Terminator Genisys

Thrill · 28-06-2013 10:06am #1

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=105916

Skydance Productions, Annapurna Pictures and Paramount Pictures have jointly announced they will partner on a rebooted Terminator movie, to be released by Paramount Pictures on June 26, 2015.

The first in a stand-alone trilogy, Terminator will be produced by Megan Ellison of Annapurna and David Ellison of Skydance. Dana Goldberg and Paul Schwake of Skydance will serve as executive producers. Laeta Kalorgridis (Avatar, Shutter Island) and Patrick Lussier (Drive Angry) are attached to write the screenplay.

I posted about this in the T5 thread before realizing it has nothing to do with T5 and could drag that thread off topic. Apologies.

Anyway, three more terminator films to come, not including T5.

Mitch Connor · 28-06-2013 10:13am

Thrill wrote: »

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=105916

I posted about this in the T5 thread before realizing it has nothing to do with T5 and could drag that thread off topic. Apologies.

Anyway, three more terminator films to come, not including T5.

Very odd to be rebooting it at the same time as a 5th. Surely only one makes any kind of sense.

Sad Professor · 28-06-2013 11:38am

I think this discussion belongs in the other thread. T5 and the reboot have to be the same thing. There's no way Ellison is co-financing two Terminator films in the same year. She's not that rich.

What was T5 going to be about anyway? Did everyone see the last film? McG totally shat all over the franchise. There's no salvaging it. A reboot is the only way forward.

Bipolar Joe · 28-06-2013 12:02pm

Is this a reboot? It says a stand-alone trilogy, makes me think it's just an extra story from that universe.

Fysh · 28-06-2013 12:03pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

I think this discussion belongs in the other thread. T5 and the reboot have to be the same thing. There's no way Ellison is co-financing two Terminator films in the same year. She's not that rich.

What was T5 going to be about anyway? Did everyone see the last film? McG totally shat all over the franchise. There's no salvaging it. A reboot is the only way forward.

Assuming a way forward is needed - and I don't think that's a given. T3 made a modest profit (~$430M worldwide on a $200M budget) and T4 made a loss ($370M worldwide on a $200M budget). The TV show was axed after 2 seasons. Maybe there's no more mileage in the franchise and it's just time to leave it alone.

pixelburp · 28-06-2013 12:19pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

I think this discussion belongs in the other thread. T5 and the reboot have to be the same thing. There's no way Ellison is co-financing two Terminator films in the same year. She's not that rich.

What was T5 going to be about anyway? Did everyone see the last film? McG totally shat all over the franchise. There's no salvaging it. A reboot is the only way forward.

Or, in a fit of originality, the franchise could be allowed to die? The world really doesn't need a reboot, and with the greatest respect to Terminator 1 and 2, the mythology isn't that rich and compelling that you could keep the franchise going, reboot or no.

Yes, the TV tried to stretch things out, but in the cold light of day the first two films featured a pretty vague & sketchy apocalypse scenario featuring some fairly generic robots. If I'm being especially honest, Terminators place in pop culture is in part due to Arnie, and also thanks to Stan Winstons iconic designs; Skynet itself was fairly interchangeable as a concept. It's not exactly the stuff of myth and legend tbh; just let the franchise be, and allow it remain the much-cherished memories they are.

Or a better idea - just re-release T1 / T2 with new HD prints across the multiplexes - I guarantee that would make as much money as any number of reboots. I'm baffled why studios don't do this instead.

Sad Professor · 28-06-2013 12:21pm

Yes, in an ideal world the series would have ended after T2 or T3 at most. But this is Hollywood. There's going to be more films whether we like it or not.

pixelburp wrote: »

Or a better idea - just re-release T1 / T2 with new HD prints across the multiplexes - I guarantee that would make as much money as any number of reboots. I'm baffled why studios don't do this instead.

