# Terminator - Genisys first trailer



## chopeth (Dec 6, 2014)

Schwarzenegger is back together with Emilia Clarke (Daenerys Targarien) as Sarah Connor. I know the last Terminator was a finantial disaster and I had read they got a huge debt that ruined the company. What do you think?


Terminator: Genisys - Official Trailer #1 [FULL HD] - Subtitulado por Cinescondite - Video Dailymotion


----------



## Jarmake (Dec 6, 2014)

I think that this movie is going to suck hairy monkeyballs. The acting looks really bad and cgi too. Why are they raping the old good terminator-saga with these movies?


----------



## chopeth (Dec 6, 2014)

Jarmake said:


> I think that this movie is going to suck hairy monkeyballs.


----------



## wankerness (Dec 6, 2014)

Well, it looks better than Jurassic World. I like how that bus looks like it is about to go into orbit. Reminds me of the physics in Skyrim when you'd like, fusrodah a bear and it would bounce down a mountain for 5 minutes.


----------



## Dusty Chalk (Dec 6, 2014)

I am looking forward to this one. Sure, it's a complete retread, but I like when movies go full-retard regarding physics. (See also: fast & furious franchise.)


chopeth said:


> I know the last Terminator was a finantial disaster


I tried to go back in time and make the DP wander around on set while filming so that Christian Bale would throw a conniption and the film wouldn't get made, but it didn't work.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 6, 2014)

Dusty Chalk said:


> I like to pretend that movie didn't happen.



I like to pretend everything after the second movie didn't happen. No 3rd and 4th movie, no TV show, etc.

This trailer looks terrible. Personally, I can't stand when Hollywood does the "reset" button BS. Hated that they pulled that with Star Trek also. It's basically saying, "Oh yeah all them super awesome epic movies you watched and loved... well now they didn't actually happen and you now have this piece of sh*i*t as what the story is supposed to be instead".

I know, they're just movies, not like any of it really happened anyway. But still, the concept is annoying. +1 for hairy monkey balls.


Rev.


----------



## wankerness (Dec 7, 2014)

The third movie gets better every time I watch it, I didn't like it much when I saw it in the theater on release but I've seen it a couple of times on tv since and enjoyed it. It's just silly, but it's really fun and I think a bunch of the humor with Arnold is legitimately funny. Some of the action scenes are also pretty good. It obviously isn't anywhere near the first two, but unlike the fourth one it's fun to watch.


----------



## Nour Ayasso (Dec 7, 2014)

So they went out of their way to remake the second movie for more money.


----------



## yingmin (Dec 7, 2014)

Nour Ayasso said:


> So they went out of their way to remake the second movie for more money.



From what I can tell, it's more like they combined the first and second movies, but in a way that makes absolutely no sense.

However, Terminator Salvation was incomprehensibly bad, so they'd have to work pretty hard to make this movie worse than the last one.


----------



## Nour Ayasso (Dec 7, 2014)

yingmin said:


> From what I can tell, it's more like they combined the first and second movies, but in a way that makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> However, Terminator Salvation was incomprehensibly bad, so they'd have to work pretty hard to make this movie worse than the last one.



It's not that Salvation wasn't bad, it's the fact that it was actually relevant to the story, to the games at least (James Cameron stopped writing at T2). Now it's just like they said "hey! Since time travel alters the future, lets just use that as an excuse and rewrite this mother*cker!" What is this story gonna get stuck in a freakin loop or something? Because then it's gonna become the movie Looper. Which means it's gonna be a HUGE waste of time.

Also this is literally the third movie, to my knowledge, that used the song "I'd Love To Change The World" by Jetta in 2014. Great song, I love it, probably gonna be a huge fan with in a month, point is pick something different. Gee maybe the terminator theme song would've been a good idea. _At least Jurassic Park used their original theme song_ (to the person who was bagging on it)


----------



## yingmin (Dec 7, 2014)

Nour Ayasso said:


> What is this story gonna get stuck in a freakin loop or something?



The story was in a loop before the first movie was even over. Kyle Reese goes back in time to save Sarah Connor, whom he locates with the help of a picture of Sarah that was taken after the Terminator was destroyed, and presumably would never have existed had Kyle and the Terminator not gone back in time (which also allowed Kyle to have sex with Sarah, thus conceiving the man who sent him back in time in the first place).


