Terminator: Genisys

[batguy]

Re: Terminator 5 (Reboot)

Timeline, schmimeline.

Just because it's technically possible to stay within the old franchise's continuity, that doesn't make it the best/most practical way to give this thing a future. The whole concept could use an overhaul in deeper ways than just casting a different T-800/101 actor and ignoring some of the lesser movies.



Does it seem too early to reboot/remake "Indiana Jones" or "Ghostbusters?"

If the "Batman" franchise had stopped after the Burton movies and never continued, would it be too early to restart that one? What about Superman, if they hadn't touched that franchise since the last Christopher Reeve movie?


Well, the two good Terminator movies are that old now too.


.....

 

[CessnaDriver]

Re: Terminator 5 (Reboot)

Timeline, schmimeline.

Just because it's technically possible to stay within the old franchise's continuity, that doesn't make it the best/most practical way to give this thing a future. The whole concept could use an overhaul in deeper ways than just casting a different T-800/101 actor and ignoring some of the lesser movies.



Does it seem too early to reboot/remake "Indiana Jones" or "Ghostbusters?"

If the "Batman" franchise had stopped after the Burton movies and never continued, would it be too early to restart that one? What about Superman, if they hadn't touched that franchise since the last Christopher Reeve movie?


Well, the two good Terminator movies are that old now too.


.....

Batman and Superman didn't start with Tim Burton's interpretation or Dick Donner's.
And those characters literally had thousands of stories by many writers and artists by the time those
films were made.

For me, the Terminator arrived in 1984. I want the future war as Reese described at this point.

 

[Wes R]

Re: Terminator 5 (Reboot)

Sadly reboots happen because parents don't teach their kids to not be vapid idiots who think anything older than them is uncool so you end up with the movie industry doing reboots so the little idiots think they're getting something fresh and new at a low cost to the studios.

 

[batguy]

Re: Terminator 5 (Reboot)

The public's ongoing complaint about Hollywood in the last 15 years is not "too many remakes."

It is "too many remakes/sequels/prequels".

 

[Father]

Re: Terminator 5 (Reboot)

I'm fine with them using the basic core elements of the story. Problem is studios always want to one up the source movie by being bigger and better. They showed that with every subsequent Terminator movie. 1st movie... robot. 2nd movie... liquid metal. 3rd movie... liquid metal over robot frame. 4th movie... human robot hybrid.

I can't even imagine how ridiculous a rebooted terminator would be. The cool thing about the original was it could be killed by a human, it just took a lot of work, but at the end of the day it was still a machine. Beyond that, you needed a machine just to help deal with the next generation of terminator, otherwise your game was over.

I think the new Robocop will probably be a good example of how badly a reboot from an otherwise perect movie can be executed. If Total Recall wasn't enough that is.

Just the fact that The rock is being discussed as the next Terminator is a huge turn off for me. Get another unestablished guy with a huge frame that's intimidating looking. Arnold was nothing before Terminator. But he became proof that ANYONE can become a household name action star.

 

[batguy]

Re: Terminator 5 (Reboot)

I agree that the studio taking things bigger is a problem. One of the reasons I would prefer a reboot to sequels/prequels is because I see more of a possibility of keeping the scale within reason.

If we get "Terminator 5" it will look the size of "Transformers." The producers would probably never even have a serious discussion about anything smaller.

With a reboot at least they might consider the option of going small or medium. They would be in the mindset of reimagining Cameron's 1984 movie.

 

[Lost21stJedi]

Re: Terminator 5 (Reboot)

IMHO, a terminator like Superman, doesn't need to have to look like a body builder. I actually liked that they got away from that for awhile. I don't have a specific actor in mind but I would think someone with a large build (not muscular, just bulky) and at least 6 foot tall would make a decent Terminator.

 

[The Terminator]

Re: Terminator 5 (Reboot)

Even Summer Glau manage to pull it off and she is most certainly not a 6 foot big hunk of meat.

 

[batguy]

Re: Terminator 5 (Reboot)

IMHO, a terminator like Superman, doesn't need to have to look like a body builder. I actually liked that they got away from that for awhile. I don't have a specific actor in mind but I would think someone with a large build (not muscular, just bulky) and at least 6 foot tall would make a decent Terminator.

