Terminator: Genisys - Part 8

Status
Not open for further replies.
dark_b said:
what a complex process. respect. the fake body looks so real.
Legacy Effects
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB8KO6N0Jx0
Click to expand...


... hehehehe ...

They really screwed up.

Take a look at the puppet. The side of his face has been blown off. Even his nose is missing.

Now, take a look at the scene where the T-1000 infects the '84 Arnold. The puppet on the ground (encased in plastic) has no nose. Yet, when the '84 Arnold gets up and frees himself ... his nose is there. :whatever:
 
So, i just watched Genisys finally. To be honest, i don't think it's that bad actually, surprisingly. Courtney actually didn't bother me as a kyle reese. Neither did Amelia as Sarah.

there are some things that bother me about the movie though.

Most obvious offcourse is Pops and the T-1000. What the? It never gets explained well. Who sent a T-1000 and who sent another t-800? I can only come up with Skynet sending a T-1000 through the time portal to kill sarah as a child, assuming the T-1000 was already developed at the moment John was caught. But then, another T-800 had to be sent after a T-1000 was sent to protect Sarah somewhere in the 70's. So, who did that and how?

Then, if the T-1000 was sent to get Sarah, how did it more or less leave Sarah alone after the fire and parents death? And even more bothering, how on earth did it know that Kyle Reese would show up at the coordinates? Perhaps that could be explained if it indeed was sent after Kyle stepped into the time machine. Then if so, how on Earth did Sarah and pops know Kyle Reese's name and whereabouts? Again, pops could know because he was sent afterwards but again, by whom and why?

And then, what the hell happened to John Connor? I should understand that one of his 'soldiers' all the while actually was a transformer-terminator t-3000/t-5000? And it can somehow simply infect somebody by grabbing its head and then the person transforms into a terminator?

So why did he not do that years before? how did that guy infiltrate? How did John Connor get through the time travel device though he's not made out of flesh (on the outside)?

He got sent to protect skynet's activation. but, why is the 1997 skynet gone? Back in 1984, they did nothing to prevent 1997 skynet's possibility to stop, so why did it start in 2017? and why 2017?

i realise asking these questions that this movie wasn't good at all. it was ok to watch tho. but.....so many questions!!!

need answers!
 
I just get let down by the future war scenes these movies have made, in T1 and T2 it actually looked like a war. People were dirty and living in underground shelters. Everybody is too clean in this and I don't think I saw one bead of sweat drip from anybody's face.
 
A graph of the timelines by jmc:

2u6k7fd.jpg
 
I'm months late but I finally watched this for free.

I mean...it's not terrible. It's ok but that only if you don't look at it like as a Terminator movie...which is impossible I guess.

Anyway, I actually thought the acting was pretty good from the main 3. I was particularly surprised by Emelia Clarke, who I always thought was a bad actress. I mean she wasnt great, but did fine with what she was given. However, I didnt buy her as a woman who had been getting trained by a killer robot for years. But then again, I think one could make the argument that she didnt go through as much trauma as the original timeline Sarah (who had her friends, family, love of her life killed as well as years on the run) so she's not as cold as T2 Sarah Connor.
Courtney was pretty good too. I never got the hate for him. I thought he delivered his lines well and all that.

The problem was that, and I already kinda touched on this, they were not Sarah and Kyle Reese, especially in the case of Courtney as Kyle Reese. I mean Courtney got ripped for the role, which I feel is silly but I can ignore that because that's just how Hollywood is now. But more than how he much he worked out, Kyle Reese is not a wise ass, snarking, action hero. So them turning him into one just felt off and generic. Kyle is a pretty stoic, serious, guy who cares about the mission more than anything. That honestly was my biggest problem with the movie.

I mean really the only compliment I can give the movie is that it's not as bad as I thought it would be. But it is still a mediocre movie.
THe hand to hand fight scenes were alright, but all the other action was boring and un inspired. The SFX looked bad for the most part. The story was lame. The love story was just ugh.

Overall, the just turned Terminator into a generic summer action movie and not a very good one at that. I think they couldve made a good, PG13 Terminator along the tone of X-Men/X2 or even The Dark Knight Saga. Personally I dont think Terminator is a franchise that needs to be R especially with what PG13 movies can do nowadays

There was no good reason for all the changing of tone and overall blandness. I dont think the creators of this movie "got" Terminator. Just a bunch of stupid decisions all around.

5.5/10
 
Blackman said:
I'm months late but I finally watched this for free.

I mean...it's not terrible. It's ok but that only if you don't look at it like as a Terminator movie...which is impossible I guess.

Anyway, I actually thought the acting was pretty good from the main 3. I was particularly surprised by Emelia Clarke, who I always thought was a bad actress. I mean she wasnt great, but did fine with what she was given. However, I didnt buy her as a woman who had been getting trained by a killer robot for years. But then again, I think one could make the argument that she didnt go through as much trauma as the original timeline Sarah (who had her friends, family, love of her life killed as well as years on the run) so she's not as cold as T2 Sarah Connor.
Courtney was pretty good too. I never got the hate for him. I thought he delivered his lines well and all that.

The problem was that, and I already kinda touched on this, they were not Sarah and Kyle Reese, especially in the case of Courtney as Kyle Reese. I mean Courtney got ripped for the role, which I feel is silly but I can ignore that because that's just how Hollywood is now. But more than how he much he worked out, Kyle Reese is not a wise ass, snarking, action hero. So them turning him into one just felt off and generic. Kyle is a pretty stoic, serious, guy who cares about the mission more than anything. That honestly was my biggest problem with the movie.