----------



## AxeHappy (Dec 7, 2014)

I could have sworn the whole point of the terminator series was that you *can't* change the future. Judgment days is going to happen. There is going to be a war. Etc, etc...


----------



## Nour Ayasso (Dec 7, 2014)

yingmin said:


> The story was in a loop before the first movie was even over. Kyle Reese goes back in time to save Sarah Connor, whom he locates with the help of a picture of Sarah that was taken after the Terminator was destroyed, and presumably would never have existed had Kyle and the Terminator not gone back in time (which also allowed Kyle to have sex with Sarah, thus conceiving the man who sent him back in time in the first place).


Yeah thanks I've seen the movies before, and yes _theoretically_ the story was doomed to an ongoing loop since the beginning. But the _series_ didn't have to be. They could pick one universe, finish the damn story, and I could get on with my life.


AxeHappy said:


> I could have sworn the whole point of the terminator series was that you *can't* change the future. Judgment days is going to happen. There is going to be a war. Etc, etc...


yep they keep delaying the climax of the movie. Really sucks.


----------



## Edika (Dec 7, 2014)

I haven't watched Salvation yet but I didn't enjoy T3 much. I did however enjoy the TV series as it was touching subjects about AI, robotics and time travel effects outside of the action packed filled movies.

There have been several comic books that had rather intriguing story lines. 

While I hate reboots, as they seem to deteriorate in quality than the original movies, I found the trailer strangely appealing. The movie might end up terrible as it seems to be rehashing the first two movies but I'd be interested to see where they take it.

EDIT: But honestly in the beginning I thought it was a SyFy movie!


----------



## cwhitey2 (Dec 7, 2014)

So its the first movie again...but shittier?


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 7, 2014)

Nour Ayasso said:


> Also this is literally the third movie, to my knowledge, that used the song "I'd Love To Change The World" by Jetta in 2014



This is the new trend, glad to see someone else noticing it. I can't stand it. Do you know how many movies and TV shows used John Murphy's Sunshine? It's ridiculous. It's the song from the scene in Kick Ass where Hit Girl saves the two of them. Heck, it was even used in the trailer for Gravity. Seems like every trailer that came out had that song in it. A wonderful song and I love it, but way to kill it Hollywood.


Rev.


----------



## Dusty Chalk (Dec 7, 2014)

Yup, totally agree on overuse of music in trailers. Johann Johannsson's "The Sky's Gone Dim and..." something something is another one.


----------



## Hollowway (Dec 7, 2014)

What I think is that Hollywood needs to stop remaking old movies and crappy sequels and start taking chances on new ideas. The original Terminator had an unproven/unknown director and actors, and was a huge risk - but for the right reasons. I just wish Hollywood would remember that and try it again.

tl;dr: +1 to hairy monkey balls - on principle alone.


----------



## Dusty Chalk (Dec 7, 2014)

Edika said:


> I haven't watched Salvation yet ...


Don't. It answers the question, how does one make an action movie boring?


----------



## yingmin (Dec 7, 2014)

Hollowway said:


> What I think is that Hollywood needs to stop remaking old movies and crappy sequels and start taking chances on new ideas. The original Terminator had an unproven/unknown director and actors, and was a huge risk - but for the right reasons. I just wish Hollywood would remember that and try it again.


I agree with you in principle, but there's a very simple and obvious reason they don't: nearly all of the top-grossing movies of the last decade or so - and many of the highest-grossing movies ever - have been movies that were part of a pre-existing property, such as Marvel comics, Harry Potter or The Tolkien universe. The two highest-grossing movies of recent years have both been by James Cameron, who also happened to be the man behind the only good Terminator movies. Really, even the "brilliant visionary" directors today are finding much greater success with franchise movies than original ideas, so there isn't much incentive for them to keep pushing the envelope. The important thing to remember is that the successes that propelled names like Lucas and Spielberg into superstardom were made early in their career, while they were still relatively obscure, and under serious limitations. So the people who are innovating and taking chances now are, for the most part, the same people who were doing that before: young, unproven directors who don't have the resources to make the kind of cookie-cutter blockbuster movies that so many of us are sick of. The first Terminator was not a huge box office success, the filming of Jaws was so riddled with technical problems that it almost didn't get made, and virtually everyone involved in the production of Star Wars expected it to fail.


