Terminator: Genisys - Part 9

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]501367[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]500995[/split]

 

[henzINNIT]

McG is a proven hack at this point. I'd argue that he failed Terminator visually too. He took an iconic established look and turned it into Mad Max with sprinkles of Transformers. He had a much, much larger budget to work with, but couldn't create something as visually striking as Cameron did with the future sequences of the original.

 

[DarkKnight]

Lol I know I'm the minority here but I still feel Salvation has been the best sequel since The original 2 films. I rate T3 and Genisys way below Salvation. I honestly really enjoyed That film.
Oh well lol
I really question the future of the franchise now. They attempted a Xmen dofp sequel/reboot and failed at it in my opinion. Genisys had its cool moments but it was pretty bad. I'll watch it over T3 any day though.

 

[scifiwolf]

Late to the party, but I'm finally watching this now. Actually not bad. I think of the Cameron movies as canon, and everything else is just an elseworlds story.

At the time of typing this, I'm at the hospital when John is getting sucked into the MRI.

 

[Tg11]

Genisys I'll admit was a bad movie but nowhere near as bad as Salvation come on Salvation in comparison to Genisys sucked

 

[Thundercrack85]

I saw this recently myself. Honestly, I thought Salvation was forgettable, but not terrible. Didn't leave much an impression one way or the other. Sort of a forgettable post-apocalyptic action movie. Like a Resident Evil movie or something.

This movie was so bad it was kind of entertaining.

It actually had some good ideas here and there, but it was all so badly executed. Emilia Clarke was just so unconvincing as Sarah Connor. I don't know why she was so bad. Did she have second thoughts? Is she just a bad actress? The guy playing Kyle Reese wasn't quite up to par either, though the writing didn't help.

In Salvation, I actually thought Anton Yelchin was Kyle Reese from The Terminator. He did really good in that role. Bale, not so much; he just phoned it in.

Using John Connor as a villain just didn't work for me, even though I thought the actor did okay.

I felt that Arnold was kind of going through the motions for much of the movie. There were a few scenes where I think he actually tried.

Throughout the film, I never felt that these characters were in any real danger. The atmosphere they had in the first two terminator movies, and even the third was totally missing.

 

[James]

---

 

[James]

Salvation was bad, but compared to Genisys it was downright masterful.

It actually had some good ideas here and there, but it was all so badly executed. Emilia Clarke was just so unconvincing as Sarah Connor. I don't know why she was so bad. Did she have second thoughts? Is she just a bad actress? The guy playing Kyle Reese wasn't quite up to par either, though the writing didn't help.

Yes.

 

[OcStat]

Lol I know I'm the minority here but I still feel Salvation has been the best sequel since The original 2 films. I rate T3 and Genisys way below Salvation. I honestly really enjoyed That film.
Oh well lol
I really question the future of the franchise now. They attempted a Xmen dofp sequel/reboot and failed at it in my opinion. Genisys had its cool moments but it was pretty bad. I'll watch it over T3 any day though.

Easily.

 

[scifiwolf]

Well, ended up going out for pizza and beers last night, so I'm finishing up the movie now. Like Salvation, I think the movie is high on concept, with some brief moments of brilliance. I think they need to leave the franchise alone after Genisys. Give it a few decades and come back to it with fresh creatives and a fresh audience. For a low budget scifi horror movie born from a half-remembered dream James Cameron once had of a metal skeleton, I think they've milked this cow all they can for now.

 

[Fallen Angel]

T2 Re-release for 3D poster

 

[Kane52630]

I didn't even know it's getting a 3D treatment.

 

[Fallen Angel]

Yep it is, I posted about it last year on the thread about it. Getting re-released for China essentially. Cameron want's to re release The Terminator as well for 3D.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/terminator-2-3d-rerelease-set-849272

Arnie will be back once again as James Cameron is partnering with DMG Entertainment and Studiocanal to return Terminator 2: Judgment Day to global cinemas in a digitally remastered 3D rerelease.


DMG and StudioCanal will work with Cameron to supervise and produce the 3D conversion using the latest technology from StereoD.
The new Terminator 2 3D is targeting a worldwide release in 2016, but a key target market is understood to be China, where the conversion will make its global premiere courtesy of DMG's China branch, DMG Yinji, working with China Film Group.

 

[Drizzle]

I forgot that this was happening, it's been so long since that news article broke last year about the 3D re-release. I thought the idea might have been scrapped. If they release it in IMAX like Jurassic Park and Raiders of the Lost Ark then I have to see it but if not, I just might have to give it a shot anyway, especially since I was too young to see it in theaters back in '91.

 

[henzINNIT]

I'm down for a chance to see T2 in the cinema.

 

[Fallen Angel]

Bad news, seems like if you're in the States you'll have to wait till 2017. Got to give the Chinese their go first.

