bad? No. So, I take what I can from it, as in I adjust my expectations towards what I suppose movie will be. Expectations, based on real evidence, not on nostalgia or fanfiction you have written in the head, since the last movie. I wish more people approached things like that. Would've made less for a less conflicts and added more objectivity to the mix.

You completely contradict yourself here...
No contradiction whatsoever. I didn't say "movies suck nowadays". I do not have a habit of making such general statements, unlike some other people here. I speak only of this particular franchise. And it's not about originality, it's about expectations from a franchise, which has become a cashcow, decade ago, and a movie, which was already created and had a lot of materials for people to judge its quality or lack of thereof.

This is not where it was going at all. McG talked about focusing on the creation of the T-1000 in the Salvation sequel, and then eventually leading to the time traveling. Neverthless, it was one of the possible ideas for a sequel.
Showing creation of T1000 does not contradict it.

This is exactly what I mean about people incapable of forming their own opinions. You are regurgitating buzz words or phrases you've heard in reviews.
I like to observe how some people put words in my mouth. Every time it gets more ridiculous, but it's fun to see, how some people crave to justify their opinion, by attempting to put down others and convince them what they think, while being absolutely clueless and ignorant of true reasons for it. Time to clean up this mess...

The movie has a giant robot...therefore it's a MICHALE BAY rip off of Transformers...oh god the OBSESSION of people with Michael Bay on this forum...
Yes, Harvester seems like an attempt to cater to Bayformers audience, by introducing similar looking machine, where previously there were none. Justification for it is lame as well and looks like something out of childish fanfiction.
Also, I spoke more about idea of changing setting of Terminator franchise, by making it take place in the present. Hence my comment about conceptual similarity to the "Battle for LA" as well.

"Bale is Bailing"...This is something that was attached to him after his melt down on set. I will admit he's the worst character in the movie, but it's a pretty damn good performance still, and the last portion of the movie he's great.
My opinion of him has nothing to do with his meltdown, no matter how much you try to convince me and yourself otherwise. I don't like his performance and think he always plays the same arrogant guy on a verge of psychotic breakdown, from one movie to another. Hence, why I dislike him. It's my personal problem with actor, which influence my opinion of the movie. However, even in its absence, Salvation has a lot of other problems, which has nothing to do with actors or their performance.

"Marcus is bland" This is an opinion, but it's an opinion I've heard a lot. I disagree with it, because Marcus is the only "Terminator" to have a conscience and actually has a redemption story.
Need I explain, that there is a obvious difference between such things as "actor performance" and "character story"? His story could've been interesting, but actor's performance was lacking.
You either trying to swap one concept for another to make your argument seem more credible, or you just don't know what are you talking about.

"T800 blunders" what?
During his fight with John Connor at the end of the movie he could have killed him multiple times. Instead he just throws him around the place. Where is the ruthless efficiency of the Terminator units? Oh, he acquires it as soon as plot demands him to, however, his obvious blunder is obvious. While the scene looked cool, it's still utterly ridiculous. Though, that goes for most of Salvation stuff.

Bale is not even in the movie that long. He wanted less action which is a GOOD thing for the Terminator movies, because the first two, although they had a fair amount of action, there is a LOT of down time. And a LOT of character building. The "bad" Terminator movies are the ones that jam the movie with 30 minute chase scenes where the T-800 is swinging through buildings...or a bus does a 450 splash on the Golden Gate Bridge.
It seems you don't know about T4 production, aren't you?

Initially John Connor should have appeared in person only at the end of the movie, where he was promptly killed. Instead, Bale demanded to expand his role to the point, where it seriously hurt development of Marcus as a character (as well as stole time from Kyle's role) and have made, already, rather convoluted story, even more disjointed and badly paced. Take away scenes with Connor from the movie and pretty much nothing will change, aside from absence of some awkward secondary plot.

Final version of Salvation story is a bad disjointed mess, apparently because script was rewritten multiple times by multiple people almost on the go. Skynet plan doesn't make even an ounce of sense: Marcus wakes up in the middle of a desert and, somehow, Skynet knew that he will encounter Kyle Reese, encounter John Connor, that he'll survive fighting with other humans and machines...This "plan" relied on so much luck and contrived coincidences, that Skynet as well, could apply to Fortune Telling, instead of being AI-warlord. Also, movie never explains how Skynet knew that Kyle Reese was John Connor's father. Why it didn't kill him. The whole "John Connor infiltrates "Skynet City" part" was created solely to give Connor something to do in the movie, instead of sitting in the submarine and ordering resistance around as was original plan.

I don't want to say that original version of the script was better, as it included other of-the-wall ideas, like Skynet's desire to advance humanity, instead of exterminating it, Terminator-farmers and other stuff. However, it's undeniable, that whatever original vision for the movie was, it was broken in hundred pieces by all of the rewrites that come after, resulting in a shoddy product, which doesn't make much sense.

I liked the scenes to open Genysis. But Salvation was BUILDING to that...
I am not sure if it would've been looking "like I wanted to". TG has a lot of references too, and I found them rather well-done, whereas I didn't care much for what Salvation did. But that mostly because Salvation didn't made me care for it at all.

[turtlefanforever]

Surprised about all the hate. i really liked it. Lots of action, really kept your eyes on the screen. Given i don't have the extreme emotional attachment that all of you seem to have for Terminator. And the plot was very straight forward.

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

Except for the fact that it was not Future War people wanted to see on the big screen. To add to it, Salvation's setting was quite generic and unmemorable. Also, about three movies, I've heard these rumors, but McG words paint entirely different picture for its sequels

Except this is completely wrong. The franchise was at the point of no return, the previous installment saw the world end. The sequel needs to take place after the Skynet invasion.

I approach it like this: can I influence production of the movie, if it most likely will be bad? No. So, I take what I can from it, as in I adjust my expectations towards what I suppose movie will be. Expectations, based on real evidence, not on nostalgia or fanfiction you have written in the head, since the last movie. I wish more people approached things like that. Would've made less for a less conflicts and added more objectivity to the mix.

Actually I try and stay out of the way of any production photos, rumors etc...because I do not want to have a preconceived notion the movie will be bad or good. I base my interest off of the trailers. Too many people judge a movie now just from seeing set photos. I am interested in the Terminator story, so when they make one, I will see it.

No contradiction whatsoever. I didn't say "movies suck nowadays". I do not have a habit of making such general statements, unlike some other people here. I speak only of this particular franchise. And it's not about originality, it's about expectations from a franchise, which has become a cashcow, decade ago, and a movie, which was already created and had a lot of materials for people to judge its quality or lack of thereof.

You typed a lot of words but don't make any point.


Showing creation of T1000 does not contradict it.
Also, I spoke more about idea of changing setting of Terminator franchise, by making it take place in the present. Hence my comment about conceptual similarity to the "Battle for LA" as well.

First of all, I was speaking to the statement you made about the sequels taking multiple machines back to the present like Battle for LA. I was telling you that the plan for the immediate sequel was about the creation of the T-1000. Most likely building to the 3rd movie where the T-800 AND T-1000 would be sent back in time, and we would witness Kyle, and the reprogrammed T-800 sent back to protect. This would complete the circle of the Terminator Franchise.

I like to observe how some people put words in my mouth. Every time it gets more ridiculous, but it's fun to see, how some people crave to justify their opinion, by attempting to put down others and convince them what they think, while being absolutely clueless and ignorant of true reasons for it. Time to clean up this mess...

