I suppose it was inevitable....

http://www.blastr.com/2013-6-28/its-off ... nd-trilogy

What I don't understand is why Hollywood is so in love with doing reboots to get a series back up and running. So a franchise has a movie or two that disappoints...why not try to do a great next movie instead of remaking the first one?

Yeah, I'll file this under unsurprising disappointment.

Hollywood just doesn't know what do with itself anymore.

Having said that, here's one series of movies that does need a reboot: The Hobbit.

You know, the search function on our site does not work very well. First of all, you have to right click and open a new tab...and then it doesn't find it anyway. It did not find the word "Terminator"...yet we have this thread, and I'm pretty sure we have a Terminator Salvation thread.

In any event, a recent issue of Entertainment Weekly had an article about the new Terminator movie, apparently officially entitled Terminator: Genisys (no, I did not misspell that). Part of the story is going to be set in an alternate timeline in which (highlight to read): Sarah Connor was orphaned at age 9 by a Terminator and was subsequently raised by an Ahnuld Terminator that she calls "Dad." I am not making this up. But my main beef here is ... alternate timeline? Why?

The article goes on to quote the creators as saying they wanted to include elements to bring in new fans and satisfy old fans. Why not just tell a really good story? That should satisfy everyone.

I edited your post, it said highlight to read, but the following text was visible, so I changed the color of the font.

LOL, I just realized that and was coming to change it. Thanks!

I know you are right and I agree but I'm still curious about the new movie.

Oh , I'm curious and will definitely see it, but it just sounded so formulaic. A smidge of this, a smidge of that, and voila! Instant sequel. Never mind an original idea.

What's happening here is that a lot of people, yours truly included, are beginning to get violently ill and enraged at the same time when beloved franchises or classic movies are scheduled for termination... er, I mean... rebooting.

Reboot has pretty much become the F-Word given to fans, but Hollywood, while pretending to care, has now started to disguise their reboots with this excuse of 'alternate timelines' and other nonsense as excuse to cash in on the popularity of titles, characters, and stories, and not devote a single dollar to hiring a writer that has one original thought left in his or her head. Ergo, your Star Treks and Terminators, etc ad nauseum.

At least Jurassic World is a straight-up continuation and opted to jettison the old cast for the sake of logic and believability: there's no way in hell that they would ever go back to those islands (yes, I know, they already did that once, but to do it twice would just be plain stupid.)

As for this new Terminator, yeah, sheer masochism and the infinitesimally small hope that there will be some faint echo of what made the original so great will force me to watch this at some point. However, e xp ectations are rock bottom and I fully e xp ect this to be pretty much laughable in many respects, including watching sadly as Arnold tries to catch lightning in a bottle again.

[quote=""Valkrist""]However, e xp ectations are rock bottom and I fully e xp ect this to be pretty much laughable in many respects, including watching sadly as Arnold tries to catch lightning in a bottle again.[/quote]

For whatever its other warts may have been, Terminator Salvation at least did not try to include Arnold in any real way. Of course, he was a sitting governor at the time and I think it would have been viewed as inappropriate for him to be in a movie.

I don't know if we've ever mentioned this on the forums or not, but it bears directly on the whole issue of sequels. Arthur C. Clarke, one of the most respected science fiction authors of all time, once stated that in his opinion there were no original ideas left in science fiction, and therefore he felt no shame in writing sequels. Of course, Sir Arthur was an old man when he said that, and arguably he had no ideas left. But Hollywood seems to have adopted it as their credo.

WOW I really like what I see so far.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_77GeNEzFQ

If you liked that, you'll love this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62E4FJTwSuc

[quote=""Olorin""]If you liked that, you'll love this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62E4FJTwSuc[/quote]
Yup sure do I love it and I saw it on another board a few hours ago.

[quote=""Olorin""]If you liked that, you'll love this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62E4FJTwSuc[/quote]
That does not suck at all

Personally, I think a lot of the effects in the trailer look half baked. But then again, often the effects aren't completely rendered by the time they have to cut the trailer together.

Remember too, even a crap movie can be made to look good by a skillfully cut trailer.

I'm not trying to be a Debbie Downer on this; I'm just trying to keep my e xp ectations muted.

I hope it not what it looks like in the trailer - a Terminator greatest hits of what we have already seen before, and a re hash of the original two stories merged but now flipped because it is a different timeline.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]I hope it not what it looks like in the trailer - a Terminator greatest hits of what we have already seen before, and a re hash of the original two stories merged but now flipped because it is a different timeline.[/quote]

Are you talking about Terminator or JJ Abrams' Star Trek films???


