Terminator Genisys | Did I Spell That Right?



From what I can tell, this trailer has revealed the full plot. Looks like the original (Arnold) T-800 goes even further into the past than the original film (or sequels), where he befriends a younger Sarah Connor and raises her from childhood. By the time Kyle Reese shows up it ain't the 1984 he and John Connor expect. Old terminator corrupted the timeline resulting in an alternate timeline. I'm just not feeling this. Might have been cooler if they'd gotten Robert Patrick or Michael Biehn back.

#GrandpaTerminator
«1

Comments

  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    Further proof that the original is often better

    2014


    1971
  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457
    Not to over or under react to a trailer but any Terminator without Cameron lacks something to me. Rise of the Machines was bland and Salvation action scenes were better. The Fox series was a great variation but did not feel like the movie events. I will admit this trailer sparked my interest more than I thought but I wish it ended with 2.
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    I'm enamored with the Terminator story. Loved parts 1 & 2, forgot 3 and was pretty hopeful for Salvation, but it turned out to be a mess. The effects were great though. I think the same casting flaw in Salvation has occurred with Genyisis. I don't care for either of the main actors (Sam Worthington from Salvation and Jai Courtney playing Kyle Reese in this), I'm just not on board yet I guess. It's hard to outdo a near flawless original with something "new" while still trying to use most of the same elements. Somewhat like trying to reinvent the wheel.
  • MattMatt Posts: 4,107
    edited December 2014
    Got to be honest, I've stopped trying to do the "compare to the original" bit. Star Trek was good. Rob Zombie's Halloween was good. RoboCop was really good. As good as the originals? Nope, can't recapture the original experience.

    I look at this the way I looked at the Dark Knight Trilogy; (potentially) an interesting interpretation of characters I really enjoy.

    This movie looks to be taking a page out of the recent Star Trek reboot. Original idea? No, but doesn't mean it won't be an interesting summer movie.

    M
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    You're right of course, but based on this franchise's recent history and the cast, this trailer and title haven't quite inspired the enthusiasm I'd hoped for.
  • MattMatt Posts: 4,107
    1 cast member & the usage of a computer anagram for a title that includes computers & software? Interesting.

    If the series ended with T3, I'd probably see the "recent history" part. Salvation was an excellent beginning to the 2 trilogy. Too bad it got derailed with the bankruptcy.

    I'm not a Jai Courtney fan, but the other cast members (especially Emilia Clark) look to be good. I've lived with his stale performance in other movies, if the overall movie is entertaining, I can continue to overlook another one.

    M
  • I'm ambivalent but I did like that all of the 1984 scenes before the twist were shot for shot recreations of the original. But seriously how many times can we be expected to believe that the past can change constantly but the future always remains the same (everybody just looks like they are being played by a different actor)?
  • MattMatt Posts: 4,107

    I'm ambivalent but I did like that all of the 1984 scenes before the twist were shot for shot recreations of the original. But seriously how many times can we be expected to believe that the past can change constantly but the future always remains the same (everybody just looks like they are being played by a different actor)?

    It's that damn field plastic surgery performed by a veterinarian!

    M
  • kiwijasekiwijase Posts: 451

    I'm ambivalent but I did like that all of the 1984 scenes before the twist were shot for shot recreations of the original. But seriously how many times can we be expected to believe that the past can change constantly but the future always remains the same (everybody just looks like they are being played by a different actor)?

    It works for Dr Who.

  • jaydee74jaydee74 Posts: 1,513
    I'm very intrigued by this remake or reboot or whatever it is you want to call it. I can see the comparison to the Star Trek reboot considering the what we've seen in the teaser. I'm intrigued by this change of what has come before. Unless it turns out to be something that I find uninteresting, I'm looking forward to checking it out. We get Arnold back. Not to mention 1984 Arnold. How can you go wrong with that?
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    jaydee74 said:

    We get Arnold back. Not to mention 1984 Arnold. How can you go wrong with that?

    And don't forget, Kyle Reese’s sweet pair of Nike Vandals circa '84
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    I thought the first trailer revealed the full plot. I'd like to amend that comment. THIS TRAILER does that.

  • DARDAR Posts: 897
    I prefer to call it Genesy5.

    I like the Sarah Connor Chronicles that was on Fox a few years ago but the last two films have left me cold. And everything I've seen from this hasn't screamed must see
  • Evening639Evening639 Posts: 368
    DAR said:

    I prefer to call it Genesy5.