That's a good point. A Terminator just needs to be scary in some way, that's about the closest thing to a requirement. Scary does not necessarily demand a body builder physique every time, even for a T-800. The shape of the T-800 endo does lend itself to being larger built than average but that could be adjusted. (Perhaps there could be a leaner-looking model of Terminator too?)

Even the scary quality is just for cinematic reasons. In theory Skynet would probably be smarter to make them look as non-threatening as possible.

...............

 

[Solo4114]

Re: Terminator 5 (Reboot)

To play the role effectively, you need actors who can convey an inhuman, mechanical quality with their physical presence. They need to be able to behave in a mechanical way. Not, like doing the robot dance, but conveying a kind of inhuman menace. I think the bulk of the actors have done a good job with this. Ahnold, Robert Patrick, even Kristana Loken and Summer Glau were excellent at this. I particularly liked Patrick and Glau's portrayals in that they could slip into behaving human for a moment if it suited them, and then drop right out. To me, that's far more important than being physically bulky.

 

[swede]

Re: Terminator 5 (Reboot)

Oh my favorite is back (Dan)

And i agree with opinions above but (and i do know this is a FORUM) but its too much complaining over some Movie that everyones gonna watch anyway!
Same thing with ROBO....We have not seen any of these yet. Why waste time being angry and pissed off? They MAY be decent Movies right?

 

[Monster Dave]

Re: Terminator 5 (Reboot)

TERMINATOR Reboot Titled - TERMINATOR: GENESIS

 

[Solo4114]

Re: Terminator 5 (Reboot)

Oh my favorite is back (Dan)

And i agree with opinions above but (and i do know this is a FORUM) but its too much complaining over some Movie that everyones gonna watch anyway!
Same thing with ROBO....We have not seen any of these yet. Why waste time being angry and pissed off? They MAY be decent Movies right?

Eh, it depends. I might watch it, I might not. I watched Salvation, but only on Netflix. I'm glad I didn't spend money in the theaters for it. I skipped Indy IV because I didn't want the franchise ruined for me by that film (and yes, a bad entry in a film can ruin a franchise for me -- don't ask why). But for me, the fact that I like the IP on which a film is loosely based or to which it's tangentially connected isn't enough anymore to get me to watch it.

 

[Father]

Re: Terminator 5 (Reboot)

I agree that the studio taking things bigger is a problem. One of the reasons I would prefer a reboot to sequels/prequels is because I see more of a possibility of keeping the scale within reason.

If we get "Terminator 5" it will look the size of "Transformers." The producers would probably never even have a serious discussion about anything smaller.

In Salvation you had those giant bots that were probably bigger than Optimus Prime. One of the worst parts of that movie was all the additional machines... the hydro-terminators and moto-terminators and hunter-killer transport things... if it wasn't a movie aimed at a mature crowd I'd have thought it was done solely for merchandising purposes. It brought nothing to the story and made it feel more distant from the future warscape we expected from the original story.

TERMINATOR Reboot Titled - TERMINATOR: GENESIS

Sounds too much like a Terminator-Star Trek hybrid to me.

IMHO, a terminator like Superman, doesn't need to have to look like a body builder. I actually liked that they got away from that for awhile. I don't have a specific actor in mind but I would think someone with a large build (not muscular, just bulky) and at least 6 foot tall would make a decent Terminator.

I disagree. It's a machine skeleton... but the frame is considerably larger (based on the first Terminator movie) because for the most part it was pretty rudimentary: pistons and actuators and hydraulics. The you lay on the muscle and skin... I always looked at it more as being the size of a body builder because the machine underneath was big. If you have a regular sized person, remember that when you melt away all the living tissue you're going to be left with a small machine. Because we've kind of grown to expect to see an un-skinned machine at some point, it wouldn't be very intimidating or menacing if it looked like a regular human skeleton, just metal. If I want to see skeletons dancing around I'll watch Pirates of the Carribean or Nightmare Before Christmas.

