Terminator Genisys

fergus1001

Is it not called terminator mega drive over here :pac:

Goodshape

+1 for the series. Unfortunately seemed to lack the courage of it's convictions at times but at least made an effort, and I daresay had less flaws than either T3 or Salvation. By the end a far more satisfying continuation of the story than either of those films.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

People are aware that we need films like the Terminator franchise to make millions so that the studios will have the money to take risks on smaller, less mainstream films. Based on the marketing for Terminator Genisys, it looks pretty generic and safe but to write it off without seeing it is a little unfair and even if it is a poor film, if it makes hundreds of millions in profit then that money won't all be spent on remakes and reboots.

I'm not defending bad Blockbusters, and would love if every tent-pole picture had a tenth of the wit and fun of Edge of Tomorrow but if Terminator Genisys flops then it will have a run on affect on the studios ability to release more diverse films.

That's no reason to incentivise production of bad films.

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

People are aware that we need films like the Terminator franchise to make millions so that the studios will have the money to take risks on smaller, less mainstream films.

Sorry, but that's a fairly weak excuse to justify what appears (yes, sight unseen) a horrendously lazy reboot to rake in the multiplex dollars. So we should see these kind of films, just in case their box-office filters back into something else that might come to be? Box office couldn't be the only source of studio income, or budget for future productions and it certainly shouldn't be used as a nebulous threat against the indie industry. Canny producers will find a way to fund their arthouse dream, and if the net result is one less reboot on our screens in summer, then happy days.

Frank O. Pinion

Thargor wrote: »

I hated it from the start, it was so amateur, opening scene, John Connor played by some 35 year old actor is a highschool student

What? Thomas Dekker? He's only 27 now, he was 20 when the show started.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's no reason to incentivise production of bad films.

pixelburp wrote: »

Sorry, but that's a fairly weak excuse to justify what appears (yes, sight unseen) a horrendously lazy reboot to rake in the multiplex dollars. So we should see these kind of films, just in case their box-office filters back into something else that might come to be? Box office couldn't be the only source of studio income, or budget for future productions and it certainly shouldn't be used as a nebulous threat against the indie industry. Canny producers will find a way to fund their arthouse dream, and if the net result is one less reboot on our screens in summer, then happy days.

The point is that we have no idea if the film is infact a bad one and writing it off without even waiting for the reviews seems a little dumb. The sad fact of the way Hollywood works is that without the 300 million dollar blockbusters pulling huge profits most studios won't take a risk on the less commercial films. And yes many producers will find a way but it's not much good if you produce a great little film that no distributor wants to take a risk on. Every film should strive to be as good as possible and while it's rare to find a smart and fun blockbuster it's also unfair to write a film off based on a few trailers, posters and random internet talk. If you were to judge a film based on any one of those then the last two X-Men films would have instantly been written off as garbage due to the woeful posters used to market the film.

ps3lover

Not everyone can afford to go see all the big movies being released over the summer. It's up to the marketing department to make something look desirable and with Terminator Genisys they have failed miserably. Out of all the big summer movies it looks the worst. So you're saying I should waste money on it anyway because Hollywood need the money? That's a lame excuse.
I'm already planning on seeing Jurassic World, Mad Max and Ant Man but now I should also shell out for something that looks awful because Hollywood need the money?
If it gets good reviews I might give it a chance (unless it's ****ing 12a again but why should I shell out more money on something that looks like a disaster?

ps3lover

ps3lover wrote: »

Not everyone can afford to go see all the big movies being released over the summer. It's up to the marketing department to make something look desirable and with Terminator Genisys they have failed miserably. Out of all the big summer movies it looks the worst. So you're saying I should waste money on it anyway because Hollywood need the money? That's a lame excuse.
I'm already planning on seeing Jurassic World, Mad Max and Ant Man but now I should also shell out for something that looks awful because Hollywood need the money?
If it gets good reviews I might give it a chance (unless it's ****ing 12a again but why should I shell out more money on something that looks like a disaster?

No one said you have to go see it but you can't judge something without first experiencing it. Judging a film based on a few out of context scenes in a trailer and a poster is absolutely ridiculous. I have little interest in the film but I'm not going to be crying about how my childhood is being ruined and slating the film without first giving it a chance. Hollywood doesn't need money or anyone to feel sorry for them but it's dumb to think that Terminator 5 flopping won't have an adverse affect on a slate of films. Sure we all hope they make the best possible film but

And judging a film based on it's rating is just as dumb, the original Terminator was rated 18 in cinemas in the UK but subsequent releases in later years saw the rating dropped to a 15. Over time what is acceptable for audiences changes, most of the so called video nasties of the 80s have gone from being out right banned to being freely available, often with a 15 cert.