----------



## wankerness (Dec 7, 2014)

Hollowway said:


> What I think is that Hollywood needs to stop remaking old movies and crappy sequels and start taking chances on new ideas. The original Terminator had an unproven/unknown director and actors, and was a huge risk - but for the right reasons. I just wish Hollywood would remember that and try it again.
> 
> tl;dr: +1 to hairy monkey balls - on principle alone.



The problem is that there is no mid-budget genre picture framework in place anymore now that the major studios are titanic conglomerates. They have done the math and realize that a few massive budget action movies are going to make them more money on average with lower risk than doing a whole bunch of mid-level movies that haven't been approved by focus groups and aren't part of a proven brand. You tend to only get weird, distinctive stuff if the director just had some odd sort of sleeper hit that they had to do independently previous. There have been very, very few non-independent smaller budget action/sci-fi movies since the 90s. Old hollywood is pretty much dead and most interesting stuff we get now is either TV where there's more leeway for experimentation in plots, or zero budget where there's very little leeway for anything. It's now mostly just a dichotomy between zero budget indie movies and massive budget studio movies, with foreign movies now where most of the professionally done weird stuff comes from (ex District 9 or something).


----------



## Dusty Chalk (Dec 8, 2014)

Also, the whole point behind the Terminator franchise is that they retread history and reset it every time.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 13, 2014)

Hollowway said:


> What I think is that Hollywood needs to stop remaking old movies and crappy sequels and start taking chances on new ideas. The original Terminator had an unproven/unknown director and actors, and was a huge risk - but for the right reasons. I just wish Hollywood would remember that and try it again.
> 
> tl;dr: +1 to hairy monkey balls - on principle alone.





yingmin said:


> I agree with you in principle, but there's a very simple and obvious reason they don't: nearly all of the top-grossing movies of the last decade or so - and many of the highest-grossing movies ever - have been movies that were part of a pre-existing property, such as Marvel comics, Harry Potter or The Tolkien universe. The two highest-grossing movies of recent years have both been by James Cameron, who also happened to be the man behind the only good Terminator movies. Really, even the "brilliant visionary" directors today are finding much greater success with franchise movies than original ideas, so there isn't much incentive for them to keep pushing the envelope. The important thing to remember is that the successes that propelled names like Lucas and Spielberg into superstardom were made early in their career, while they were still relatively obscure, and under serious limitations. So the people who are innovating and taking chances now are, for the most part, the same people who were doing that before: young, unproven directors who don't have the resources to make the kind of cookie-cutter blockbuster movies that so many of us are sick of. The first Terminator was not a huge box office success, the filming of Jaws was so riddled with technical problems that it almost didn't get made, and virtually everyone involved in the production of Star Wars expected it to fail.



Yeah, sequels and remakes would need to start doing bad in the box offices before they take any risk nowadays. They are simply going for the safe bet that will guarantee them a good amount of money. As a business model they are golden and since executive types only really care about the payday you don't see a whole lot of envelope pushing. Every decision made in the entertainment business nowadays is a calculated decision. I've grown more and more fond of tv series for this very reason. They aren't stuck in this rut. However, they have there own financial woes like when an actor gets big and starts demanding more money essentially torpedoing the shows they're on in the process.

Hollywood was an entirely different beast in its heyday. You've also got the mpaa that basically makes sure anything not by Fox, Disney, Lions Gate, etc. (major studios) never sees a major release. The rating agencies, theaters and studios basically run the show as one entity.


----------



## yingmin (Dec 14, 2014)

There's another angle that we may not be considering. We're so quick to blame the studios for making these movies, but, as amply demonstrated by box office figures, these movies are what the royal We want to watch. I think that is at least partly a function of the enormous role nostalgia has come to play in our culture. Now that remembering and reappropriating the "classics" has become the default mode, there's less of a push from consumers for the studios to really make something new, even among many of the people who claim to hate the constant sequels and remakes.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 14, 2014)

yingmin said:


> There's another angle that we may not be considering. We're so quick to blame the studios for making these movies, but, as amply demonstrated by box office figures, these movies are what the royal We want to watch. I think that is at least partly a function of the enormous role nostalgia has come to play in our culture. Now that remembering and reappropriating the "classics" has become the default mode, there's less of a push from consumers for the studios to really make something new, even among many of the people who claim to hate the constant sequels and remakes.