You literally gave no actual reasons for disliking the movie just repeated "buzz words" and phrases that are constantly used. So I did not put words in your mouth I quoted YOUR words.

Yes, Harvester seems like an attempt to cater to Bayformers audience, by introducing similar looking machine, where previously there were none. Justification for it is lame as well and looks like something out of childish fanfiction.

Why is the justification lame? You make these statements then offer no explanation. They harvest the humans to learn how to replicate their human flesh. And or possibly make more "Marcus" models. The Harvester collects humans then calls a transporter to relocate them. The Harvester is directly linked to Skynet being able to invent the T-800 sooner than it was supposed to. It has plenty of justifications. If this was made before Transformers, you wouldn't have said this, but now because any "big robot" that is in a movie, it's a "Bayformers rip off". More repeating other "buzz words" or phrases. Also this thing is hardly a Transformer.

My opinion of him has nothing to do with his meltdown, no matter how much you try to convince me and yourself otherwise. I don't like his performance and think he always plays the same arrogant guy on a verge of psychotic breakdown, from one movie to another. Hence, why I dislike him. It's my personal problem with actor, which influence my opinion of the movie. However, even in its absence, Salvation has a lot of other problems, which has nothing to do with actors or their performance.

At least you took the time to explain something here. I completely understand not liking an actor or actress. But I see no similarities from his John Connor to any other movie he has made.

Need I explain, that there is a obvious difference between such things as "actor performance" and "character story"? His story could've been interesting, but actor's performance was lacking.
You either trying to swap one concept for another to make your argument seem more credible, or you just don't know what are you talking about.

You said "Marcus is bland". Marcus is the character. Sam Worthington is the actor. If you thought Worthington was bland, you should have said it. The character and story of Marcus is not bland. I thought Worthington was great in this movie.

During his fight with John Connor at the end of the movie he could have killed him multiple times. Instead he just throws him around the place. Where is the ruthless efficiency of the Terminator units? Oh, he acquires it as soon as plot demands him to, however, his obvious blunder is obvious. While the scene looked cool, it's still utterly ridiculous. Though, that goes for most of Salvation stuff.

Have you seen previous Terminator movies? Why is it ok for the Terminator to bat Kyle around in T1 but not ok for him to do it to John in TS? The T-800 in TS is the FIRST ONE EVER. I'm sure it has glitches.

It seems you don't know about T4 production, aren't you?

Like I said before, I don't care to hear rumors and stories before seeing a movie. If a movie was re-written 50 times it does not make me like or hate a movie before I see it. I saw it, and I liked it. That's all that matters. If you have a slice of cake, and you enjoyed it, but after you finished you were told "That cake took 50 tries to make" would you like the cake any less?

Initially John Connor should have appeared in person only at the end of the movie, where he was promptly killed. Instead, Bale demanded to expand his role to the point, where it seriously hurt development of Marcus as a character (as well as stole time from Kyle's role) and have made, already, rather convoluted story, even more disjointed and badly paced. Take away scenes with Connor from the movie and pretty much nothing will change, aside from absence of some awkward secondary plot.

Don't like the idea of John dying before 2029 so this would have made me hate the movie.

Final version of Salvation story is a bad disjointed mess, apparently because script was rewritten multiple times by multiple people almost on the go. Skynet plan doesn't make even an ounce of sense: Marcus wakes up in the middle of a desert and, somehow, Skynet knew that he will encounter Kyle Reese, encounter John Connor, that he'll survive fighting with other humans and machines...This "plan" relied on so much luck and contrived coincidences, that Skynet as well, could apply to Fortune Telling, instead of being AI-warlord. Also, movie never explains how Skynet knew that Kyle Reese was John Connor's father. Why it didn't kill him. The whole "John Connor infiltrates "Skynet City" part" was created solely to give Connor something to do in the movie, instead of sitting in the submarine and ordering resistance around as was original plan.

I don't want to say that original version of the script was better, as it included other of-the-wall ideas, like Skynet's desire to advance humanity, instead of exterminating it, Terminator-farmers and other stuff. However, it's undeniable, that whatever original vision for the movie was, it was broken in hundred pieces by all of the rewrites that come after, resulting in a shoddy product, which doesn't make much sense.

Well it's clear the movie didn't make sense to you. Maybe it was too much of a love letter to the first 2 movies. If you aren't into them as much as some, you might not get it. Marcus is an infiltration unit. When he ears certain words or names his CPU will make him choose one action over another, but he won't know it's not his own thinking. His main target was to find John Connor and bring him to the facility. Most likely so they can turn John into a Terminator to sabotage the Resistance. He is drawn to Kyle and doesn't even know it. He's very determined to get him back until he hears the name "John Connor" now he completely loses interest in Kyle, and goes with Blaire to find Connor. Skynet didn't know anything. They were anticipating him being able to fit in with the humans and over time locate John Connor. If you know the movie so much from what was in the original script and can't get over the changes, that's your fault. I enjoyed seeing John's rise to power so to speak. We are never shown WHY he is the leader until TS.

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

Surprised about all the hate. i really liked it. Lots of action, really kept your eyes on the screen. Given i don't have the extreme emotional attachment that all of you seem to have for Terminator. And the plot was very straight forward.

Terminator is sent back in time to kill the mother of the eventual Leader of the Resistance, and a soldier sent back to protect her is straight forward. Going back in time, multiple times, with multiple terminators, and then having a computer program become a physical thing that can "hack" a human, then send HIM back in time to create itself, only to have Sarah and Kyle go FORWARD in time to stop Skynet is NOT straight forward.

[THGhost]

Sure people thought it'd be huge. But a $200m weekend? Biggest opening weekend ever? It's already about to outgross The Avengers. No one even got high and daydreamed of that.

The power of Chris Pratt knows no bounds though ;)

[chrisdude]

The power of Chris Pratt knows no bounds though ;)What can I say? Apparently, he's the new Will Smith.

[THGhost]

What can I say? Apparently, he's the new Will Smith.

Pretty much. I'm surprised he wasn't in Terminator Genisys.

[CyberCubed]

I really liked the movie, and its a good "final" movie if this happens to be the last one until a possible reboot. Good action scenes, some nice humor, Arnold was great, and Sarah Conner was the best actress/actor in this whole thing.

I'm surprised the part about John Conner becoming a Terminator became true, I remember when Salvation was coming out there were rumors of John Conner being killed and a Terminator using his skin to masquerade around as him.

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

I really liked the movie, and its a good "final" movie if this happens to be the last one until a possible reboot. Good action scenes, some nice humor, Arnold was great, and Sarah Conner was the best actress/actor in this whole thing.

I'm surprised the part about John Conner becoming a Terminator became true, I remember when Salvation was coming out there were rumors of John Conner being killed and a Terminator using his skin to masquerade around as him.

Yeah real good movie. I especially liked when Arnie inexplicably gets an "upgrade" because he fell in some goop. He's an upgrade but still looks 70 years old.

[THGhost]

I really liked the movie, and its a good "final" movie if this happens to be the last one until a possible reboot. Good action scenes, some nice humor, Arnold was great, and Sarah Conner was the best actress/actor in this whole thing.

I'm surprised the part about John Conner becoming a Terminator became true, I remember when Salvation was coming out there were rumors of John Conner being killed and a Terminator using his skin to masquerade around as him.

There's meant to be sequels being made to Genisys, at least that's what I heard.