Also, speaking of ratings and films being cut to secure a lower one, do you think people should have skipped T2 in cinemas as it was cut in order to get a 15 cert? These days films get away with a lot more violence at lower ratings than in the past. The Last Stand was rated 15A in cinemas here and was far more violent than many of the 18s rated action films of the 80s the people so adore. If T2 was released no it could very easily secure a 15A rating here meaning that you could take a 5 year old to see it if you wanted.

Roar

fergus1001 wrote: »

Is it not called terminator mega drive over here :pac:

I'd thank this comment twice if I could.

dan1895

Roar wrote: »

I'd thank this comment twice if I could.

Its being overlooked how good that post was.

ps3lover

To be honest I think the decision to lower the rating on Terminator Salvation to a 12a rating is what killed it. I read the original script (it should still be online now) when Salvation came out and it's much better (although no lost masterpiece) than what we ended up getting.
It was a very R rated script that really showed the future as being Hell on earth. A highlight involved Marcus saving Star and Kyle from a vicious gang of cannibals. Another great scene involved Marcus saving Blair from wolves by ripping them apart with his hands. This sequence was when Marcus started to realise he was a lot stronger than he should be.
Another major problem with the movie is the inclusion of John Connor, a character who is hardly in the script at all. You can almost feel this as John really doesn't do much in the movie at all.
The worst thing the movie did was change the ending, the original ending was ballsy and made sense, the new ending is terrible and leaves us on a whimper rather than a scream.

The worst thing that happened to Terminator: Salvation was Christian Bale. The role of John Connor was seriously rewritten so as to give Bale something to do with him bringing on Jonathan Nolan to script a lot of scenes as they were filming. The film went from one about Marcus to one that was all about John Connor and the whole thing felt like it was made up on the fly.

DoYouEvenLift

Oh yeah, is this for 12A or 18s? Or somewhere in the middle - 15A/16s?

Adamantium

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Terminator-Salvation.html

Here's the original script and ending (cannibals and wolves included) its actually very good, the dialogue is good, more detail on what and why people are doing things, discussing of geography and events in the larger scale of things, place descriptions, desperation and EMOTION but it didn't come off the page at all, I can see a great mental image in my head of what could have been

If they had a decent auteur/director it would have been.

ps3lover

I'd say the producers are to blame as well as the director. They're the ones that demanded the rewrites that made John Connor a major character. They're the ones that demanded them to tone down all the darker elements and emotions in order for it to fit inside the PG-13 rating.

I seem to recall the ending to the movie makes no sense, they kidnap Kyle to lure Connor out instead if just killing him. In the script no one seems to know that Kyle Reese is John Connors father so it makes more sense that they wouldn't just kill him.

Bacchus

I enjoyed Salvation as something different in the Terminator universe. However, I thought the whole heart transplant ending made zero sense at all! First, Marcus is punched in the heart by a Terminator designed to kill humans but he survives thanks to a bit of DIY jump starting!?! Not only that but he fights on. Then, Connor is stabbed through the chest by the same Terminator - you'd have to assume it was aiming for the heart. At the end we have two men who's had their hearts punched/stabbed by a T-800 walking out of the building, making the trip back to base and then the guy who's heart was punched by a metal fist offers his heart to Connor - Connor's heart having finally succumbed to be being stabbed with a big metal rod. FFS.

Up until that ending, I quite enjoyed Salvation.

As for Genisys, unless this gets some reviews that change my mind, I will be avoiding.

Brief_Lives

Bacchus wrote: »

I enjoyed Salvation as something different in the Terminator universe. However, I thought the whole heart transplant ending made zero sense at all! First, Marcus is punched in the heart by a Terminator designed to kill humans but he survives thanks to a bit of DIY jump starting!?! Not only that but he fights on. Then, Connor is stabbed through the chest by the same Terminator - you'd have to assume it was aiming for the heart. At the end we have two men who's had their hearts punched/stabbed by a T-800 walking out of the building, making the trip back to base and then the guy who's heart was punched by a metal fist offers his heart to Connor - Connor's heart having finally succumbed to be being stabbed with a big metal rod. FFS.

Up until that ending, I quite enjoyed Salvation.

As for Genisys, unless this gets some reviews that change my mind, I will be avoiding.

I agree with a lot of this... It was a watchable movie with some decent actors putting in a days work... I would also remind people of the uber hotness that is Moon Bloodgood... I´d watch paint dry if she was involved.. soooooo:D

TL:DR Moon Bloodgood is all I remember from Terminator Salvation...

Adamantium

Salvation was the first time and last time I ever was obsessed with the production of a film, the end result thought me never to get hyped.

