Terminator: Genisys - Part 8

[marvelrobbins]

I finally got to see this last week. Loved it. Give it a 9 out of 10. I love that it's not a sequel....it's a retelling/reboot of the original two movies.

I have minority view in that i actully liked it.it can be seen as followup to
first 2 films with some other time traveling rebooted the timeline.

 

[Teelie]

I don't mind it being a retelling of the original two movies. I mind how awful they executed it and how terribly convoluted the story ended.

 

[Supernova]

I don't mind it being a retelling of the original two movies. I mind how awful they executed it and how terribly convoluted the story ended.

this and I will not give the filmmakers a pass either for trying to say this is an alternate timeline as a cheap way of rebooting.

 

[C. Lee]

I didn't think they executed it terribly. I liked it. I liked that it was a different take on the story.

 

[batfreakforever]

It was never going to be well received anyway because that's how it is these days. We want the glory days back.
I understand that we will never have the type of films like we had in the 80's / early 90's but this is the type we have today. Two different types of filmmaking and rules.
They gave a reason for an aging Arnold Schwarzenegger that fit the terminator universe and putting Conner as the !@#$!@##$/ gives this universe a future we can't prodict. We have room to move forward with Arnold. It has to finish with him. Regardless of how well these story's are received they need to finish Arnolds story off.

 

[Teelie]

Their reason for an aged Terminator was fine. It was how they had to shoe-horn it in to explain a 70 year old actor playing him that felt out of place. It could have been done without him.

Jai Courtney I thought was a poor choice for Kyle Reese and to top it off he deliberately ignored the take from Michael Biehn so he could continue to use his same bland acting style.

Emilia Clarke I thought was okay as Sarah Connor. I don't have as many problems with her acting as some people did but she still could have been better.

The end of the movie where they turn John Connor into Skynet 3.0? 4.0? Whatever iteration we're on of Skynet was wasted. I don't necessarily think it was a bad way to go but like everything else in this movie it felt like they dropped the ball in making it good. It also leaped the technology again and questions why Skynet didn't do this earlier with previous Terminators? Why send back the 101 when you have a T-1000? And better yet, send back a T-X. Or how about you takeover John's body and send him back to execute his own mother?

I understand as technology in the real world increases in leaps and bounds every movie sequel needs to do the same but this is never once addressed or answered in the movies. It gets completely glossed over bar maybe the T-1000 where it was simutaneously sent back to kill John Connor in the 90's as the T-101 was in the 80's to kill his mother as a secondary precaution. Even that was a weak explanation and it came from Cameron.

 

[aNarcHy2day]

I didn't hate the story as much as I hated the characters. They are very different from what I have always imagined these characters' personalities as. That just took me out of the story repeatedly.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

It was never going to be well received anyway because that's how it is these days. We want the glory days back.

I understand that we will never have the type of films like we had in the 80's / early 90's but this is the type we have today. Two different types of filmmaking and rules.

Not true.

A Terminator film could have been GREATLY received in 2015. If George Miller can release a Mad Max film (a cult action franchise from over 30 years ago), to insane critical acclaim (and awards consideration), Terminator could have done just as, if not better with the right people involved.

(Why does Mad Max get Charlize Theron and Tom Hardy and Terminator get's stuck with Emilia Clarke and Jai Courtney? We needed an actress of Charlize's caliber to play Sarah, properly. Same goes for Kyle.)

Look at what was done with Creed and how Coogler masterfully brought back Rocky with such a sophisticated and tasteful take. The renaissance Star Wars is currently going through goes without saying.

Terminator deserved the same type of treatment as those other films and it could (and would) have easily achieved the same type of success. That I have no doubt of.

 

[Alien Anal]

Not true.

A Terminator film could have been GREATLY received in 2015. If George Miller can release a Mad Max film (a cult action franchise from over 30 years ago), to insane critical acclaim (and awards consideration), Terminator could have done just as, if not better with the right people involved.