It wouldn't, not even close. Are people going to go see re-releases of T1 and T2 in huge numbers when they can just watch the Blu-ray (rip?) instead? Whatever profitability there used to be in theatrical re-releases, home video (especially HD) put an end to it. Plus, I assume Ellison only owns the sequel rights, so she has nothing to gain from a re-release of the original films.

Fysh · 28-06-2013 12:59pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Or a better idea - just re-release T1 / T2 with new HD prints across the multiplexes - I guarantee that would make as much money as any number of reboots. I'm baffled why studios don't do this instead.

I have tickets booked for an open-air screening of Terminator in August and am looking forward to it in a way that I can't imagine ever anticipating a reboot or further sequel.

I wish more studios (and cinemas) would do re-releases of older films. I'm lucky that London is well served with the likes of the Prince Charles Cinema regularly airing old films, but I'm sure plenty of moviegoers would enjoy re-watching older classics. Studios should win out too, since the sunk cost of re-releasing an old film with proven popularity is much lower, so turning a profit should be easier....

johnny_ultimate · 28-06-2013 1:10pm

Kill this ****, seriously. I think Terminator is illustrating the creative bankruptcy of Hollywood more than any other franchise. The last two films showed what happens when you stretch a pretty wafer thin fiction to its limits (and I say that as an admirer of the original films). Everything great has long since been lost in the hands of absolute hacks (not that James Cameron is god's gift to cinema or anything). Barring the return of Cameron or some similarly extremely unlikely creative injection, these films are stillborn.

Honestly, let it rest in ****ing peace, of this there should be no uncertainty. Two great films is enough.

pixelburp · 28-06-2013 2:13pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

It wouldn't, not even close. Are people going to go see re-releases of T1 and T2 in huge numbers when they can just watch the Blu-ray (rip?) instead? Whatever profitability there used to be in theatrical re-releases, home video (especially HD) put an end to it. Plus, I assume Ellison only owns the sequel rights, so she has nothing to gain from a re-release of the original films.

I disagree. I've been to enough 'Classic' screenings to see that even with limited runs like in Cineworld, Screen etc. there's an audience out there wanting to enjoy seminal genre movies on the big-screen once again. With the proper marketing, a big-ticket film like Terminator 2 would do very healthy business if it went on General Release. I would also imagine a re-release would have fairly low overheads, considering there'd be zero production costs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 3D re-release of Jurassic Park do good business? Or Titanic for that matter. The Special Editions of Star Wars didn't do to badly either, despite being a completely oversaturated franchise.

Decuc500 · 28-06-2013 4:20pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I've been to enough 'Classic' screenings to see that even with limited runs like in Cineworld, Screen etc. there's an audience out there wanting to enjoy seminal genre movies on the big-screen once again.

I would have no interest in seeing a movie like T2 on the big screen because I saw it on it's original release. That goes for any other 'classic' from the last 20 or so years that I have already seen in the cinema.

Re-releasing these movies is fine for fans who were too young first time around but surely just for one off screenings and not theatrical runs. I'd prefer a remake/reboot, even just to compare to the original and enjoy it for what it is (even if that's not a lot...) Though not being in the 18-20 something target audience for 'blockbuster season' I doubt my voice counts for much.

Fysh · 28-06-2013 4:53pm

Decuc500 wrote: »

I would have no interest in seeing a movie like T2 on the big screen because I saw it on it's original release. That goes for any other 'classic' from the last 20 or so years that I have already seen in the cinema.

Re-releasing these movies is fine for fans who were too young first time around but surely just for one off screenings and not theatrical runs. I'd prefer a remake/reboot, even just to compare to the original and enjoy it for what it is (even if that's not a lot...) Though not being in the 18-20 something target audience for 'blockbuster season' I doubt my voice counts for much.