You're one of the first people I've seen say that Emilia Clarke was the best actor in it. I've seen a lot say she was miscast. I personally thought she was great.

Btw, it's John Connor. ;)

Yeah real good movie. I especially liked when Arnie inexplicably gets an "upgrade" because he fell in some goop. He's an upgrade but still looks 70 years old.

I look forward to seeing what he can do with his new abilities, since we're supposed to be getting sequels to this one.

[Vicky82]

Hasn't done all that well at the Box office.

Domestic: $68,848,110
+ Foreign: $155,500,000
= Worldwide: $224,348,110

[THGhost]

At least it made its budget back.

[TigerClaw]

Hasn't done all that well at the Box office.

Domestic: $68,848,110
+ Foreign: $155,500,000
= Worldwide: $224,348,110
So it's doing well, Its no longer how well it does domestically, But how it does worldwide, Since they count the foreign box office too.

[chrisdude]

It definitely could be one of those movies that makes gains on video sales and rentals.

[MikeandRaph87]

I watched The Terminator on Netflix yesterday. I have to say Kyle's sudden declaration of love was out of nowhere. The only out of nowhere forced cinema romance that had zero lead up more than this was Lt. Dunbar and Stands With A Fist in Dances With Wolves. Could have done without the naked flashes too, but that is only my personal preference as to how it was bandled in the latest film.

It kept me interested during the whole movie so it did its job. I see the references in the early part of Genyisis. A nod and a way of looping it all together. I prefer Genyisis of the two films.

[CyberCubed]

Watch Terminator II, its one of the best sci-fi movies of all time.

[MikeandRaph87]

Watch Terminator II, its one of the best sci-fi movies of all time.

I plan on borrowing it from my sibling tomorrow and watch over the weekend. Its the only Terminator film he cares to own and like many suggest to watch only the first two and maybe Genisys. T3 and Salvation do not sound any good. Arnold makes the films and if Salavation does not have a certain T-800 then no thanks. T3 just seems like a bad plan from what I read, but you Terminator fans could tell me that as I would not know.

I did think the relationship between Sarah and Kyle was handled better and created a build up. It was not completely out of nowhere like in the original film and see Sarah more scarred and action prone was better. The twist of Arnold raising her was interesting.

[chrisdude]

That relationship came out of nowhere because you weren't supposed to expect it. Kyle being John's father was the twist. They were fighting to save the future, but - surprise - the future was already set. Everything they did was meant to be.

[THGhost]

I plan on borrowing it from my sibling tomorrow and watch over the weekend. Its the only Terminator film he cares to own and like many suggest to watch only the first two and maybe Genisys. T3 and Salvation do not sound any good. Arnold makes the films and if Salavation does not have a certain T-800 then no thanks. T3 just seems like a bad plan from what I read, but you Terminator fans could tell me that as I would not know..

T3 is okay, a silly popcorn flick. Nothing more. I'd recommend The Sarah Connor Chronicles instead, since it replaces T3 in the timeline. Salvation is just horrible.

That relationship came out of nowhere because you weren't supposed to expect it. Kyle being John's father was the twist. They were fighting to save the future, but - surprise - the future was already set. Everything they did was meant to be.

Exactly. Anyone who thinks the relationship "came out of nowhere" has definitely missed something. :P

[CyberCubed]

Terminator 3 wasn't too bad. Its probably the most campy of all the films but I saw it when I was really young so I liked it for that reason.

[THGhost]

Terminator 3 wasn't too bad. Its probably the most campy of all the films but I saw it when I was really young so I liked it for that reason.

It's a lot of fun to watch with your brain turned off. Arnie's still entertaining as hell. Salvation just felt like a Michael Bay movie to me with the amount of explosions in it.

[Leo656]

It... was a movie about a war...

Aaaaanyways... I liked 3 fine when I saw it but it hasn't aged well, especially since it really doesn't count anymore anyway. It's worth a watch but the "twist" ending is really the only point to the whole thing. It's also officially the point where the franchise stopped trying to tell a story and became content to simply make fun of itself and wink at the audience forever, so for that it deserves a ton of the hate it gets. When I first saw it, I liked it, as it was "probably the best T3 we were ever gonna get." Now, my position is, "Two movies was all this story needed."

Frankly, I'm of the exact opposite opinion when it comes to Arnold, I think the idea that you HAVE to have him is a huge part of what holds the franchise back. Firstly, he only got the original role because he's a horrible actor. The fact that he can convincingly play a robot is in no way a compliment. Not that he cared; he was filming a few other flicks at the same time as the original Terminator, and was very vocal about what a "piece of sh*t" the dumb little sci-fi action movie he was doing in his spare time was. So it's not like he and the concept are in any way married to each other, right from the beginning of the thing.

Secondly, he's increasingly the least interesting thing about the best movies in the series, when you go back and watch them again. For 1 and 2, I'm at the point now where I'm more watching Linda Hamilton and following her story, her character evolution. I've seen Arnold's act, heard all the zingers before, and it's "blasphemous" to say but the story itself in no way hinges on his participation to keep being interesting for future films. At this point, he's a distraction. And further, he's a hindrance, because he's not cheap and whatever they're paying him is too much, at this point.

And frankly, it's a little absurd to think that they're going to be paying his grandkids for the rights to CGI scan his face onto other people when they're still making these things in 80 years, but you know for a fact they will. Because "Arnold has to be in it, somehow." No, not really.

Now that I'm older I'm not sure I get the Cult of Arnold. I liked him fine as a kid but as an adult he's clearly the worst part of everything he does. Except Red Sonja, which created a massive Suck Vortex where everything around Arnold was so awful that he became the highlight by default. :lol:

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

It's a lot of fun to watch with your brain turned off. Arnie's still entertaining as hell. Salvation just felt like a Michael Bay movie to me with the amount of explosions in it.

These kind of statements really confuse me. I'm assuming you've maybe seen it once, 5 or 6 years ago? Salvation is so far from a "Michael Bay movie". It has 4 action scenes. The only thing people seem to remember is the Harvester machine that is a big robot aka "BIG ROBOT DAT MEAN MIKAL BEY MOVIE!". T-3 is more of a "Michael Bay" movie if you think there is a large "amount of explosions" equals a Bay flick, because we all know there was never any splosions in a movie before Bay grabbed a camera!

Leo, I too actually like T3 at first, but I think it was more along the lines of "YES! Another Terminator movie!" and then when you go back and watch it a few years removed, you can't even believe that was released. At the time Arnie was beginning to become a joke, Arnold soundboards etc...So T3 just capitalized on him being a joke, and...well they made him a joke in the movie. That is one of the things I hated most about T-G. They had this running joke of him smiling too big...they did it about 5 times. It was funny in T-2, and it stopped being funny by the 2nd or 3rd time he did it in T3.

Another thing that annoys me about T-G, Emilie Clarke plays Sarah like a teenage John Connor. It sucked.

I urge you all to rent or illegally download the directors cut of Terminator Salvation and give it an open minded watch. You'll be surprised at how good it is. Does it have flaws, yes, yes it does. But it's not a joke, they only pay homage to the first 2 films, and they do not ruin the history James Cameron created.

[Cure]

Saving Private Ryan reminds me of a Michael Bay movie.

And yeah, I agree about Sarah Connor in Genisys. She was my least favorite part.

