Arnold Is Back for Terminator 5

[I SEE SPIDEY]

He just hates everything doesn't he? I do think we need less reboots in general but I only dislike them when they are mediocre or bad because if they are good why complain? I liked Nolan's Batman, the Star Warsish version of Star Trek and Casino Royale.

 

[Sawyer]

Yeah, really, shame on JJ Abrams for making Star Trek actually enjoyable for the first time in years.

 

[Doc Ock]

Yeah, really, shame on JJ Abrams for making Star Trek actually enjoyable for the first time in years.

I'll add to that one of the best sci-fi films in years too.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Rebooting batman was waste of time now that It's going to be rebooted again.

Man of steel Is looking too dark knight influenced.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Yeah, really, shame on JJ Abrams for making Star Trek actually enjoyable for the first time in years.

As a semi casual fan of Trek I agree. I whole heartedly acknowledge that Abrams Trek took more from Star Wars than say Star Trek and I acknowledge it's flaws as a film but I still liked it. I liked it a hell of a lot more Enterprise which was more like Star Trek except terrible. I understand why hardcore Trekkers didn't care for it but honestly I don't give a **** because it's more important than I like a film than anyone else because film is a personal experience. Since most did like or love the new Trek movie I guess what I'm ultimately saying to people who didn't like it is, sucks to be you.

I didn't like The Amazing Spider-Man so anyone could say the same to me and considering Spidey is my fav Superhero, it indeed does suck to be me.

Now I'll get back on topic and contine to say No more Arnold, please.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I kinda think the Terminator universe needs the Prometheus treatment. Basically a film that takes place in the same universe, with perhaps nods to other characters, but largely consists of new characters and a new plot. Neither John nor Sarah Connor should appear. They should do something new and imaginative with it, give it some new themes and some new twists.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The problem with that is that Terminator 3 wrecked continuity.

That's one (of several) reasons I disliked Salvation. It used Terminator 3.

If they ignored them, than that would be fine.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I kinda think the Terminator universe needs the Prometheus treatment. Basically a film that takes place in the same universe, with perhaps nods to other characters, but largely consists of new characters and a new plot. Neither John nor Sarah Connor should appear. They should do something new and imaginative with it, give it some new themes and some new twists.

Agreed. Just make sure it's better than Prometheus.

The problem with that is that Terminator 3 wrecked continuity.

That's one (of several) reasons I disliked Salvation. It used Terminator 3.

If they ignored them, than that would be fine.

I'd rather like to see them either go far forward, maybe even after Connor's death, and just sort of casually ignore 3 & 4. Unfortunately, at this point erasing two movies from continuity and re-doing a third wouldn't work I don't think.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I don't think too many people care anymore after 3. Salvation and the TV series both went their own way. Salvation made allusions to Terminator 3, but they also made their own changes, which outright contradict it.

Really, I think this franchise needs a reboot. It's become such a mess.

I also find that the future is kind of dated quite frankly. Even Salvation. The T-800 is obsolete in many ways by our modern standards.

The funny thing is, if you did a reboot, and set it in the "near future", like the other movies (i.e. a couple of years from "now"), then you could actually have a working terminator built in the present. We've come that far.

 

[Marvolo]

I kinda think the Terminator universe needs the Prometheus treatment. Basically a film that takes place in the same universe, with perhaps nods to other characters, but largely consists of new characters and a new plot. Neither John nor Sarah Connor should appear. They should do something new and imaginative with it, give it some new themes and some new twists.

And hire Damon Lindelof to write it.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

^ Oh, I guess we are on the same page then.

Yes. Sorry if I sounded condescending.

The sad thing is Bale owned it as a mixture of both in Rescue Dawn.

Damn straight. McG's a crappy director, so that also had to do with it.

Jeez...Talk about speaking in absolutes! This is one of the most cynical and Debbie Downer things I've ever read here.

Still not as bad about reboots as Giankin is in the Oldboy threads, who basically says no one should ever reboot or remake anything in any artform ever. That is to say, I exploded, especially after saying he wants to be in Hollywood.

Yeah , what a waste of time that was.

I'm still having nightmares over how much I wasted my time with that trilogy.

He just hates everything doesn't he? I do think we need less reboots in general but I only dislike them when they are mediocre or bad because if they are good why complain? I liked Nolan's Batman, the Star Warsish version of Star Trek and Casino Royale.

I'm the same way. If a movie is good and entertaining, who cares what it is? People get caught up too much on the semantics.

As a semi casual fan of Trek I agree. I whole heartedly acknowledge that Abrams Trek took more from Star Wars than say Star Trek and I acknowledge it's flaws as a film but I still liked it. I liked it a hell of a lot more Enterprise which was more like Star Trek except terrible. I understand why hardcore Trekkers didn't care for it but honestly I don't give a **** because it's more important than I like a film than anyone else because film is a personal experience. Since most did like or love the new Trek movie I guess what I'm ultimately saying to people who didn't like it is, sucks to be you.