I mean really the only compliment I can give the movie is that it's not as bad as I thought it would be. But it is still a mediocre movie.
THe hand to hand fight scenes were alright, but all the other action was boring and un inspired. The SFX looked bad for the most part. The story was lame. The love story was just ugh.

Overall, the just turned Terminator into a generic summer action movie and not a very good one at that. I think they couldve made a good, PG13 Terminator along the tone of X-Men/X2 or even The Dark Knight Saga. Personally I dont think Terminator is a franchise that needs to be R especially with what PG13 movies can do nowadays

There was no good reason for all the changing of tone and overall blandness. I dont think the creators of this movie "got" Terminator. Just a bunch of stupid decisions all around.

5.5/10
Click to expand...

Finally saw this and pretty much agree with everything you said. Also, they should've just spent the whole movie in 1984. Explore who sent the T-800 and T-1000, and how their presence affects the timeline. I thought the movie was kinda ok up til they went to 2017 to stop Skynet because they just couldn't do that in 1984.
 
I saw this movie last week in the only acceptable way--for free on a Transatlantic flight. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be, but it was by no means good. Matt Smith was completely wasted. You almost wonder if he caught wind of how bad it was going to be after he signed on and asked to have his role reduced to the point where he was pretty much able to just Skype in his performance. Jason Clarke and Arnie did okay, I guess. Neither one was terrible, though neither wowed me either. Jai Courtney also was decent enough I guess... he doesn't come off like Michael Biehn's Kyle Reese at all but I guess he was a believable action hero.

The same cannot be said for Emelia Clarke however, and it pains me to say that, because I really do like her on Game of Thrones and it always feels like a dick move to call out the lone female character as the weak link in an otherwise testosterone-infused action move. But she just isn't convincing. I don't care that she doesn't act at all like Linda Hamilton's Sarah Connor. I'm all for actors making the role their own. But Emelia just looked like she didn't belong there. She was bubbly and cute, which is pretty much NOT what you want in a badass action hero. I will say though that she does a great American accent. The problem is that she sounds like a California valley girl who belongs more in a Clueless remake than a Terminator sequel/reboot/requel/prequel/sidequel/whatever the f*** this was supposed to be.

All in all though, I can't blame the actors. Even the ones who felt completely miscast did what they could. No, the offenders here are the writers and the director. The story is a mess and a number of loose ends are never tied up. I suppose this was done on purpose because they clearly want to make more of these films but part of me wonders if the writers just forgot to address these things. And Alan Taylor proves once again why he's better suited to television. Despite all that though, I will say that I at least watched it the whole way through. I could have turned it off at any time and watched something else, but I guess it was good enough that I wanted to see how it all wrapped up, which is more than I can say for some movies.
 
Update from THR.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dangers-financiers-think-they-can-827843

By the time the Times article appeared, Terminator: Genisys had opened to a soft $27 million domestic, and the article suggested that the film illustrated a hard truth: "Paying for movies is one thing. Steering them creatively is another." The film did well overseas, especially in China, where it grossed $112 million. But the $150 million-plus movie still will lose money, and sources say the notion of a Terminator universe is on hold indefinitely.
 
I'm guessing Genisys won't count as canon in future projects.
 
Symbiotic said:
I'm guessing Genisys won't count as canon in future projects.
Click to expand...

From the news of the franchise being on hold and Cameron getting the rights back in 2019, don't be expecting any new future projects for a while.
 
Scarlet Spider said:
Update from THR.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dangers-financiers-think-they-can-827843

By the time the Times article appeared, Terminator: Genisys had opened to a soft $27 million domestic, and the article suggested that the film illustrated a hard truth: "Paying for movies is one thing. Steering them creatively is another." The film did well overseas, especially in China, where it grossed $112 million. But the $150 million-plus movie still will lose money, and sources say the notion of a Terminator universe is on hold indefinitely.
Click to expand...


Good.:sly:
 
Well the people who wanted the franchise to die got their wish at least. I didn't mind the movie and would have seen a sequel but am not shocked or sad the sequels won't be happening, I think this franchise will be dead for a while now.
 
Next time we see the series, it'll likely be a full on remake of the original.
 
Majik1387 said:
Nah, that still a tie between T3 and Salvation
Click to expand...

Why? I could see an argument for them being decent, Genisys was pure trash, from messy storyline to meh characterization, in least T-3 knew it couldn't be better than what came before, so it just tried to be fun and self-aware, while Salvation went with a road that the films hadn't gone with before and had some interesting visuals.
 
I think Salvation is the poorest personally. That movie had so much potential but just got simple parts of the mythology so wrong.
 
Watched it half a decade ago, but don't remember all that much to feel insulted about, even the alternate ending looked like the filmmakers taking a huge risk.
 
T3 was mediocre but had a ballsy ending. "Salvation" tried to be something it wasn't.
 
I never understood why people see the ending of T3 being "ballsy".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Poll Poll
Terminator: Genisys - Part 9
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
LoganGambit87
L
T
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
Terminator: Genisys - Part 7
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
54K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Terminator: Genisys
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
69K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Terminator: Genisys - Part 6
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
56K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Terminator: Genisys - Part 5
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
67K
Thread Manager
T

Staff online

Members online

Total: 9,528 (members: 22, guests: 9,506)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,358
Messages
22,091,021
Members
45,886
Latest member
Elchido

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"