[Commenter 42]

I urge you all to rent or illegally download the directors cut of Terminator Salvation and give it an open minded watch. You'll be surprised at how good it is. Does it have flaws, yes, yes it does. But it's not a joke, they only pay homage to the first 2 films, and they do not ruin the history James Cameron created.

You mean the James Cameron who campaigned for TG, and shat on Salvation?
That James Cameron?

I'm starting to wonder about you. I have, like, so many questions.

[Leo656]

Cameron's a parody of himself by this point. I remember there was a time when he was all in favor of T3, as well. Like, "Well, it's not what I would have done, but I'm telling ya, it's just as good!" Guy just likes to talk. Lots'a these guys just talk. They contradict themselves so many times it's not even a joke anymore.

I don't remember Cameron saying much about Salvation, but I remembered that first Arnold liked it, then he hated it - and made sure to mention how it was a mistake not having him in it, despite originally saying he hoped they could do it without him.

Purse: I liked T3 in my younger, more optimistic days. :lol: It's pretty cringe-worthy, now. I was definitely all about "Yeah! More Terminator!" :lol: And figured "Well, it's as good as it could've been", since everyone knows the second one is untouchable. So I appreciated T3 for trying to be a totally different thing... but now, I don't like that thing very much. All it really did, was prove people would see a Terminator movie, even if it sucked and Linda Hamilton wasn't in it.

And the world has since done terrible things with that knowledge.

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

You mean the James Cameron who campaigned for TG, and shat on Salvation?
That James Cameron?

I'm starting to wonder about you. I have, like, so many questions.

Quote from James Cameron
I have seen it, and unfortunately I saw it the wrong way, on cable at the hotel, while I was working, over three nights because I don’t have much time. It’s better than I thought it was going to be.

It’s actually quite reverential to the mythos of the ‘Terminator’ world. I think McG and the writers tried hard to keep reacquainting you with some of those ideas in the story that they were weaving. So actually I thought it was pretty cool. I did feel that it sort of lacked Je ne sais quoi. Although I love Sam [Worthington] in it.

Not the praise he gave Genysis...but Genysis also didn't have his ex wife who he absolutely HATES. He is the one who gave his blessing to McG's screenplay, and also suggested Sam Worthington should play Marcus.

About Arnold flip flopping on TS...He was on board at first. Then when there was a chance to acquire the rights to the Terminator franchise he buried it so there would be no sequels. It wasn't necessary because the company went bankrupt and lost the rights anyway.

Leo, yeah I think you and I are the same age...I was definitely at the age where I thought it WAS funny to see Arnold portrayed as a complete joke. Because that was a time when people were just quoting him all the time. Plus I wanted to see Kristanna Loken naked haha.

[ZariusTwo]

I was addicted to the Arnie soundboards back then, made a whole CD of it and gave it to my mom on her birthday. She loved the one with the redneck woman who argued with Arnie for a solid ten minutes about her dead mother:lol:

[THGhost]

I urge you all to rent or illegally download the directors cut of Terminator Salvation and give it an open minded watch. You'll be surprised at how good it is. Does it have flaws, yes, yes it does. But it's not a joke, they only pay homage to the first 2 films, and they do not ruin the history James Cameron created.

Did we watch the same movie? :lol:

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

Did we watch the same movie? :lol:

Apparently not. I'm convinced that anyone who thinks Salvation is terrible, either doesn't know what a good movie is, or they're so biased they can't allow themselves to like it.

[Candy Kappa]

Salvation was boring.

[THGhost]

Salvation was boring.

Too right. It has no heart. At least T3 has a good-natured but silly heart. No version of Salvation will make it any better, and I know what a good film is. Salvation is not one of them, by any means. T3 has redeeming features, Salvation has none.

Back to Genisys, what did you all of think J.K. Simmons' character? I personally think he was wasted, they could have done a lot more with him. I love that man.

[chrisdude]

I still can't believe he didn't play Dr. Silberman. As soon as they cast him, I was sure he would.

[THGhost]

I still can't believe he didn't play Dr. Silberman. As soon as they cast him, I was sure he would.

I didn't look up who he was playing before seeing it, so imagine my disappointment when I discovered he wasn't playing Dt. Silberman. He'd have been perfect.

[chrisdude]

I remember an interview with him saying he was playing a detective, and I was like, "Horse crap, Dr. Silberman."

[Sumac]

Except this is completely wrong. The franchise was at the point of no return, the previous installment saw the world end. The sequel needs to take place after the Skynet invasion.
That is your opinion, one which McG didn't share:
“I strongly suspect the next movie is going to take place in a [pre-Judgment Day] 2011… John Connor is going to travel back in time and he’s going to have to galvanize the [sic] militaries of the world for an impending Skynet invasion. They’ve figured out time travel to the degree where they can send more than one naked entity. So you’re going to have hunter killers and transports and harvesters and everything arriving in our time and Connor fighting back with conventional military warfare, which I think is going to be f***ing awesome. I also think he’s going to meet a scientist that’s going to look a lot like present-day Robert Patrick [who famously played the T-1000 in Terminator 2], talking about stem-cell research and how we can all live as idealized, younger versions of ourselves.”
Link (not the one from Hyrule) (http://screenrant.com/mcg-terminator-salvatio-sequel-time-travel-ross-7260/)

Actually I try and stay out of the way of any production photos, rumors etc...because I do not want to have a preconceived notion the movie will be bad or good. I base my interest off of the trailers. Too many people judge a movie now just from seeing set photos. I am interested in the Terminator story, so when they make one, I will see it.
I don't care about photos and trailers either. I usually decide immediately, if I want to see the movie in the theater or not. Everything else is there just to provide some background information on what to expect.

First of all, I was speaking to the statement you made about the sequels taking multiple machines back to the present like Battle for LA...
I already covered it before.
Your word against word of McG, director of your beloved T4. I know who I trust more, that is until you provide some source of your information.

You literally gave no actual reasons for disliking the movie just repeated "buzz words" and phrases that are constantly used. So I did not put words in your mouth I quoted YOUR words.
Wait, what?
I spend half of a post to explain in detail what I disliked about the movie and stated my own opinions, which were not influenced by reviews or thoughts of others, and all you can see are "buzzwords"?! That's some fanboish myopia, if I saw one, ha-ha.

I guess you are from the people who would defend tooth and claw their beloved production, to the point stating that if majority of people found it bland and forgettable, then all of them must be wrong, stupid and don't have appreciation of the fine art. In another words, typical fanboish buzzword rant. How predictable of you.

Why is the justification lame? You make these statements then offer no explanation.
Because, it's lame? Skynet can create giant robot collecting humans, with enormous firepower, but apparently he can't create effective battle machines to wipe out humanity? Hm. Also, why spending so much resources on giant thing, that is so obviously not stealthy and definitely a good target for human army, which still have heavy firepower? It's a waste of resources. Skynet supposed to be smart, but Harvester is not smart.
And it's obvious pandering to the Bayformers crowd, like: "Look kids, you like giant robots in Bay movies? 'K, we've got some giant robot in out Terminator movie, isn't awesome?"
Gladly, movie-goers decided that it's not awesome.

You said "Marcus is bland". Marcus is the character. Sam Worthington is the actor. If you thought Worthington was bland, you should have said it. The character and story of Marcus is not bland. I thought Worthington was great in this movie.
Again, what?!
OK, now I apparently need to explain to you, that sometimes even great actors can give ****** performance because script gives them literally no good material to play with. Well, at least you've learnt something new today!! Aint' it awesome?