(Why does Mad Max get Charlize Theron and Tom Hardy and Terminator get's stuck with Emilia Clarke and Jai Courtney? We needed an actress of Charlize's caliber to play Sarah, properly. Same goes for Kyle.)

Look at what was done with Creed and how Coogler masterfully brought back Rocky with such a sophisticated and tasteful take. The renaissance Star Wars is currently going through goes without saying.

Terminator deserved the same type of treatment as those other films and it could (and would) have easily achieved the same type of success. That I have no doubt of.

Mwa Mwa mwa xoxox...yes

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Not true.

A Terminator film could have been GREATLY received in 2015. If George Miller can release a Mad Max film (a cult action franchise from over 30 years ago), to insane critical acclaim (and awards consideration), Terminator could have done just as, if not better with the right people involved.

(Why does Mad Max get Charlize Theron and Tom Hardy and Terminator get's stuck with Emilia Clarke and Jai Courtney? We needed an actress of Charlize's caliber to play Sarah, properly. Same goes for Kyle.)

Look at what was done with Creed and how Coogler masterfully brought back Rocky with such a sophisticated and tasteful take. The renaissance Star Wars is currently going through goes without saying.

Terminator deserved the same type of treatment as those other films and it could (and would) have easily achieved the same type of success. That I have no doubt of.

Well they passed on a great actress named Brie Larson, a great actress who is about to get a best actress Oscar nomination.

To be fair I expected Clarke to be Mila Kunis in Jupiter Ascending level of bad and she wasn't. Her actual acting was decent she was just entirely wrong for the role. It's a case of miscasting is what it is.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

Well they passed on a great actress named Brie Larson, a great actress who is about to get a best actress Oscar nomination.

To be fair I expected Clarke to be Mila Kunis in Jupiter Ascending level of bad and she wasn't. Her actual acting was decent she was just entirely wrong for the role. It's a case of miscasting is what it is.

In hindsight, I'm honestly glad Brie wasn't cast in this. She would have been wasted like Bale was in Terminator Salvation. You still need a great director, who's in a situation where he has the ability to make a proper, legitimate film. This was never going to be that, unfortunately.

Your right about miscasting, though.

When your attempting to recast and reintroduce iconic characters to a new generation, you better make damn sure, you get the casting right or else the film falls apart.

For what it's worth I like Emilia but she was never right for this. Courtney sucks though.

 

[aNarcHy2day]

Not true.

A Terminator film could have been GREATLY received in 2015. If George Miller can release a Mad Max film (a cult action franchise from over 30 years ago), to insane critical acclaim (and awards consideration), Terminator could have done just as, if not better with the right people involved.

(Why does Mad Max get Charlize Theron and Tom Hardy and Terminator get's stuck with Emilia Clarke and Jai Courtney? We needed an actress of Charlize's caliber to play Sarah, properly. Same goes for Kyle.)

Look at what was done with Creed and how Coogler masterfully brought back Rocky with such a sophisticated and tasteful take. The renaissance Star Wars is currently going through goes without saying.

Terminator deserved the same type of treatment as those other films and it could (and would) have easily achieved the same type of success. That I have no doubt of.

 

[DyeLorean]

I must say Emilia Clarke certainly looked like a young Linda Hamilton.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

In hindsight, I'm honestly glad Brie wasn't cast in this. She would have been wasted like Bale was in Terminator Salvation. You still need a great director, who's in a situation where he has the ability to make a proper, legitimate film. This was never going to be that, unfortunately.

Your right about miscasting, though.

When your attempting to recast and reintroduce iconic characters to a new generation, you better make damn sure, you get the casting right or else the film falls apart.

For what it's worth I like Emilia but she was never right for this. Courtney sucks though.

You are correct of course, Larson would have been wasted in Genisys but in a good Terminator film, she would be an excellent Sarah Connor or female lead who isn't Sarah Connor.

Courtney is not a leading man, he is a side actor at best.

 

[batfreakforever]

I love forward to a sequel.