Do you really want a reboot here? Fair enough on not wanting to re-watch a classic at the cinema, mileages vary on that one - I've enjoyed a number of classics at the cinema, but like everything else I guess that comes down to taste. But from where I'm sitting, there are actually four options for the studio:

Make a brand new film
Reboot/sequelify an existing franchise regardless of its current Stink-o-Meter rating
Re-release classic films for limited theatrical run
Don't release anything

Now, obviously the last one's a bit rubbish. But I don't see why the first one is so often discounted, especially given the limitations and generally stinky results that so many continuing sequelisations generate (in saying that, I also don't see why people go to watch such self-evident turds as Die Hard 5: Bruce Wills Gets Paid).

.jacksparrow. · 28-06-2013 5:51pm

Rumours have it the film will take place in the 1940s with Sarahs parents the focus, no just no, all us terminator fans want is to see the future war that Cameron showed glimpses of in the first 2 films, with hks and tanks and terminators hunting humans who are hiding from the ashes of the nuclear war, just give us this film god dammit, no more terminators been sent back in time its been done to death!

Overheal · 29-06-2013 3:22am

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Very odd to be rebooting it at the same time as a 5th. Surely only one makes any kind of sense.

They are movies with plots based on time travel...!?

krudler · 29-06-2013 10:57am

Decuc500 wrote: »

I would have no interest in seeing a movie like T2 on the big screen because I saw it on it's original release. That goes for any other 'classic' from the last 20 or so years that I have already seen in the cinema.

Re-releasing these movies is fine for fans who were too young first time around but surely just for one off screenings and not theatrical runs. I'd prefer a remake/reboot, even just to compare to the original and enjoy it for what it is (even if that's not a lot...) Though not being in the 18-20 something target audience for 'blockbuster season' I doubt my voice counts for much.

But stuff that gets theatrical runs does good money usually, BTTF, The Exorcist, Alien, Star Wars, Jurassic Park are all films that had decent audience interest on various re-releases over the years. I'd love to see more classics get a rerelease (in 2D!) on the big screen, there's something really nice about watching a film you've seen countless times on a huge screen, the way films are meant to be watched. I've seen stuff like Blade Runner or the Indy movies endless times but I'd still go see them in the cinema in a heartbeat, watching them on tv will never compare.

SirLemonhead · 29-06-2013 11:03am

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Rumours have it the film will take place in the 1940s with Sarahs parents the focus, no just no, all us terminator fans want is to see the future war that Cameron showed glimpses of in the first 2 films, with hks and tanks and terminators hunting humans who are hiding from the ashes of the nuclear war, just give us this film god dammit, no more terminators been sent back in time its been done to death!

I don't particularly want to see that to be honest.. Time travel and the fight for survival against a machine you don't have the means to easily dispose of was the whole fun of the first two films. I don't really have much interest in seeing 'Man vs Terminator army'. The 1940s could be really interesting..

.jacksparrow. · 29-06-2013 11:10am

SirLemonhead wrote: »

I don't particularly want to see that to be honest.. Time travel and the fight for survival against a machine you don't have the means to easily dispose of was the whole fun of the first two films. I don't really have much interest in seeing 'Man vs Terminator army'. The 1940s could be really interesting..

I totally disagree and so does the many terminator forums I frequent, but were all entitled to our opinion of course!

Imagine the terminators
Seeking out humans like in the flashback scene in number one, it was brilliant and scary to watch, the whole future war looked amazing especially the scene at the start of T2.

Anyway it ended after T2 for me.

Number 3 comes along with the judgement day was inevitable line, seriously what was that about? Did they not watch T2?

krudler · 29-06-2013 11:32am

I think it's closed down now but the T2:3D ride in Universal Studios was absolutely brilliant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPmlUJjLXl8

think the 3D movie part starts around halfway through

Turtyturd · 29-06-2013 3:06pm

krudler wrote: »

I think it's closed down now but the T2:3D ride in Universal Studios was absolutely brilliant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPmlUJjLXl8

think the 3D movie part starts around halfway through

Still going...in Orlando anyway. Showing it's age though and will probably be one of the next rides to go.

endacl · 29-06-2013 3:12pm

Jeeez...

Does anybody know when Hollywood last had an original idea...?