I thought Marcus was bland because actor's performance was bland and boring. I do think that's part of the problem was botched script (thanks, Bale!!), and another part - that Worthington is not a good actor. I didn't find his performance in Avatar great either, so there.

Have you seen previous Terminator movies? Why is it ok for the Terminator to bat Kyle around in T1 but not ok for him to do it to John in TS? The T-800 in TS is the FIRST ONE EVER. I'm sure it has glitches.
Creating your own explanations for the character stupidity in the movie is the lowest thing. That's job of the scriptwriter, not yours. And its definitely couldn't serve as an argument.

Like I said before, I don't care to hear rumors and stories before seeing a movie. If a movie was re-written 50 times it does not make me like or hate a movie before I see it. I saw it, and I liked it. That's all that matters. If you have a slice of cake, and you enjoyed it, but after you finished you were told "That cake took 50 tries to make" would you like the cake any less?
Yes, possibly I will like it less, if cake could've been more awesome. Or I like it much more, if I will be aware how much time and efforts were put into its creation.

Meanwhile, movie has a lot more facets than the cake. Actors performance, story, camera work, special effects, e.t.c. Most of the times, its interesting to see how production came to be, because, it gives you new appreciation of it or make lament about its lost potential. This is doubly true in case of mediocre movies.

Since I do consider T4 to be a mediocre movie, I could only think what it could have been, if creators stick to the initial plan. Though, I doubt it would have made T4 more appreciated amongst fans of the series, but at least it could have been more interesting.

Don't like the idea of John dying before 2029 so this would have made me hate the movie.
Good thing, I don't care about his character and don't think, that Terminator franchise should be only about him.

Well it's clear the movie didn't make sense to you. Maybe it was too much of a love letter to the first 2 movies. If you aren't into them as much as some, you might not get it.
This movie did make sense to me. Sense, that it was a bad movie, because of atrocious script, rewritten to accommodate desires of certain actor and bland performance from everyone else.
Also, it's clear that you are fanboy of this movie and everyone who don't share your opinion are not "true fans" of the series. Which is hilarious and utterly ridiculous.
However, if you think, that random references to the previous movies make T4 good...then I've got bad news for ya.

Marcus is an infiltration unit. When he ears certain words or names his CPU will make him choose one action over another, but he won't know it's not his own thinking. His main target was to find John Connor and bring him to the facility. Most likely so they can turn John into a Terminator to sabotage the Resistance. He is drawn to Kyle and doesn't even know it. He's very determined to get him back until he hears the name "John Connor" now he completely loses interest in Kyle, and goes with Blaire to find Connor. Skynet didn't know anything. They were anticipating him being able to fit in with the humans and over time locate John Connor. If you know the movie so much from what was in the original script and can't get over the changes, that's your fault. I enjoyed seeing John's rise to power so to speak. We are never shown WHY he is the leader until TS.
I don't even...
So, lemme guess this straight, you want to explain bad script with your bad fanfiction? Nice one.

Also, if you so big fan of the Terminator, you should knew that it was explained in the first movie HOW and WHY John Connor has become leader of the resistance. And T1 made a damn better job at it, that some half-assed fanfic from McG and Bailman.

Terminator is sent back in time to kill the mother of the eventual Leader of the Resistance, and a soldier sent back to protect her is straight forward. Going back in time, multiple times, with multiple terminators, and then having a computer program become a physical thing that can "hack" a human, then send HIM back in time to create itself, only to have Sarah and Kyle go FORWARD in time to stop Skynet is NOT straight forward.
Yes, for a movie about time travel, it's pretty straightforward.

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

Sumac, I am not knocking you, obviously there is a language thing going on... You don't really read what I'm replying to and you're not getting half the things I'm trying to say.

You kept saying I'm a fan boy, and that I'm writing fan fiction. Usually fanboy's HATE movies like TS. And this fan fiction...they explain what Marcus is at the end of the movie. So I wasn't creating fan fiction.

I never saw the extended quote from McG so I will gladly admit I was wrong. And it sounds absolutely awful to send HK's and multiple Terminators back.

You said I'm creating my own fantasy about the Terminator's fight style...I'm not. I stated a fact of how the Terminator acted in the first Terminator. When it did not have a weapon most of the time, it back handed or threw the person. That was how it fought.

You said Skynet is about stealth and that's why the Harvester makes no sense...that is so far from the truth. In the first 2 Terminators, when they show the future war...there is NOTHING stealthy about Giant HK's flying around shooting people, or the GIANT tank HK's. They initiated the T-800 program to infiltrate the humans and beat them from the inside because they couldn't win the war.

You don't care about John and you don't think Terminator is about him...OOOOK...well then you are confused. Terminator is about Sarah, John, and Kyle. It's about the human nature to survive. It is NOT about the Terminators.

You said TG is pretty straight forward for a time travel movie. See my last statment. Terminator is NOT a time travel movie either.

[MikeandRaph87]

Terminator franchise is jeopardy. I actually thought it was a really good film that delivered on action and had an interesting enough story and brought in elements from the previous installments specifically scenes from the first one and Arnold reprogrammed to protect instead of kill from T-2. Hope for one more. I am surprised, but I guess this one of the examples of needing to pay careful attention a budget while delivering on the script.

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/the-terminator-dilemma-when-to-admit-a-124838112662.html

[TigerClaw]

Terminator franchise is jeopardy. I actually thought it was a really good film that delivered on action and had an interesting enough story and brought in elements from the previous installments specifically scenes from the first one and Arnold reprogrammed to protect instead of kill from T-2. Hope for one more. I am surprised, but I guess this one of the examples of needing to pay careful attention a budget while delivering on the script.

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/the-terminator-dilemma-when-to-admit-a-124838112662.html
I really hope they go through with the sequel, They gotta explain Matt Smith's Skynet, and who send the Terminator to 1973 to protect young Sarah Connor.

[Sumac]

Sumac, I am not knocking you, obviously there is a language thing going on... You don't really read what I'm replying to and you're not getting half the things I'm trying to say.
Yeah, sure. Aha.
You said a bunch of things, that didn't make sense, put words in my mouth and argued with something that wasn't there, and after it was carefully pointed out, you decided to play language card, eh? Somebody need to be taught about responsibility for ones words. Or, alternatively, it is problem not with my language, but yours.

You kept saying I'm a fan boy, and that I'm writing fan fiction. Usually fanboy's HATE movies like TS. And this fan fiction...they explain what Marcus is at the end of the movie. So I wasn't creating fan fiction.
Except this explanation barely made any sense.

You said Skynet is about stealth and that's why the Harvester makes no sense...that is so far from the truth. In the first 2 Terminators, when they show the future war...there is NOTHING stealthy about Giant HK's flying around shooting people, or the GIANT tank HK's. They initiated the T-800 program to infiltrate the humans and beat them from the inside because they couldn't win the war.
In all out war, when it has an advantage, Skynet indeed forgets about stealth.
In situation, when humans still have heavy weaponry, creating something like Harvester is a waste of resources and providing humans with nice target practice to boot.

You don't care about John and you don't think Terminator is about him...OOOOK...well then you are confused. Terminator is about Sarah, John, and Kyle. It's about the human nature to survive. It is NOT about the Terminators.
Geee...Where did I said that I think Termiantor is about Terminators?
Putting words in my mouth again? Nice.
In my opinion, Terminator is about struggle between humans and machines and not neccessarily should be limited to time travel or Connor family. It's problem of scriptwriters that they return to those things over and over again.