 

[batfreakforever]

I finally got to see this last week. Loved it. Give it a 9 out of 10. I love that it's not a sequel....it's a retelling/reboot of the original two movies.

Why only a 9 ?

 

[DarkKnight]

I gave it another viewing the other night. Still dissapointed. It's not a bad movie. But it sure is not a good one either. I'm not even sure where I would rate it on a 1 to 10 scale. I'd prob say a 5 or 6. It's not bad enough for the bottom half but it's nowhere near good enough for the upper half.

 

[Jay Beezy]

In hindsight, I'm honestly glad Brie wasn't cast in this. She would have been wasted like Bale was in Terminator Salvation. You still need a great director, who's in a situation where he has the ability to make a proper, legitimate film. This was never going to be that, unfortunately.

Your right about miscasting, though.

When your attempting to recast and reintroduce iconic characters to a new generation, you better make damn sure, you get the casting right or else the film falls apart.

For what it's worth I like Emilia but she was never right for this. Courtney sucks though.

I feel like some people give Emilia more credit than she's actually worth. One has to look at Emilia's work outside of Game of Thrones to see that maybe she's not that special. Once the show ends, I don't see her lasting much longer.

 

[C. Lee]

Why only a 9 ?

I very rarely give anything a 10.

 

[TheVileOne]

Genisys made more money at the worldwide box office than Fury Road. Also, it was only out-grossed in the US by about $60 million.

As beloved as Fury Road is, the film didn't make all that much compared to other blockbusters.

 

[C. Lee]

It's nice when a movie I like does well at the box office....but it's success or lack there of doesn't influence whether I like a movie or not....nor does having others not liking it keep me from saying that I do like it if I do.

 

[Teelie]

Let's look at numbers.

Mad Max: Fury Road
Production Budget: $150 million
Domestic Total Gross: $153,636,354 40.9% + Foreign: $222,200,000 59.1%

Terminator: Genisys
Production Budget: $155 million
Domestic Total Gross: $89,760,956 20.4% + Foreign: $350,842,581 79.6%

Similar budgets, one made 41% domestic, one made 20% domestic. While international is becoming ever more important it still is not important enough yet in the eyes of the production studios who prefer the domestic gross be better than 20$ of the take.

And according to Boxoffice Mojo when you look at their rankings on the domestic charts, Mad Max ranks 283. Terminator Genisys ranks 713. So despite the bigger numbers Genisys made (in the foreign), Fury Road still did better on par. So the odds of a sequel to either one swing heavily in favor of Mad Max and less so for Genisys.

Oh, and this does not take into account their marketing budgets either which can double the actual cost of a movie.

 

[Rocketman]

I finally got to see this last week. Loved it. Give it a 9 out of 10. I love that it's not a sequel....it's a retelling/reboot of the original two movies.

Agreed 100%. It definitely felt fresh.

I do think though, in the future when they reboot this again (in 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, whatever... you know it's inevitable), they should start completely from scratch and not rely on any previous timeline / continuity. Just do a whole new thing like Batman Begins or Casino Royale did. Even The Amazing Spider-Man and Man of Steel did it right. Don't rely on previous movies at all. Do your own thing.

The problem people have with this franchise is that they keep trying to revive and continue what was already done, instead of starting something from the beginning. T3 failed, then Salvation failed, and now this. Not even Indiana Jones or Dumb and Dumber succeeded at this concept. Star Wars is arguably the only one (and that's with TFA), and now Creed.

 

[Cpt Howling Mad]

Fury Road was R rated, which makes any box office comparison fairly pointless. Genisys should have easily done much better thanks to its PG13 rating.

While the two films aren't that far apart in terms of box office, they're virtually polar opposites when it comes to sequel potential. Fury Road has a visionary director, critical acclaim, strong word-of-mouth, and clear signs of franchise growth at both the box office and on home video. Genisys has none of these things.

 

[Rowsdower!]

I love forward to a sequel.

Tell me, how does one love forward? I've always wanted to try that.