It does look like a massive rehash of stuff, but I guess I have a thing for crappy Arnold movies.

[quote=""BladeCollector""]Are you talking about Terminator or JJ Abrams' Star Trek films???
[/quote]

Or any Star trek film after Wrath of Kahn I actually liked JJ's first ST film better than just about any of the post Kahn films.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]Or any Star trek film after Wrath of Kahn I actually liked JJ's first ST film better than just about any of the post Kahn films.[/quote]

Definitely not jewels of cinematic achievement, but c'mon Kit, you must've liked First Contact, at least?

I liked a few of the later films. incl First Contact and Generations, I just did not think they were that great.

There's a new trailer online that reveals a plot point that probably should have not been revealed, except in the movie of course. I really don't like it when they give away too much of the story in the trailers. However, the trailer is certainly interesting looking. I'm very curious to see if this new movie is any good or not. I was pretty lukewarm on Terminator Salvation at first, but I really warmed up to it after a while.

I see almost nothing redeeming about this movie, and I was trying to keep an open mind about it. You're right in that a massive plot twist is thoroughly e xp osed in the trailer, but what really clinched it for me in this being a waste of time was the endless parade of rehashed moments and tired lines from the previous movies. This is all boiling down to a highlight reel of the greatest moments/one-liners from what has gone before, which once again proves that Hollywood is so very desperately out of ideas that they just can't get past trying to wink at us every five minutes with "Hey, did you catch that? That's our nod to T2, act 2, scene 3. Keep watching! Up next is T2, act 2, scene 4!!!"

They really should have sucked it up, kept what they could from the T:Salvation plotline, and forged ahead with T5. Every Terminator fan wanted the future war, but once again we get another tired tale of convoluted time travel paradoxes, and another slew of actors playing Sarah and John Connor, Kyle Reese, and what have you. Guess they had to find a way to shoehorn Schwarzenegger back in, and they found it.

Honestly, the only scene I saw that even mildly peaked my curiosity was that of old Arnold watching his younger version arrive in the classic pose and saying the line "I've been waiting for you." As I understand it, despite this being an alternate timeline, there is *some* lingering connectivity to the originals (aside from the aforementioned scene and dialogue ripoffs.)

I agree about the tired repeating of lines from the franchise. Some of theme weren't that great to begin with, and the groanable repeating was started by Cameron himself in T2. Since he washed his hands of All That Isn't Avatar, the successive writer/directors have really seized upon the one-liners as the ultimate hallmark of What Terminator Is. I'm afraid there's no way around that...we seem to be stuck with them.

What is also starting to grow wearisome are changed premises and alternate timelines. However, I think it was inevitable that this should extend to Terminator, which almost from the beginning has been about trying to change the future.

While I think that probably most fans were excited to see the Future War, Hollywood seems to think that what fans want to see is people in our present trying to avert the Future War. Strangely, that allows them to make the movie using real locations instead of intricate sets and loads of effects in every scene. In other words, they can go cheap on that and use that money elsewhere in the production.

Kibitzes aside, I will definitely see this movie. If it sucks, it sucks...the world spins on.

All these convoluted time traveling paradoxes in these types of movies, come back to the same realization, you can't alter the timeline. It is always going to happen, whether or not you delay it or make it happen early.

I am by no means a time travel e xp ert, but when time travel exists, you can just keep going back and jacking with the time line. And since no one really knows what would happen... do you actually even change the time line, or do you create a bunch of alternate timelines that are running parallel with each other? In Star Trek, you had the mirror universe, but you also have the JJ-verse, which is that a parallel splinter timeline or did they go back in time for real? I have always been confused on that one. Oh well, that rant can go on forever.

I am just getting tired of all the reboots and stuff. When you have a developed series like Terminator, and you have a movie like Salvation that didnt quite hit the mark, dont go back and start over, just pick up the pieces and make a better T5.

I think I'll skip this one. From what I see, it seems to be just another retread. I hated T3 and thought T4 was only marginally interesting, with an awful ending. I gave up on the tv show halfway into season 1. Too repetitive and silly.

If you want a much more interesting and original take on time travel, give Predestination a watch, or Primer. Or Looper.

I like (d) these Terminator movies in this particular order:

Terminator 2 Judgement day (my absolute favo).
Terminator 1.
Terminator 3.