You said TG is pretty straight forward for a time travel movie. See my last statment. Terminator is NOT a time travel movie either.
After 3 movies and the series being mostly about time travel, I think, your argument is invalid. Like it or not, but right now, Terminator series is exactly about time travel (or, also, about time travel). Maybe even more so nowadays, than before.

[MikeandRaph87]

One thing I always thought was that Swartzenegger 's T-800 character was the exact same one frim the first and second film just regramed to do the oppisite of his mission. I do not. Elieve it was mentioned in Judgment Day.

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

One thing I always thought was that Swartzenegger 's T-800 character was the exact same one frim the first and second film just regramed to do the oppisite of his mission. I do not. Elieve it was mentioned in Judgment Day.

No, there is a canceled concept of the T-800 then Kyle, then a T-1000 all going through the portal within a few minutes of each other, then John reprograms a T-800 to protect himself in 1994. Two different terminators.

[MikeandRaph87]

No, there is a canceled concept of the T-800 then Kyle, then a T-1000 all going through the portal within a few minutes of each other, then John reprograms a T-800 to protect himself in 1994. Two different terminators.

Its fuuny how they are identical and played by the same actor yet completely different characters. That is forgetting about the alternate timeline with "Pops" which would make a third. Being the same actor I always assumed it was the antagonist from T-1 reformed / reprogrammed.

[NinjaPug]

Finally got to see this. Yikes. Terrible script and terrible casting choices. I really like both Clarke's but both were horribly miscast especially Emilia. Jai Courtney? Lol - he's bad no matter what. I'm glad future movies have been put on indefinite hold despite China bolstering it's global box office. I hope the rights revert back to Cameron so people stop trying to make this into something it's not - a viable franchise.

I must have missed it but how exactly was history changed or is that something supposed to be left open ended for a sequel? And why time travel into the future to stop something right before it occurs when you could take your time leading up to it to make sure it never happens?

[Andrew NDB]

Emilia Clarke reveals she is relieved she doesn't have to reprise the part, and that the director was chewed up on the set.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/emilia-clarke-is-e2-80-98relieved-e2-80-99-she-didn-e2-80-99t-have-to-make-e2-80-98terminator-e2-80-99-sequels-admits-e2-80-98nobody-had-a-good-time-e2-80-99-making-e2-80-98genisys-e2-80-99/ar-AAxKDiE

[newfan]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/entertainmentmovies/terminator-movie-picture-exclusive-linda-hamilton-61-is-seen-on-set-for-first-time/ar-AAyWTuC

[ZariusTwo]

jCyEX6u-Yhs

[joe-eyeball]

That’s a long teaser trailer! It looks alright I guess. Does anyone know if Arnold’s role is a small one or not?

[ProactiveMan]

Looks like more of the same.

[Andrew NDB]

Oh no...

Well, it's not a bad trailer. It's just there's not one thing to be excited about a third trilogy starter following the two failed trilogy starters. The whole thing seems to hinge on us supposed to be excited about seeing Linda Hamilton return as Sarah Connor with guns blazing, which I don't care about.

A nanite Terminator? We got that in the last movie and it was dumb.

Old Man Arnie/"Pops"? Last one.

Aircraft mayhem? Last one.

A truck smashing through stuff on a road? Pretty much every Terminator movie ever.

A Terminator that thinks it's human, or has been augmented? We got that two movies ago. The whole movie revolved around that.

I also suspect the Mackenzie Davis character is going to be a very polarizing one. I'm very suspicious. John Connor has clearly been killed off again for the third time, so I wonder if the Dani Ramos character is Sarah's granddaughter?

Plus side: Cameron HAS said it will be rated R for sure. So at least this will be the first time since 2003 it won't be played down for 13 year-olds, if nothing else.

That’s a long teaser trailer! It looks alright I guess. Does anyone know if Arnold’s role is a small one or not?

Last I read, he was playing two parts. One, a human (I'm guessing that's him in the trailer) and two, an evil Terminator, probably CGI de-aged. Then all outlets stopped saying that and I couldn't find the articles anymore.

[newfan]

Oh no...

Well, it's not a bad trailer. It's just there's not one thing to be excited about a third trilogy starter following the two failed trilogy starters. The whole thing seems to hinge on us supposed to be excited about seeing Linda Hamilton return as Sarah Connor with guns blazing, which I don't care about.

A nanite Terminator? We got that in the last movie and it was dumb.

Old Man Arnie/"Pops"? Last one.

Aircraft mayhem? Last one.

A truck smashing through stuff on a road? Pretty much every Terminator movie ever.

A Terminator that thinks it's human, or has been augmented? We got that two movies ago. The whole movie revolved around that.

I also suspect the Mackenzie Davis character is going to be a very polarizing one. I'm very suspicious. John Connor has clearly been killed off again for the third time, so I wonder if the Dani Ramos character is Sarah's granddaughter?

Plus side: Cameron HAS said it will be rated R for sure. So at least this will be the first time since 2003 it won't be played down for 13 year-olds, if nothing else.



Last I read, he was playing two parts. One, a human (I'm guessing that's him in the trailer) and two, an evil Terminator, probably CGI de-aged. Then all outlets stopped saying that and I couldn't find the articles anymore.

Okay, deleted and re-posted, that last one didn't post properly.

Oh, well Arnie being human is at least a first, I assume playing the person the design was based on. He also hasn't been bad since the first one so there's that different at least, even if not new.
I wondered about John here also, and the young girl.

R rated too, maybe a 15 here rather than 18 but still, older.

Much of the same from the look but I plan to go and see it.

Welcome back btw

[Leo656]

Oh, well Arnie being human is at least a first, I assume playing the person the design was based on.

They did that before already, too, and it was stupid.

[sdp]

Is the second terminator really any good though? I mean it's definitely entertaining and iconic, but it retcons the ending of the original film, it makes no sense for the terminators to all use Arnold's face since that defeats the purpose, you have a kid outrunning the upgraded version of the T-800.

I think the series took a downturn from there, a reboot should've been a sequel to Terminator 1 ignoring even the second film. But I guess with time travel shenanigans all sequels can be canon. This movie is going to suck if John Connor is dead, I mean that's the whole purpose of the series.

[Prowler]

I'll always prefer the first one. Mostly because the Terminator was the bad guy there.

[Andrew NDB]

They did that before already, too, and it was stupid.

What, the T3 deleted scene? The Sgt. Candy thing? That was stupid, but they can do a lot better than that.

Though the time for that should have been a long time ago. It's hard to believe the machines would bother to take an old man and for some reason de-age him to be the staple of their skinsuit models.

Is the second terminator really any good though? I mean it's definitely entertaining and iconic, but it retcons the ending of the original film, it makes no sense for the terminators to all use Arnold's face since that defeats the purpose, you have a kid outrunning the upgraded version of the T-800.

Yeah, I mean he's the 101st skinsuit model... so there should be 99 other skinsuit models that don't look like Arnold or Franco Columbo.

HgV7-MJwUBw

I think the series took a downturn from there, a reboot should've been a sequel to Terminator 1 ignoring even the second film. But I guess with time travel shenanigans all sequels can be canon. This movie is going to suck if John Connor is dead, I mean that's the whole purpose of the series.

I think after T2 the only involvement of Arnold should have been as a human. They had him as a villain in T1 and a protector in T2... not much else to do "new" at that point but to see him as a human. Anything else is retread.