    I think we should consult Alan Miller in regards to the correct pronunciation of the word "genesis". He nailed it in Star Trek III.

  • MattMatt Posts: 4,107
    DAR said:

    I prefer to call it Genesy5.

    I like the Sarah Connor Chronicles that was on Fox a few years ago but the last two films have left me cold. And everything I've seen from this hasn't screamed must see

    I liked Salvation. It was an interesting take to have the person out of time come to the future. I'm curious what the trilogy would've been like. I'm glad the original ending was leaked, causing them to change it. The original ending didn't sound right for the franchise.*

    M

    * Kerp that in mind, creators for 007: SPECTRE!!!
  • David_DDavid_D Posts: 3,629
    Anyone seen this yet? Thinking of maybe making the time for it this weekend, but I have been to at least one (maybe two? They blend together) Terminator sequels too many. Would love to hear some thumbs up or down on this from those that have seen it.
  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457
    David_D said:

    Anyone seen this yet? Thinking of maybe making the time for it this weekend, but I have been to at least one (maybe two? They blend together) Terminator sequels too many. Would love to hear some thumbs up or down on this from those that have seen it.

    Thumbs up. This one felt like a sequel to 1 and 2 more than the others. Once again John Conner is horribly miscast but he is not the main character. Emila Clarke does much better than I thought as Sarah and Arnold followed in the footsteps of Judgement Day with his Terminator/Nanny schtick. The time travel stuff was head scratching as expected but the nods to the original were nice. I enjoyed it as a footnote to the original two. I'd love to see it buried after this and it's no Cameron that's for sure but as summer fare it is worth it.

  • David_DDavid_D Posts: 3,629
    Thanks!
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    I was not that impressed. It was fun sometimes, but does anyone think Jai Courtney is a good actor? The best times for me were when Arnie was on screen. I NEVER bought Jason Clarke as John Connor. The lack of starpower makes this film suffer - outside of Arnie who has been reduced to a punchline terminator that's scripted / programmed to explain a near inexplicable plot. This film merely uses the concept of time travel to keep itself alive well past the point of expiration which might make it fine for a popcorn action movie, but there really isn't a single action scene worth remembering.

    I guess we're just not meant to think too hard about this stuff.



    If you must see it (as any Terminator fan MUST DO), you will appreciate J.K. Simmons scenes (too few) and you should probably stick through the credits for the prize(?) after sitting through this reboot that somehow both repeats and rejects its past. Go see it, then expect to forget it. It is better than Salvation or T3, but the next episode (if there is one) will likely toss out this one's timeline anyways...

  • DoctorDoomDoctorDoom Posts: 2,579
    I had fun watching it, and I enjoyed Emilia Clarke.

    I guess I just still don't understand what caused this alternate timeline, and who sent a Terminator to protect Sarah.
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    Just read an interesting take on iO9 discussing the three major attempts to resurrect old franchises this summer: Mad Max: Fury Road, Terminator Genisys, and Jurassic World.

    The plots are each described, and here is Genisys's condensed version:
    ...in the future, John Connor leads the resistance against Skynet’s killer robots. They send a Terminator back in time to 1984 to kill John’s mother, Sarah, before she can give birth to John, so John Connor sends Kyle Reese back in time to stop it and save her. Except that when they do that, something attacks John, splintering the timeline. So nothing Kyle knows about the past has actually happened. The machines tried to kill Sarah when she was a child, and not in 1984. But another Terminator saved her. And raised her as his daughter. Sarah rescues Kyle, and they go forward in time to stop Skynet. Except they have to go to 2017, because Kyle’s memories of the timeline he never experienced tell him that Skynet’s changed its plan to take over to ten years down the line. And once there, they find that John has also traveled back in time. Also, he’s an evil super-Terminator made up of nanites. So they have to stop Skynet and defeat John, their own son.
    The author's take on the other two films is also spot-on. Worth a read...
  • random73random73 Posts: 2,318
    I don't get the heat this movie has gotten. I enjoyed it immensely. I felt like there was homage to the first two (and only descent) movies. I felt like it was a bit of a nostalgia trip...remember when we did this!? (puffy Arnold) and wasn't this fun!?(T1000) yeah we loved the hell out of that too! Now, watch where we are going from here! (Nanite John Conner). It recognized what came before & then pushed the story forward in a way that allows new stories to be told that aren't hung up in what has come before. I enjoyed it WAY more than the overly serious Salvation and hell, I didn't even see whatever #3 was.
  • DoctorDoomDoctorDoom Posts: 2,579
    I thought it was fun as well.
  • DoctorDoomDoctorDoom Posts: 2,579
    Maybe it's just me... But what is so horrible about Jai Courtney?
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967

    Maybe it's just me... But what is so horrible about Jai Courtney?