Terminator Salvation Sucks big time(not my cup of tea).

And I am looking forward to see this Terminator Genisys movie.

I enjoyed all the terminator movies except part 3 which was god awful... TSSC takes place in the time line according to me...

[quote=""allosaur176""]I enjoyed all the terminator movies except part 3 which was god awful... TSSC takes place in the time line according to me...[/quote]

So you liked Salvation more than T3 ?

I absolutely did..Salvation brought it back to a dark, serious tone, where T3 had too many comedic elements to it and I hated how they portrayed John Connor..

[quote=""BladeCollector""]All these convoluted time traveling paradoxes in these types of movies, come back to the same realization, you can't alter the timeline. It is always going to happen, whether or not you delay it or make it happen early.

I am by no means a time travel e xp ert, but when time travel exists, you can just keep going back and jacking with the time line. And since no one really knows what would happen... do you actually even change the time line, or do you create a bunch of alternate timelines that are running parallel with each other? In Star Trek, you had the mirror universe, but you also have the JJ-verse, which is that a parallel splinter timeline or did they go back in time for real? I have always been confused on that one. Oh well, that rant can go on forever.

I am just getting tired of all the reboots and stuff. When you have a developed series like Terminator, and you have a movie like Salvation that didnt quite hit the mark, dont go back and start over, just pick up the pieces and make a better T5.[/quote]
Now I'll really mess with your head BC, both time travel and Star Trek transporter travel are Biblically documented.

OK, I saw it and generally liked it. It did retread some elements of the first two movies but then took off on its own tangent, and had a lot of good actions sequences. I have to say, though, that the huge spoiler they gave away in the trailer really took away from my enjoyment of it. I can only imagine the shock and tension I would have had in seeing this movie, had I not known that in advance. Way to go, trailer experts!

Last week I saw the movie and I must say I was impressed and so was my wife,I saw him twice and Jurassic World too.

I saw Terminator today and I really enjoyed it. It does get a bit wonky with the time travel, but that always happens whenever time travel is involved. It was nice to see the 3 ages of Arnold.

There were some rehashes from the other movies and some continuity with them as well, but with time travel, things get jacked up and what people are expecting has shifted and changed. It would have been nice for the trailer not to give away the major plot twist, but again, I still enjoyed the movie. I am curious to see what they decide to do for the next one, I am sure time travel will be involved again. Most time travel lore usually proves that you can't alter what is meant to happen, only maybe delay the inevitable and jacking with the timeline has unexpected consequences of making things worse.

It's out on DVD and BD now. If you're getting it, I strongly recommend Best Buy. They have a retailer exclusive which includes an extra disc of bonus features plus a lenticular slipcover.

I had the title already on the way from Amazon when I found out about the Best Buy exclusive. So I went out to Best Buy and bought it, and I'll send the Amazon version back to them, even though I'll have to pay the shipping on it since it was my change, not Amazon's mistake.

Not sure if it is the same cover, but I see the same 2 disk version on Amazon for about $20, free shipping with Prime

EDIT: Never mind. I see the BB version has a 3rd disk.

Supposedly Cameron is interesting in doing something with Terminator when rights revert to him in 2 years, and is trying to jumpstart the process now.

http://deadline.com/2017/01/terminator- ... 201890848/

I'm taking this with more than the government recommended daily allowance of salt, as Cameron has shown a lot of disdain in recent years for anything that isn't Avatar, and with 4 (!) Avatar sequels on the way, it's hard to imagine how much creative energy he'll really devote to this. I'm also troubled by the insinuation that a new Terminator might just pick up where T2 left off and ignore all the other movies. For the Alien franchise, that would be a good idea; for Terminator, not so much.

Uhg. Just let Terminator die and move on!

Nasnandos wrote:Uhg. Just let Terminator die and move on!

HAHAHA---Too funny, Kit!

What Kit said.

We really just need a 30-second short film titled Termination where Arnie, in his final outing as the character, terminates himself forever while flipping the bird at the camera.

Hasta la vista, baby!

Also, slightly off-topic but who else thinks that by the time an Avatar sequel comes out (much less four of them,) anyone that saw the original in theatres will have died of old age?

I'm beginning to think Cameron is more in love with the concept of working on these films than actually releasing them.

Like any franchise that has made big money, Terminator will never be left to die as long as somebody thinks there's still money to be milked from it.

What Olorin said.

I mean, some of the sequels weren't great, but I enjoyed the latest movie. It was fun to watch for me at least.