Also, no more time travel. That should have stopped with 2.

I'll always prefer the first one. Mostly because the Terminator was the bad guy there.

As I get older I definitely like the first one better now.

Its fuuny how they are identical and played by the same actor yet completely different characters. That is forgetting about the alternate timeline with "Pops" which would make a third. Being the same actor I always assumed it was the antagonist from T-1 reformed / reprogrammed.

We've had 5 model 101s. The T-800 in T1, the T-800 in T2, the T-850 in T3, the T-800 at the end of T4 (and it can't be the same one from T1 since it's set in... 2018, isn't it?), and the T-800 in T5. All completely different characters played by Arnold.

Kind of like Star Trek with original Enterprise and Kirk and Spock and all that, if Terminator as a franchise can't outgrow Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sarah Connor and John Connor and all that... then maybe it doesn't deserve to.

[Wildcat]

I also said T2 was very repetitive. It’s cool and everything just not really much of a follow up. That’s fine for some movies but Terminator has a deep storyline.

The trailer looks fine. I do not mind them reusing ideas as long as they fit. A human being part machine makes sense. If that technology was real people would definitely use it.

Killing off John Conner could be creative. Whenever he died surely someone else would lead the fight against Skynet. This girl could start a new resistance or ambush them after they thought it won.

I brought up the T-Infinity but that would be about a bunch of time traveling. I’d like that. Miller and Cameron would not :lol:

I had a pretty wild idea. Instead of Skynet sending back a terminator to kill anyone it sends back a ship or drone that leaves to colonize Mars (or all the planets) and then invades earth from space to ensure humans can not reach them. :o

[Sumac]

I'll always prefer the first one. Mostly because the Terminator was the bad guy there.
Same here. I like it, because of thick 80-s atmosphere and general sense of dread and threat. And Terminator looks like an unstoppable monster in this movie, but a monster which someday can become reality.
T2 is a great movie, but it had certainly lost a lot of what made T1 great.

Killing off John Conner could be creative. Whenever he died surely someone else would lead the fight against Skynet. This girl could start a new resistance or ambush them after they thought it won.

I brought up the T-Infinity but that would be about a bunch of time traveling. I’d like that. Miller and Cameron would not :lol:

I had a pretty wild idea. Instead of Skynet sending back a terminator to kill anyone it sends back a ship or drone that leaves to colonize Mars (or all the planets) and then invades earth from space to ensure humans can not reach them. :o
I feel like killing John Connor is probably the least creative thing you can do with the Terminator story at this point. It just smells of desperation to do something "new".

T-Infinity and establishing of the multiverse could have been a cool thing, but I am not sure how it would work in the movie format and I feel like it is very removed from the idea of the audience on what Terminator is.

Skynet trying to colonize Mars...reminds me of the certain part of RoboCop vs Terminator comic book, where Skynet went onto colonizing universe.

[Wildcat]

Wow I didn’t know an idea like had been used. I haven’t actually read the comics. I found about T-Infinity just reading about terminator online and I thought it sounded pretty awesome.

They could have kept 3-5 canon and said they were part of the multiverse. As well as Dark Fate. Being the prime timeline. Something similar to Turtles Forever where it wants to wipe out the original so nobody becomes the hero.

T3 ended with Skynet taking over. Salvation ended with Skynet still in control and in Genisys evil John Conner survived. Maybe the original timeline could be the only one where it lost and it needs to erase it.

As for a new “John Connor” I think it could interesting. There’s other reasons why he might die (either in the past, present or future) so that could change situations.

[Andrew NDB]

I feel like killing John Connor is probably the least creative thing you can do with the Terminator story at this point. It just smells of desperation to do something "new".

You're back! I thought you were toast.

And no, killing John isn't new at all. In T3 it was well established that the T-850 in the movie killed him in the future. And in T5 we know that John was plucked from 2029 and killed off-screen and made into the physical representation of SkyNET.

T-Infinity and establishing of the multiverse could have been a cool thing, but I am not sure how it would work in the movie format and I feel like it is very removed from the idea of the audience on what Terminator is.

I don't know about T-Infinity, but I like the idea of SkyNET learning and evolving from other timelines, something they kind of showed in Genisys and strongly implied in Salvation. Like that's the one constant... SkyNET constantly changing its approach and learning from all of the other timelines.

But yeah, how to show that on screen coherently and satisfyingly? Not sure.

[Sumac]

You're back! I thought you were toast.
Nice to see you too!
Little worthless nuisances can't hurt me. :tcool:

And no, killing John isn't new at all. In T3 it was well established that the T-850 in the movie killed him in the future. And in T5 we know that John was plucked from 2029 and killed off-screen and made into the physical representation of SkyNET.
It's still had happened in the future, after John had established Resistance (Techcom, does anyone still remember its name in continuity?).
In this case, his death carries less weight, than if he is killed in the past, before the war.

I don't know about T-Infinity, but I like the idea of SkyNET learning and evolving from other timelines, something they kind of showed in Genisys and strongly implied in Salvation. Like that's the one constant... SkyNET constantly changing its approach and learning from all of the other timelines.

But yeah, how to show that on screen coherently and satisfyingly? Not sure.
That was the role of T-Infinity in the comic books - it was traveling through different universes trying to ensure that Skynet will win in every single one of them.

[Coola Yagami]

The whole thing ended with T2 for me. I'm not even gonna bother to be honest. It's like I don't care what else they can do the ruin the franchise cause at least in my mind anything after 2 is over budgeted fanfiction.

[sdp]

John Connor can die in the future after he built the resistance, not in the present. The franchise did need to move on from terminator sent to the past, it needed to got to the "present" with the war and see how humans finally won that war. I realize that was the intention and it failed with Salvation so they rebooted with Genisys to go "back to basics" but that failed, why go back to a similar idea of Genisys, Dark Fate is like a new take on Terminator 3, when we should be getting a new take on Salvation.

https://i.ebayimg.com/thumbs/images/g/SpEAAOSwVxpbRP2m/s-l225.jpg

I understand that the tech wasn't there for a full scale war like we imagined in Terminator 2 when Terminator 3 came out. But we've had the tech to do the war justice for a long time now and it's what we want to see. As a kid I loved the T2 Future War toyline, sure it had a bunch of stupid stuff to sell toys but it sparked my imagination in all the things that could be happening in the future war. All the dumb toys for gimmicks could make great random villains in a future war movie, how does a toy company have more creativity just trying to sell toys back int he early 90s than the actual studio has had in decades?

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41jTqfRULBL._AC_UL320_SR252,320_.jpg




They could have kept 3-5 canon and said they were part of the multiverse. As well as Dark Fate. Being the prime timeline. Something similar to Turtles Forever where it wants to wipe out the original so nobody becomes the hero.

T3 ended with Skynet taking over. Salvation ended with Skynet still in control and in Genisys evil John Conner survived. Maybe the original timeline could be the only one where it lost and it needs to erase it.

I've only watched up to T3 and the first season of the SCC and haven't seen any terminator since those came out so there'll be a lot of holes in this theory until I re-watch stuff.

T2 retcons the ending of T1. T3 retcons the ending of T2, judgement day is inevitable. Stuff like Sarah having cancer from T3 happens in SSC, because of the ending of T3, SCC would have to take place before T3 I guess even with a bunch of continuity errors there.