    I, Frankenstein
    A Good Day to Die Hard

    Nothing if you prefer your leading actors with the same charisma as Sam Worthington or Channing Tatum. In other words, Jai Courtney is an utterly disposal, cardboard actor who surprisingly seems to keep getting big roles but doesn't bring much to those roles. Never believed him as Kyle Reese.

    As for the movie itself, the future scenes were all done very well, but there were also a lot of shortcuts taken. It is better than Terminator Salvation, and Terminator 3, but it was not anywhere close to T1 & T2.

    IMO, the best thing about this movie was Arnold. Second best part? JK Simmons. I wasn't bored with this movie, but it is pretty forgettable. And am I the only person here that is still confused about exactly where Matt Smith’s Skynet character was from while watching this movie?

    As for continuing this series, just before the release of Terminator Genisys, the plan was reportedly to film two more movies back-to-back, with release dates penciled in for 2017 and 2018. The rights do revert back to James Cameron in 2019, so Paramount is under a bit of a time crunch, and it will be interesting to see how they proceed. Perhaps they’ll scale back and only make one movie at a time, and see how it goes from there. They could also rein in production and try to make the movies for less money. They have some difficult choices to make before too long. Wonder if a sequel is in the works or not?

  • DoctorDoomDoctorDoom Posts: 2,579



    I, Frankenstein
    A Good Day to Die Hard

    It might help that I haven't seen either of those.
    Nothing if you prefer your leading actors with the same charisma as Sam Worthington or Channing Tatum.
    It might also help that I never saw him as the lead, which is odd, I guess.

  • MattMatt Posts: 4,107
    Finally watched this movie. I have to say...I thought it was enjoyable. I hope they wrap up the trilogy so I can see if my theory either Sarah or Kyle sent Pops back to 1973.

    I thought the portion in the 80s was probably the most interesting, but part of that could be the remaking of the original scenes.

    M
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    Matt said:

    Finally watched this movie. I have to say...I thought it was enjoyable. I hope they wrap up the trilogy so I can see if my theory either Sarah or Kyle sent Pops back to 1973.

    I thought the portion in the 80s was probably the most interesting, but part of that could be the remaking of the original scenes.

    M

    That was one of the more interesting questions the movie didn't answer, and there were several unanswered questions. Who would have the wherewithal to program a T-800 and send it back in time with the necessary information other than Sarah or Kyle.

    I think it was Sarah, since only she (or some other survivor of the resistance with an intimate knowledge of Sarah's childhood) would know where she lived as a child. Maybe they both did it? Your thoughts @Matt?

    For my taste, the best thing about the movie was JK Simmon's character and I was pleased to learn he had signed on for two sequels to this.
  • MattMatt Posts: 4,107

    Matt said:

    Finally watched this movie. I have to say...I thought it was enjoyable. I hope they wrap up the trilogy so I can see if my theory either Sarah or Kyle sent Pops back to 1973.

    I thought the portion in the 80s was probably the most interesting, but part of that could be the remaking of the original scenes.

    M

    That was one of the more interesting questions the movie didn't answer, and there were several unanswered questions. Who would have the wherewithal to program a T-800 and send it back in time with the necessary information other than Sarah or Kyle.

    I think it was Sarah, since only she (or some other survivor of the resistance with an intimate knowledge of Sarah's childhood) would know where she lived as a child. Maybe they both did it? Your thoughts @Matt?

    For my taste, the best thing about the movie was JK Simmon's character and I was pleased to learn he had signed on for two sequels to this.
    I thought Sarah and/or Kyle could've sent a T-800 to 1973 because it further delays Judgment Day & gave Reese some type of a happy childhood before the war. Kind of a gift for what he contributed to the future.

    I thought an important note: Sarah mentioned a T-1000 blowing up her house & killing her parents...but we see the T-800 carrying a rocket launcher. What if the future Sarah sacrificed her pleasant childhood to give Kyle one?

    M

    Also, this was the wrong Terminator movie to watch with my wife, who asked how Kyle could be younger then John, but be his father!
Sign In or Register to comment.