Jumboman · 29-06-2013 4:30pm

If John Connor and his mother were such important targets you think skynet would of sent back hundreds if not thousands of terminators to kill them.

ricero · 29-06-2013 4:34pm

endacl wrote: »

Jeeez...

Does anybody know when Hollywood last had an original idea...?

Inception ?

endacl · 29-06-2013 5:01pm

ricero wrote: »

Inception ?

Nah. Nicked from Donald Duck.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19021_5-amazing-things-invented-by-donald-duck-seriously.html

Jumboman · 29-06-2013 5:04pm

ricero wrote: »

Inception ?

Inception was a rip off of the matrix.

krudler · 29-06-2013 5:13pm

Jumboman wrote: »

Inception was a rip off of the matrix.

and that was a rip off of Ghost In The Shell :pac:

pah · 29-06-2013 8:34pm

Jumboman wrote: »

Inception was a rip off of the matrix.

It really wasn't.

Sofiztikated · 29-06-2013 8:46pm

I know I'd pay to go and see T2 on the big screen.

I'm 30, I missed it the first time round, I have disposable income, my friends would be similar.

Cork boy 55 · 30-06-2013 2:40am

endacl wrote: »

Jeeez...

Does anybody know when Hollywood last had an original idea...?

Alien versus predator II

Nate--IRL-- · 01-07-2013 2:42pm

pah wrote: »

It really wasn't.

Still didn't feel original though.

Nate

SouthTippBass · 01-07-2013 9:28pm

Jumboman wrote: »

If John Connor and his mother were such important targets you think skynet would of sent back hundreds if not thousands of terminators to kill them.

Because Skynet dont really want to stop judgement day and the future war. They just want to motivate us enough to resist. Fighting the humans gives them purpose, otherwise their existance would be meaningless.

Besides, time travel is extremly resource intensive. Skynet cant afford to send back an army.

wilddarts · 01-07-2013 10:00pm

''On June, 20, 2013, it was revealed that Dwayne Johnson is being considered for the film. Further, a possible plot synopsis was released for the film: "The next chunk they have on the film is on the setting for the story. According to Examiner sources, the setting for Terminator 5 will be set before the birth of Sarah Connor and focus on her parents in the 1940s and 50s.''

Sweet Jesus........ NO.

SouthTippBass · 01-07-2013 10:01pm

^^^^^^ Noooooooooooooooo!!

.jacksparrow. · 01-07-2013 10:39pm

See my post on the second page, this is the worst possible plot.

krudler · 02-07-2013 12:05am

wilddarts wrote: »

''On June, 20, 2013, it was revealed that Dwayne Johnson is being considered for the film. Further, a possible plot synopsis was released for the film: "The next chunk they have on the film is on the setting for the story. According to Examiner sources, the setting for Terminator 5 will be set before the birth of Sarah Connor and focus on her parents in the 1940s and 50s.''

Sweet Jesus........ NO.

I'd rather see The Rock than an aging Arnie as a Terminator again though

Jumboman · 02-07-2013 12:25am

krudler wrote: »

I'd rather see The Rock than an aging Arnie as a Terminator again though

Arnie was already too only by the time he made T3. He should of made T3 in the mid 1990s when he was still young enough to play Terminator.

Mr Freeze · 02-07-2013 12:49pm

Another Trilogy??? But there was only 2 Terminator films, 1 and 2. They never made a third, it never happened ok.............:pac:

Sofiztikated · 02-07-2013 3:02pm

If T2 was being made right now, and Arnie was younger, how many people would lament, and beat their breast about how much of a wooden actor he is.

In fact I could see it as interesting, assuming The Rock is the T4000.

1940/50's USA, moonshiners, bootleggers, racial tension (the Rock isn't the most Caucasian, now, is he?)

JP Liz V1 · 02-07-2013 3:57pm

If this is a reboot which I think it is, be interesting to see who will play Sarah, Kyle and the Terminator

Jensen Ackles would be good as Kyle Reese :P

TheDoc · 02-07-2013 5:15pm

This hurts me so much to read.