I didn't like The Amazing Spider-Man so anyone could say the same to me and considering Spidey is my fav Superhero, it indeed does suck to be me.

Now I'll get back on topic and contine to say No more Arnold, please.

I've liked all those reboots so far, even Spider-man (though not as much as Spider-man 1 or) because I think it started out well and it has a lot of potential for sequels to go in numerous directions.

And hire Damon Lindelof to write it.

 

[Sawyer]

Because God knows, Lindelof might make the rewrites the director wanted him to.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Damn, it still sucks Ridley Scott told him to make an polished script unpolished.

Going by Lindelof's history, it could have been worse...

 

[Doc Ock]

I kinda think the Terminator universe needs the Prometheus treatment. Basically a film that takes place in the same universe, with perhaps nods to other characters, but largely consists of new characters and a new plot. Neither John nor Sarah Connor should appear. They should do something new and imaginative with it, give it some new themes and some new twists.

That would be perfect, well I dunno about perfect. But it would be something I'd like to see.

 

[Sawyer]

That crazy ****in' Scott.

 

[Marvolo]

 

[ThePhantasm]

This is just a random idea:

The film is set thirty years after the human victory over Skynet alluded to in Terminator 2. It ignores T3 and T:Salvation. This future is post-apocalyptic. Humanity has been trying desperately to rebuild, but life has been difficult. Human beings are divided into three groups: those who long for restoration and remember John Connor as a sort of messianic hero, those who live in fear and awe of Skynet and worship the no longer functioning shells of past Terminators, and those who are ambivalent to either belief system and are just survivors.

It is revealed that, before the time displacement machine was destroyed, Skynet used it to send three robots - two Terminators and one Establisher, a sort of Skynet high-tech engineer - into the future to reestablish Skynet. The Establisher would deconstruct one Terminator in order to retrieve the microchip and recreate Skynet technology. The other Terminator is there to protect the Establisher. Now the hero(es) of the story must destroy these Terminators from the past, fighting through those who worship and protect the Terminators to do so.

 

[Thundercrack85]

This is just a random idea:

The film is set thirty years after the human victory over Skynet alluded to in Terminator 2. It ignores T3 and T:Salvation. This future is post-apocalyptic. Humanity has been trying desperately to rebuild, but life has been difficult. Human beings are divided into three groups: those who long for restoration and remember John Connor as a sort of messianic hero, those who live in fear and awe of Skynet and worship the no longer functioning shells of past Terminators, and those who are ambivalent to either belief system and are just survivors.

It is revealed that, before the time displacement machine was destroyed, Skynet used it to send three robots - two Terminators and one Establisher, a sort of Skynet high-tech engineer - into the future to reestablish Skynet. The Establisher would deconstruct one Terminator in order to retrieve the microchip and recreate Skynet technology. The other Terminator is there to protect the Establisher. Now the hero(es) of the story must destroy these Terminators from the past, fighting through those who worship and protect the Terminators to do so.

Forward time travel? I don't know. I don't dislike it, but what I like most about Terminator is them being in the present.

Also, why would the establisher need that chip? Why can't Skynet just program it with that knowledge?

 

[samsnee]

The same reason why skynet needs to still kill John Connor even though they have Kyle Reese in custody.

They're idiots.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Wow, there are not enough gifs in this thread.

 

[Piper Maru]

Wow, there are not enough gifs in this thread.

 

[Octoberist]

That Arnold smiling gif is quite compelling.

 

[Bruce Malone]

 

[ThePhantasm]

Also, why would the establisher need that chip? Why can't Skynet just program it with that knowledge?

Sure, that works too I guess. I literally thought that plot up off the top of my head when I posted it, so I probably didn't think everything out all the way. So the Establisher could have the stuff programmed in it, and the Terminators could be protecting him.

I like the Terminator films being in the present too, but I don't see a way to do that without an all out reboot at this point. I was trying to think up a sequel plot that a) wouldn't require a reboot and b) wouldn't require that you consider T3 and T4 to be canon in order to enjoy it.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Sure, that works too I guess. I literally thought that plot up off the top of my head when I posted it, so I probably didn't think everything out all the way. So the Establisher could have the stuff programmed in it, and the Terminators could be protecting him.

I like the Terminator films being in the present too, but I don't see a way to do that without an all out reboot at this point. I was trying to think up a sequel plot that a) wouldn't require a reboot and b) wouldn't require that you consider T3 and T4 to be canon in order to enjoy it.

There was actually a book that sort of does that... I vaguely recall it, where Skynet sends a terminator back in time to create itself (intentionally, that is).

Really though this franchise is in desperate need of a reboot.

Two things I'd really like to see, is a movie that starts out in the future, and actually shows us the time machine, working from that side.

And I also like the idea of a terminator actually being created in the present, with modern technology. Which is actually not that farfetched anymore. At least not something reminiscent of the T-800.