Everyone went "Oh Lord McG, going from bad to worse" but then somehow he got Christian Bale to sign on as future war leader John Connor (A casting that couldn't have been more perfect in theory), a radioactive setting that we had always wanted, how would John cope with not only command, but the time paradox of knowing his eventual death, and the question is he ****ing things up or are his fcuk ups and decisions part of some predestined plan. How will he ever know? Does he have to be a leader in this timeline, because Mammy and Daddy said he was in the other timeline? They actually touch on this in Salvation partially.

I thought they (the talented cast ) must all be really believe McG, and that this reviled director was going to blow all the naysayers away and then then the trailers came along and it seemed to confirm this. I even went and watched We are Marshall and thought it was pretty good.

Anyway, the whole story was ineffectual in the end and didn't nothing much for over overall arc, but I wanted to see the proposed trilogy completed.

Faith+1

Brief_Lives wrote: »

I agree with a lot of this... It was a watchable movie with some decent actors putting in a days work... I would also remind people of the uber hotness that is Moon Bloodgood... I´d watch paint dry if she was involved.. soooooo:D

TL:DR Moon Bloodgood is all I remember from Terminator Salvation...

Yeah she was certainly the best thing about salvation for me too!

JustTheOne

dan1895 wrote: »

Its being overlooked how good that post was.

I don't get it:(

Bacchus

JustTheOne wrote: »

I don't get it:(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Genesis

Adamantium

fergus1001 wrote: »

Is it not called terminator mega drive over here :pac:

fergus1001

I'll just gather up all my thanks and i'll be on my way

This movie is pissing me off everything is already spoiled through there stupid marketing

ps3lover

A taste of some of the humour we can expect.

Taken from a Total Film interview with Arnie.

"'I think the writers know that I enjoy it, so they write it.' (Laughs Schwarzenegger) 'They also know the audience enjoys it when I deliver funny lines. I remember one where they all have to get naked and jump into the time machine to travel. Kyle Reese says something stupid to the Terminator, so I say to him. 'I see very little to indicate you would make a good mate for Sarah Connor'"

Bacchus

Is that a big spoiler Arnie has dropped there? His Terminator, Kyle and (I assume) Sarah all get into a time machine. This movie is getting messier and messier.

Adamantium

Making Future John Connor a robot is like them seeing the last sacred thing in the series and running over it with a black marker!

Stupid ideas mistaken for creativity.

It'd be like if the Vatican overnight declared:


"What if Jesus was Satan?"
When Jesus-Satan was crucified, it compounded humanity's sin! We have to go back in time to stop him! But we're going to need help...
We must go back and recruit Adam. He was the first who sinned. If anybody can help humanity redeem itself, it's him.
Oh no! John the Baptist is a robot!

dan1895

ps3lover wrote: »

A taste of some of the humour we can expect.

Taken from a Total Film interview with Arnie.

"'I think the writers know that I enjoy it, so they write it.' (Laughs Schwarzenegger) 'They also know the audience enjoys it when I deliver funny lines. I remember one where they all have to get naked and jump into the time machine to travel. Kyle Reese says something stupid to the Terminator, so I say to him. 'I see very little to indicate you would make a good mate for Sarah Connor'"

So we've resorted to dick jokes. Nice.

Myrddin

What are the chances whatever 'interventions' take place in this new film, only serve to actually somehow set up the timeline that T2 portrayed...

fergus1001

Myrddin wrote:

What are the chances whatever 'interventions' take place in this new film, only serve to actually somehow set up the timeline that T2 portrayed...

What ?? Explain this to me I thought t1 and t2 were in the one time line ?

Myrddin

fergus1001 wrote: »

What ?? Explain this to me I thought t1 and t2 were in the one time line ?

I'm just wondering if this new gang will heroically intervene somehow so that they ultimately end up undoing all this new time line nonsense, & end up restoring the original time line through time travel trickery if you get me

fergus1001

Myrddin wrote:

I'm just wondering if this new gang will heroically intervene somehow so that they ultimately end up undoing all this new time line nonsense, & end up restoring the original time line through time travel trickery if you get me

I see what your at prevent the scouring of the story with t3 and salvation, but I think they are going for a clean slate by killing the original t1 terminator, and in the process ruining a few actors future prospects (game of thrones girl included)

Myrddin

fergus1001 wrote: »

I see what your at prevent the scouring of the story with t3 and salvation, but I think they are going for a clean slate by killing the original t1 terminator, and in the process ruining a few actors future prospects (game of thrones girl included)

Yeah but at the end of this new film, I'm wondering if they'll somehow act via time travel to ensure the events of this film never actually take place...if you (somehow) get me Therefore, allowing the original timeline to be the one that takes place. Actually no, don't mind me, this is a planned trilogy isn't it?

fergus1001

Myrddin wrote:

Yeah but at the end of this new film, I'm wondering if they'll somehow act via time travel to ensure the events of this film never actually take place...if you (somehow) get me Therefore, allowing the original timeline to be the one that takes place. Actually no, don't mind me, this is a planned trilogy isn't it?