 

[elgaz]

McG is a proven hack at this point. I'd argue that he failed Terminator visually too. He took an iconic established look and turned it into Mad Max with sprinkles of Transformers. He had a much, much larger budget to work with, but couldn't create something as visually striking as Cameron did with the future sequences of the original.

I still find it astonishing that a potentially €100m+ project (Superman : Flyby) fell apart because McG only realised late in the game that he was too scared of flying to make it to Australia, where Warner Bros wanted to film. Take a sleeping tablet man......

 

[elgaz]

I saw this recently myself. Honestly, I thought Salvation was forgettable, but not terrible. Didn't leave much an impression one way or the other. Sort of a forgettable post-apocalyptic action movie. Like a Resident Evil movie or something.

This movie was so bad it was kind of entertaining.

It actually had some good ideas here and there, but it was all so badly executed. Emilia Clarke was just so unconvincing as Sarah Connor. I don't know why she was so bad. Did she have second thoughts? Is she just a bad actress? The guy playing Kyle Reese wasn't quite up to par either, though the writing didn't help.

In Salvation, I actually thought Anton Yelchin was Kyle Reese from The Terminator. He did really good in that role. Bale, not so much; he just phoned it in.

Using John Connor as a villain just didn't work for me, even though I thought the actor did okay.

I felt that Arnold was kind of going through the motions for much of the movie. There were a few scenes where I think he actually tried.

Throughout the film, I never felt that these characters were in any real danger. The atmosphere they had in the first two terminator movies, and even the third was totally missing.

I rewatched Genisys recently, as I often do to see if a film improves/worsens on a repeated viewing. It's just not a good film, and the entire concept is flawed.

We've been sold John Connor as the salvation of the human race for so long that the big 'twist' - which was basically ruined by trailers anyway - doesn't come so much as a shock, but more a mockery of the character. I get that he wasn't evil all along or anything and has been basically corrupted by the machine that Matt Smith plays, but it still feels like it was played for shock value rather than being true to the one character who is motivating everyone else, consciously or subconsciously.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

Cameron want's to re release The Terminator as well for 3D.

He does? I've read just the opposite...

http://www.slashfilm.com/terminator-2-3d-james-cameron

Terminator 1 I don’t think so because you could upgrade it to 3D but it’s still pretty gritty, available light photography, low budget filmmaking. We’d spend more converting it to 3D than we spent on the movie. That feels a little imbalanced to me.

But Terminator 2 is a more polished film and, I think, it has a kind of timeless appeal. If there was someone who was interested in doing that, and we could make a good case for the business model like, perhaps let’s say, it’s never been on screens in China which in the next few years is about to become the biggest market for films worldwide. That alone might justify the cost of a conversion which might be 6 or 7 million dollars. And then a 3D re-release might attract some eyeballs in North American and Europe and then the Chinese release, which would be the first release on the big screen, might pay for it.

I’m just using that as an example. I’m just saying we’re not ruling it out. We’re looking at it.

 

[Drizzle]

Bad news, seems like if you're in the States you'll have to wait till 2017. Got to give the Chinese their go first.

Woe is me. I guess I'll have to watch one of the billion DVD releases of the movie that have come out in the past 15 years.

 

[Jay Beezy]

I rewatched Genisys recently, as I often do to see if a film improves/worsens on a repeated viewing. It's just not a good film, and the entire concept is flawed.

We've been sold John Connor as the salvation of the human race for so long that the big 'twist' - which was basically ruined by trailers anyway - doesn't come so much as a shock, but more a mockery of the character. I get that he wasn't evil all along or anything and has been basically corrupted by the machine that Matt Smith plays, but it still feels like it was played for shock value rather than being true to the one character who is motivating everyone else, consciously or subconsciously.

I felt the same way about the Connor twist. It's frustrating how many people I've seen use the whole "because it's different" excuse for liking it. I'm so irritated by that rationale for liking something.

 

[elgaz]

I felt the same way about the Connor twist. It's frustrating how many people I've seen use the whole "because it's different" excuse for liking it. I'm so irritated by that rationale for liking something.

If they absolutely had to have Connor become evil, at least let him have some semblance of his human psyche remain so they there's a bit of resistance (no pun intended!) on his part. Make it a conflict in his mind. That would be more interesting and would have stayed true to the character of Connor.

Instead, we see him for all of 5 mins as himself and then the machines get him. And that's it, the mighty and iconic leader of the human resistance is pretty much gone, with only an artificial imitation left. Dress it up with nano-technology or whatever they want, it's still just a Terminator posing as a human which is nothing new.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

I don't really give a damn about 3D, but I won't pass up the opportunity to see T2 in theaters, regardless. One of my favorite action movies.

 

[henzINNIT]

I think making John Connor a villain was barmy enough to work. It was a decent attempt to pull a similar twist to Arnie's role change in T2. This film did absolutely nothing with the idea though. Outside of the reveal itself, Connor being the villain was inconsequential.