Judgement Day happens and the war is on, Salvation happens, the shenanigans there make Genisys happens and now Dark Fate happens. Since I haven't seen any of the last few movies I know I'm not counting dozens of contradictions that are there but think of it as a first rough draft.

Fun fact, I once tried to connect The Matrix with Terminator, The Matrix being the future war they talked about in the terminator films. At least back during T3 days/only one Matrix movie it wasn't that difficult. I just realized it was kind of dumb even if it could be done.

[neatoman]

I just remembered a video and I realised that no matter how bad this movie could suck, there's always a possibility it could be worse.
EEJMDet82Hk

[Wildcat]

T2 retcons the ending of T1. T3 retcons the ending of T2, judgement day is inevitable. Stuff like Sarah having cancer from T3 happens in SSC, because of the ending of T3, SCC would have to take place before T3 I guess even with a bunch of continuity errors there.

Judgement Day happens and the war is on, Salvation happens, the shenanigans there make Genisys happens and now Dark Fate happens. Since I haven't seen any of the last few movies I know I'm not counting dozens of contradictions that are there but think of it as a first rough draft.

Fun fact, I once tried to connect The Matrix with Terminator, The Matrix being the future war they talked about in the terminator films. At least back during T3 days/only one Matrix movie it wasn't that difficult. I just realized it was kind of dumb even if it could be done.I never saw SCC but I assume it could probably be included with what I meant.

Dark Fate can still be part 3 in the original timeline. The events of T3, Salvation, Genisys could be alternate timelines/universes so they would not have to connect them or worry about contradictions.

T-Infinity’s objective is to make sure Skynet wins in ever timeline. So since Skynet is active at the end of each of those the original timeline (Dark Fate) could be the only one it needs to fix since the T800 and T1000 failed.

Even the name would still fit...it’s fate that Skynet wins in all scenarios.

[Xav]

T3 ended with Skynet taking over. Salvation ended with Skynet still in control and in Genisys evil John Conner survived.Did he? I thought the T-3000 was destroyed in that time machine thing?

[Wesley]

The whole thing ended with T2 for me. I'm not even gonna bother to be honest. It's like I don't care what else they can do the ruin the franchise cause at least in my mind anything after 2 is over budgeted fanfiction.

Agreed. I was never interested in seeing how a Future War with Skynet would play out. The tv spinoff Sarah Connor Chronicles used to be one of my fav shows, but I tried rewatching it recently and gave up early on. Just seemed to be more of the same (though that’s the case with most recent Terminator films as well), except it was like watching a soap opera rather than an action drama. Probably didn’t help that I rewatched the first two films a few months ago.

[Wildcat]

Did he? I thought the T-3000 was destroyed in that time machine thing?There’s a credits scene where the power core is still active and a hologram which is probably virtual John Connor. Anyway Skynet clearly survives.

[Andrew NDB]

Cameron explaining the movie:

http://www.darkhorizons.com/james-cameron-explains-new-terminator-tone/

[Wildcat]

So it’s inevitable that Skynet takes over? That means assuming it does well they can do the trilogy they want and do a future war movie.

I wonder if Cameron even wants a future war movie though.

[Voltron]

A future war movie? You mean like with space marines and androids and stuff? I don't think he's ever done something like that. It doesn't seem to be his MO.

[Wildcat]

Well the future war in this series. I don’t know if it’d have space marines.

[Andrew NDB]

So it’s inevitable that Skynet takes over?

A little weird that Cameron would that say. Sort of goes against his whole "no fate but what we make" thing, though maybe this proves he never really believed that at all.

[Xav]

So the Terminator franchise is basically an endless time loop, where nothing anybody does matters?

[Prowler]

The whole thing ended with T2 for me. I'm not even gonna bother to be honest. It's like I don't care what else they can do the ruin the franchise cause at least in my mind anything after 2 is over budgeted fanfiction.

Pretty much this.

[sdp]

It's inevitable that Skynet takes over is also the twist ending of Terminator 3, so this new third terminator is doing the same thing.

[Wildcat]

I thought it was kinda strange too since Cameron seems to be about ending the story. Unless he changed his mind which is fine.

They should really do a future war movie then since Skynet always takes over. It’s the best direction instead of sending back more and more terminators.

I have another idea. He mentions the T800 in this is different. It’s an aged terminator that everyone has speculated stuck around in order to help Sarah.

Couldn’t it launch its own (good version) AI that fights for them? Like it could create machines that battle terminators. Call them Eliminators. :lol:

[Andrew NDB]

They should really do a future war movie then since Skynet always takes over.

Another one, you mean?

I really would love to see a proper Future War movie, though.

[Wildcat]

Well Cameron and Miller obviously don’t count Salvation so I hope they do one or someone else after they’re finished.

People like saying this is it for Terminator if it doesn’t do well but seriously there’s no way this franchise is going to end forever.

At most it’ll go on a long hiatus and someone will do their own reboot/continuation. Especially with the war period barely even used.

[Andrew NDB]

Well Cameron and Miller obviously don’t count Salvation so I hope they do one or someone else after they’re finished.

People like saying this is it for Terminator if it doesn’t do well but seriously there’s no way this franchise is going to end forever.

At most it’ll go on a long hiatus and someone will do their own reboot/continuation. Especially with the war period barely even used.

It'll be a super long hiatus if this fails. This has all of the same elements from the last failed trilogy starter but now PLUS Cameron's name in it. If this fails it will be like, "Well... what else could we possibly do with this property?"

They're still thinking too small. Their one chance of branching out was Salvation, but they focused on the wrong stuff and hamstringed it with PG-13 to boot.

[Wildcat]

The idea of having multiple terminators come back is cool. Genisys barely touched on it though. I don’t know if Sarah hunting them is the same or they just show up one at a time.

An idea I’ve always had is Skynet sending back a full blown invasion. Miller and Cameron have said they like putting limits in certain things to keep it grounded and not too crazy but Skynet having its own perfected form of time travel is totally believable imo.

They could leave the future and restart the war in the present thinking it’s easier or just stop using time travel since it’s inevitable that someone becomes the leader/hero anyway.

Not to insist but T-Infinity/Multiverse is the only time travel idea that seems to makes sense. Unless they’ve come up with something really clever in Dark Fate.

[Sumac]

A little weird that Cameron would that say. Sort of goes against his whole "no fate but what we make" thing, though maybe this proves he never really believed that at all.
He was planning to do third part back in the 90s, but Titanic got in the way and then he lost rights. Or something to that effect.

So, all in all, he was always open to third movie, just didn't had opportunity to do it.

[ZariusTwo]

Spoilers from test screenings

Skynet is not the antagonist this time. Instead it's a new force called Legion. They send a Terminator back to 1998 that succeeds in killing John Conner, and they begin to target someone new: Dani. The resistance in the future sends an augmented human called Grace to the past to protect Dani and they end up meeting Sarah along the way

https://heroichollywood.com/terminator-dark-fate-details-changes/

[neatoman]

Spoilers from test screenings

Skynet is not the antagonist this time. Instead it's a new force called Legion. They send a Terminator back to 1998 that succeeds in killing John Conner, and they begin to target someone new: Dani. The resistance in the future sends an augmented human called Grace to the past to protect Dani and they end up meeting Sarah along the way

https://heroichollywood.com/terminator-dark-fate-details-changes/

All I have to say about this is "If it looks like a duck...". This isn't much of shake-up to the formula.

[Sumac]

That doesn't sound really all that different.
I wonder what Legion is?