Yeah it's a trilogy,

I swear to god my phone and everything in my pocket would be fired at the screen if it ended up that the whole movie never took place !

I think sky net would activate to protect itself because of the ensuring riots because of the ending you mentioned

py2006

MrStuffins

That T-1000 looks f*cking sh*te!

No_Comply

I really really wanted this to be a sequel T2 deserved (but didn't need, granted).

It looks dreadful.

ps3lover

Am I the only one who finds it extreamly sexist and mysoginistic the way they inflate Emilia Clarkes breasts like that?

py2006

ps3lover wrote: »

Am I the only one who finds it extreamly sexist and mysoginistic the way they inflate Emilia Clarkes breasts like that?

It is something that is always done. They often make males look more toned and muscled etc. Sexist? Maybe. Misogyny? No way.

timetogo

MrStuffins wrote: »

That T-1000 looks f*cking sh*te!

Have computer graphics regressed in the last 20 odd years. On the ads the T1000 looks crappier than the one in Terminator 2. I had presumed it was becuase they weren't finished doing the effects yet and those were early shots. Maybe not.

py2006

timetogo wrote: »

Have computer graphics regressed in the last 20 odd years. On the ads the T1000 looks crappier than the one in Terminator 2. I had presumed it was becuase they weren't finished doing the effects yet and those were early shots. Maybe not.

Well aren't they just (bad) Photoshop creations rather than stills from the movie?

Duggy747

I just can't get over how shockingly bad the endoskeleton looks on Arnie in a lot of those shots


Compared to T3

Mr Freeze

^Genisys has a lower budget than Salvation and T3. Could that be a reason? Its not much lower but CGI should be cheaper now compared to when T3 was being made.

fergus1001

Mr Freeze wrote:

^Genisys has a lower budget than Salvation and T3. Could that be a reason? Its not much lower but CGI should be cheaper now compared to when T3 was being made.

What's the money on this compared to t3 ts and t2 for that mater

Mr Freeze

fergus1001 wrote: »

What's the money on this compared to t3 ts and t2 for that mater

I was only looking at it last week on Wikipedia*

170 Million for this.
Around 190m for T3
and 200m for Salvation.

*how reliable that is I don't know.

Mickeroo

Terminator 3 is 12 years old now, when it came out big budget blockbusters weren't as over saturated with CG as they are now and there was still a lot more practical effects used, so it has aged fairly well in that regard as a result imo.

Also, it might be an unpopular opinion but I have always felt T3 is quite underrated. Tonally it was a lot lighter than T1 & T2 and that's the main reason it gets derided, on it's own merits it was a pretty fun summer blockbuster imo.

fergus1001

Mr Freeze wrote:

170 Million for this. Around 190m for T3 and 200m for Salvation.

Just to put these figures into context I compounded the cost of terminator 2 judgement day to what that cost would be today (inflation) it cost 102 million at the time (wiki 2015)

Compounded forward the movie would cost 207 million today (assuming an average inflation value of 3%)

timetogo

fergus1001 wrote: »

Just to put these figures into context I compounded the cost of terminator 2 judgement day to what that cost would be today (inflation) it cost 102 million at the time (wiki 2015)

Compounded forward the movie would cost 207 million today (assuming an average inflation value of 3%)

At that time I remember they were using cutting edge software / hardware to produced the effects. At that time (around 1991) a high spec home PC would have something like a 386 processor, 1Mb RAM, 30Mb HDD and a 512Kb graphics card
I've no idea what the movie companies were using.

That software & hardware is a loooot cheaper now. I don't know how that changes any numbers. Just my 2c.

fergus1001

timetogo wrote:

That software & hardware is a loooot cheaper now. I don't know how that changes any numbers. Just my 2c.

Noooooo just dealing with economics never mind that

my point is that the money spent on t2 is not that much more than what's being spent on this movie, t3 was 280 million in today's terms

shazzerman

Mickeroo wrote: »

Terminator 3 is 12 years old now, when it came out big budget blockbusters weren't as over saturated with CG as they are now and there was still a lot more practical effects used, so it has aged fairly well in that regard as a result imo.

Also, it might be an unpopular opinion but I have always felt T3 is quite underrated. Tonally it was a lot lighter than T1 & T2 and that's the main reason it gets derided, on it's own merits it was a pretty fun summer blockbuster imo.

T3 has really excellent effects work. Not as innovative as T2, but still hugely impressive.

Mr Freeze

Its not just Genisys though, the money is being spent on it, and CGI is probably cheaper to produce and the effects should look better, but a lot of films now the CGI looks terrible.

Even Avengers, that opening sequence had some brutal CGI.

I don't know what the excuse is, but newer films are not looking as good as they should.