They didn't so much "get awya from that" in the subsequent movies... The fact that they didn't use huge actors after T1 was because it wasn't a machine frame underneath skin... they were liquid metal and whatever the hell the Terminatrix was underneath. I thought the third movie was 100x worse than Salvation. It felt more like a fan made YouTube video it was so ridiculous.

 

[Laspector]

Re: Terminator 5 (Reboot)

If you've got the liquid metal stuff, why use anything else? What's the point of endoskelatons and whatnot? Even back when T2 came out I thought that was a bad direction to take. Let's face it, it was only put in there because that's where CGI was at the time and everybody went all googly-eyed over it.

 

[Father]

Re: Terminator 5 (Reboot)

If you've got the liquid metal stuff, why use anything else? What's the point of endoskelatons and whatnot? Even back when T2 came out I thought that was a bad direction to take. Let's face it, it was only put in there because that's where CGI was at the time and everybody went all googly-eyed over it.

Agreed. It was the next step from the Cg used in The Abyss. It was groundbreaking like bullet-time from The Matrix but I'm not sure how much it really brought to the actual story.
The whole idea of the liquid metal over the machine frame in T3 was to be able to have all those ridiculous weapons built into her arms. Just when you thought you couldn't one up the T-1000.

 

[JLeezy23]

Re: Terminator 5 (Reboot)

Well so much for the titles not being "Terminator: enter dramatic title here"

Terminator Sequel-Reboot Gets The Very Interesting Subtitle, Genesis - Bleeding Cool Comic Book, Movies and TV News and Rumors

 

[Father]

Re: Terminator 5 (Reboot)

So far this sounds like a train wreck of a plot and bringing in Arnold for this one just shows that they can't pull off a successful reboot as much as a retread.

If you're going to reboot it go completely fresh. Is the story about Skynet and a robot apocalypse or is it about the future mother of the human resistance being hunted by a time traveling robot? break it down to its most basic elements and trim off the rest.

I'm so sick of the Connor element because of the 2nd and 3rd movies that I could do without it all together. It's not some literary classic like Romeo and Juliet where you have to keep so much of the core intact.

As much as people **** all over the 4th movie I was happy to at least get a movie based in the post-Judgement Day future. There was a lot that could have been done better but at least it wasn't Rise of the Machines and at least it didn't have Edward Furlong and it wasn't as polished and shiny as T2.

 

[The Terminator]

Re: Terminator 5 (Reboot)

I skipped Indy IV because I didn't want the franchise ruined for me by that film

Good call! F-ing CGI monkeys and Alien crap totally ruined it. I am totally skipping this film. I mean with the last one... they couldn't even get the music "right" :facepalm slapped some generic crap on top of it. TSCC was AMAZING in the music department. Bear McCreary did one hell of a job stepping into Brad Fiedel's shoes.

If you've got the liquid metal stuff, why use anything else? What's the point of endoskelatons and whatnot? Even back when T2 came out I thought that was a bad direction to take.

Because it was a PROTOTYPE like it's mentioned in the film? It hadn't been tested... and reading the script/book you learn that even Skynet feared the T-1000.

Let's face it, it was only put in there because that's where CGI was at the time and everybody went all googly-eyed over it.

Cameron has mentioned that he came up with the T-1000 earlier but that there really wasn't any way of doing it... yet. Then while making The Abyss he obviously tested and pushed CGI as far as he could so that one day they could hopefully create the T-1000

 

[Father]

Re: Terminator 5 (Reboot)

The T-1000 was awesome at the time. I think now it's too much of a departure from the coolness of just robots and cyborgs. But, it was still a kickass movie for its day and still holds up pretty darn well today.

I didn't read the book... I generally don't read novelizations of movies. I don't think of them as "real" books.
So you're saying they actually added some depth to the novelization that was left out of the film. That's kind of lame.

I never understand why they go with completely new music themes for a franchise. Brad Fiedel definitely didn't get the props he deserved for creating an iconic theme for Terminator that pretty much got erased by Salvation. I liked the score for Salvation but was also pretty disappointed it didn't really have any elements of the original.

I'll have to go back and listen to TSCC music. McCreary is awesome. He owned BSG with his scoring of that show.