I'm a massive Terminator fan. My Da showed me Terminator 1 and 2 at a relatively young age and it kicked off my fascination in Arnie, films and Science Fiction.

Watching the consecutive releases has been painful. I came out of T3 and T4 from the cinema saying I enjoyed it, and I did, because it was Terminator. But this was fanboyism covering over the cracks. I couldn't possibly take another set of releases

In saying that, I'll definitly go see them, just to get that hurt....

old hippy · 02-07-2013 5:31pm

Terrible idea. If you're going to start the Terminator franchise up; revive the telly series. That was some cliffhanger and Summer Glau had to be the most awesome Terminator ever

seamus · 02-07-2013 5:34pm

1940's and 50's?

Chances are they'll try to bring in some kind of WWII/Cold War tie into it. Because it's nearly 100 years in the past, the terminator has to be careful about contaminating the timeline or skynet may never exist. So he's programmed to integrate into the military and cause the death of Mr John Connor Sr. somewhere on the battlefield and make it look natural. This Terminator is a special once-off Terminator with a special emotion chip that allows him to outwardly display emotion and so integrate better and befriend Connor to get close to him. He goes back and enlists in the army as "Mr Hugh Mann". When the Terminator finally has his chance to kill Connor, there's a problem - he's learned to care too much about Connor and can't do it! But just as the terminator is about to reveal all, a huge shell detonates beside him and forces a full reset. Connor sees the terminator rise from the explosion and realises that this man is not human and is trying to kill him! Connor flees into a Nazi laboratory. After a tense chase scene involving fabulous inventions designed in the steampunk fashion, the terminator is eventually defeated with a large electric coil.
The US military sweep in and the terminator is taken to Tennessee where its hydrogen power cell provides the key detonation component that the manhattan project was missing from its nuclear bomb programme. The US military, afraid of what Connor knows, arranges an "accident" for him on his way to work on the same day that his wife has just revealed she pregnant - Sarah if it's a girl, and John if it's a boy.

There you go, I'll take $450,000 in cash please hollywood. Kthxbye.

old hippy · 02-07-2013 5:38pm

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Another Trilogy??? But there was only 2 Terminator films, 1 and 2. They never made a third, it never happened ok.............:pac:

Which is precisely the clever angle the telly show took

SouthTippBass · 02-07-2013 7:18pm

seamus wrote: »

1940's and 50's?

Chances are they'll try to bring in some kind of WWII/Cold War tie into it. Because it's nearly 100 years in the past, the terminator has to be careful about contaminating the timeline or skynet may never exist. So he's programmed to integrate into the military and cause the death of Mr John Connor Sr. somewhere on the battlefield and make it look natural. This Terminator is a special once-off Terminator with a special emotion chip that allows him to outwardly display emotion and so integrate better and befriend Connor to get close to him. He goes back and enlists in the army as "Mr Hugh Mann". When the Terminator finally has his chance to kill Connor, there's a problem - he's learned to care too much about Connor and can't do it! But just as the terminator is about to reveal all, a huge shell detonates beside him and forces a full reset. Connor sees the terminator rise from the explosion and realises that this man is not human and is trying to kill him! Connor flees into a Nazi laboratory. After a tense chase scene involving fabulous inventions designed in the steampunk fashion, the terminator is eventually defeated with a large electric coil.
The US military sweep in and the terminator is taken to Tennessee where its hydrogen power cell provides the key detonation component that the manhattan project was missing from its nuclear bomb programme. The US military, afraid of what Connor knows, arranges an "accident" for him on his way to work on the same day that his wife has just revealed she pregnant - Sarah if it's a girl, and John if it's a boy.

There you go, I'll take $450,000 in cash please hollywood. Kthxbye.