That's essentially what I said. They do well in theaters so they put them out. However, I still don't think the issue is that simple. 

If you're looking for a big production film to watch indie films aren't going to cut it with their small budgets so you're stuck with seeing major studio films to fix that itch. The only things they put out nowadays are franchises with guaranteed fan bases so as to avoid a potential flop. If all they put out is rehashed material and I want to see a film that is worthy of say Sci-Fi and the IMAX screen I have to watch that rehashed material to do that. I wouldn't say the box office figures tell the whole story when considering that. It's kind of like how Comcast is the only cable provider most people have access to and Comcast says they are the #1 cable subscriber. That doesn't mean they're doing a good job, it means we have no choice. I love seeing movies and all there is to see for big production films is remakes. Do I and most people probably enjoy them? Definitely. That doesn't imply that we don't also want to see something else too though. It just doesn't exist, for the most part, for it to be seen so most people take what they get. That doesn't even take into account that unknown entities are rarely allowed to put their movies into theaters nationwide limiting their exposure and our ability to actually view them. 

We live in a very pacifist society that has little willingness to give up what we have to eventually get what we want.


----------



## chopeth (Dec 14, 2014)

More nostalgia productions:


----------



## possumkiller (Dec 14, 2014)

The Terminator was a badass movie. Terminator 2 was a masterpiece showing what the film could achieve with a large enough budget. 

Everything after that was just trying to cash in on the reputation of the first two films. 

Has anybody noticed that Terminator 3 seriously has like NO musical score? All of those chase scenes that should have driving beats in the background have only sound effects. It's like they completely forgot about the music in most of the scenes. And seriously, Claire Danes????

Salvation had a chance to save the series but royally ....ed it up. I doubt this next one is going to be worth watching but, I will watch it anyway because I am a huge fan of the first films.

OT: Anybody hear anything about a sequel for The Thing (1982)? I know the 2011 film was the prequel but I have heard rumours about a screenplay for a movie that takes place after the incident at the U.S. camp.


----------



## Rosal76 (Dec 16, 2014)

possumkiller said:


> OT: Anybody hear anything about a sequel for The Thing (1982)? I know the 2011 film was the prequel but I have heard rumours about a screenplay for a movie that takes place after the incident at the U.S. camp.



Yes, I have. I remember reading some news about Kurt Russell participating. Because the 1982 movie was released so long ago and Kurt had significantly aged since then, they were going to have his wrinkles on face be frostbite damage from him being stuck in the snow and having no shelter because him and Keith David blowing up the camp from the first movie. If John Carpenter is involved, I'm all for it. 

There is unused/alternate footage from the first (1982) movie that appears to be two people walking away from the blown up camp and a Husky dog running away. Perhaps MacReady and Childs trying to intercept/kill the Husky who is disguised as the alien?


----------



## wankerness (Dec 16, 2014)

Sounds like a really awful idea, especially if John Carpenter is involved. He hasn't done anything good since like 1993! Considering the prequel wasn't much of a financial success I think it's really unlikely.


----------



## possumkiller (Dec 16, 2014)

I haven't seen the alternate footage but it sounds interesting. I like the ending they used because it can be pretty confusing. Nobody really knows if they are the alien or not and you don't know for sure if they freeze out there. 

I assume that one of them (Childs) is the alien and is wanting to freeze and hibernate like before. On the Imdb page it says that Carpenter had stated that Childs was the alien and he thought he had made it obvious by using the lighting to show that he wasn't breathing while MacReady was blowing steam when he breathed. 

Then it says that since the prequel established that the alien couldn't recreate metal objects in the body and points to the guy with the missing earring at the end, Childs has to be human since his earring is clearly visible in the closing scene. Carpenter has also said this is true. So who knows lol.


----------



## wankerness (Dec 16, 2014)

possumkiller said:


> Has anybody noticed that Terminator 3 seriously has like NO musical score? All of those chase scenes that should have driving beats in the background have only sound effects. It's like they completely forgot about the music in most of the scenes. And seriously, Claire Danes????



What the heck do you mean "Seriously, Claire Danes?" She is by far the best actor in that movie. Just look at the maroon who plays John Conner. The scenes in which they have to emote against each other are hilarious since she just acts him off the screen and he is at the level of an Orlando Bloom (and that's being generous). Kristanna Loken also isn't even an actress, her performance compared to what Robert Patrick managed to do in T2 is just sad. I sorta like T3, it's a good time, but saying Claire Danes is the worst thing about it is one of the most inexplicable criticisms I've ever seen.


----------



## possumkiller (Dec 16, 2014)

I never said she was the worst thing about it. The sad fact is that you are right. She is the best actor in the film. That just goes even further to show what a turd the movie is.


Edit: BTW if you want to see some more epic Kristanna Loken acting watch the Bloodrayne movie  
 Watching her tits bounce while she gets nailed up against the jail bars is the only watchable seconds of the film.


----------



## wat (Dec 17, 2014)

This looks like, "Starship Troopers 2" bad


----------



## Force (Jul 10, 2015)

Well, went to see it with low expectations & was pleasantly surprised. There are some ....ty aspects to it but i don't pick these things to bits, i just enjoy the ride. The reviews have been horrible but that means sweet fa, i thought it was good, that's all that matters to me.


----------



## wankerness (Jul 10, 2015)

I thought it was terrible and easily the worst of the five movies. Emilia Clarke is HORRIBLE. She looks like she's 12 and she has an incredibly annoying little voice and generally is completely unconvincing as any sort of badass, she's the worst. Well, she would be the worst, if it weren't for the guy playing Kyle Reese, who is like the film equivalent of a randomly generated character in Skyrim. He has NO personality, NO charisma, and is just flat-out awful. He makes Sam Worthington look like Robert Downey Jr. Wretched, wretched casting. The special effects are good and the recreation of the 80s stuff is fun, but man alive, when your two leads are this bad it's all for nothing.


----------



## canuck brian (Jul 10, 2015)

possumkiller said:


> Edit: BTW if you want to see some more epic Kristanna Loken acting watch the Bloodrayne movie
> Watching her .... bounce while she gets nailed up against the jail bars is the only watchable seconds of the film.



I had no idea they turned a terrible game into a worse movie.....and then made a sequel in 2011.

EDIT: correction. two sequels and both by Uwe Boll. At least Kristanna had the sense to bail after the first one.


----------



## FreakOfNature (Jul 10, 2015)

Saw it last weekend. It was.... ok. Not TERRIBLE but nothing to brag about.


----------



## Bekanor (Jul 13, 2015)

wankerness said:


> I thought it was terrible and easily the worst of the five movies. Emilia Clarke is HORRIBLE. She looks like she's 12 and she has an incredibly annoying little voice and generally is completely unconvincing as any sort of badass, she's the worst. Well, she would be the worst, if it weren't for the guy playing Kyle Reese, who is like the film equivalent of a randomly generated character in Skyrim. He has NO personality, NO charisma, and is just flat-out awful. He makes Sam Worthington look like Robert Downey Jr. Wretched, wretched casting. The special effects are good and the recreation of the 80s stuff is fun, but man alive, when your two leads are this bad it's all for nothing.



Based off this, I'm not even going to see this out of curiosity. I called this one a mile away and you are dead on, Emilia Clarke IS horrible and the fact that they cooked up this ....ty vehicle for her to break into movies makes me glad, as I'm hoping it will be a blemish that dogs her career and keeps her away from anything I might actually be interested to see. She is the ....ing worst.

I just hope that between this and acting-chops-of-a-lettuce Sansa Stark being in the new X-Men movie, that we're not going to have to suffer through every Game of Thrones actor under 40 getting a shot at the Hollywood big time, because there isn't a lot of talent there. I suppose you have to serve the flavour of the month while it's hot though. 

*Goes back to cabin at the edge of town*


----------



## wankerness (Jul 13, 2015)

There are some damn good young actors on GOT (ex, Alfie Allen, and his performance in John Wick was a lot of fun), but Emilia Clarke is not one of them (and neither are frickin Jon Snow and Mr. King of the North!). She could probably be OK in some setting, but "action movie badass" is absolutely not one of them. Even if Linda Hamilton's T2 version of the character didn't exist, she's still about as convincing as Tanya Roberts in Sheena, Queen of the Jungle.

I don't know if the actress playing Sansa is terrible, her character pretty much does nothing but stand around looking annoyed or sad. She's always fine at doing that. I won't be surprised if she's bad in X-Men, but hey, I'll give her a shot.


----------