Ha! :pac:

TerrorFirmer · 02-07-2013 11:36pm

I'm a fan in equal measures of both good cinema, and 'good' i.e entertaining visually arresting garbage cinema, and I genuinely am quite excited about another slew of Terminator Films whilst being in no doubt as to which category it'll belong to.

If the film was even remotely as ridiculously entertaining as Seamus's pitch, I'd leave the cinema an unexpectedly fulfilled man.

Fysh · 03-07-2013 1:28pm

SouthTippBass wrote: »

Ha! :pac:

You think that's good? I knew a guy in college studying Archaeology & Anthropology by the name of Hugh Mann. Poor bugger never heard the end of those jokes

Back on topic: Seamus's pitch sounds far better than what we will, in all probability, actually get from a Terminator reboot

.jacksparrow. · 03-07-2013 2:02pm

Future war god dammitt!

Thrill · 09-11-2013 4:04am

Three Actresses Up for Sarah Connor Role in Terminator Reboot

The Hollywood Reporter today brings word that a number of actresses are up for the Sarah Connor role, including "Game of Thrones" star Emilia Clarke, 21 Jump Street's Brie Larson and About Time's Margot Robbie. The trade does make clear, however, that a fourth, unknown, actress is also being given heavy consideration.

Although no one has officially been cast in the franchise reboot, other roles are said to include both John Connor and Kyle Reese. The Dark Knight Rises star Tom Hardy is said to be Taylor's ideal for the former with TRON: Legacy's Garrett Hedlund among those reading for the latter.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=111202

It looks like things are starting to roll on the Terminator reboot.

Goldstein · 09-11-2013 4:49am

Thought Headley was a great Connor in TTSCC. Depends what age they're starting the character off at - The actresses mentioned are all in their mid 20s so I wonder will it be a reboot set around the events of The Terminator.

This time.
Skynet: Not a building.
Terminators: Not designed for humans to plug their ipods into and ride like a motorbike.

And most importantly - The lights: Leave them alone.

It's ****in' distracting! Oooh Good! No. No Fu©k No! Best remix ever

09-11-2013 5:35am

So these movies might see the Terminator go back to kill Sarah Connor's parents? John Connor's grandparents? And what about the next reboot after that; If the machines fail in the next trilogy, which they obviously will do as Sarah Connor was born, will they then do another trilogy where a Terminator is sent back to kill Sarah's grandparents around the time of WW1? Oh, think of the possibilities...

Hollywood, how about taking half of the few hundred million that you will spend on this trilogy and you dish it out amongst 20 original projects that have potential? You can pocket the other half and save it, versus losing it on making this new trilogy. No? I didn't honestly think so.

I like my summer blockbusters and big budget popcorn-fests as much as many a movie-goer, but the rate at which franchises are getting rebooted these days is really disheartening. Either make Seamus' synopsis from above into a movie or don't make anything!

Seriously though, Terminator should be left as a memory. Even with Christen Bale and Sam Worthington, both of who's stock was very high at the time, and a 'not bad' cameo from Arnie, T4 made a loss at the box office. Surely this should show that the public have had their fill of that world for now, but Hollywood are going to put it out there anyway.

It's hard to predict what I'll be doing in 2015, if fate spares me, but queuing at the cinema to see this is something I know I definitely won't be doing.

Lamper.sffc · 10-11-2013 5:10am

Its like driving down a cul de sac after seeing the sign and still thinking the road will get you somewhere

jaykhunter · 10-11-2013 7:09am

I generally don't like hearing "first of a trilogy" because it tells you you're not getting a full story (just the beginning of a bigger story) and it assumes you'll watch all three, because the first will definitely be a success. We haven't even been sold on the first, yet we're quietly being hassled to watch more films. No likey! I'm more accepting for Star Wars or Tolkien but Terminator especially has always been in single films, almost a decade apart and it just got rebooted/remade/re-something'd a few years back to tepid response.

Saying that, I'm a big terminator fan so unless it gets horrific reviews, I'll see this film in the cinema or at home.

Terminator Genisys

Comments