Terminator Genisys

fergus1001

Myrddin wrote:

I'm just wondering if this new gang will heroically intervene somehow so that they ultimately end up undoing all this new time line nonsense, & end up restoring the original time line through time travel trickery if you get me

I see what your at prevent the scouring of the story with t3 and salvation, but I think they are going for a clean slate by killing the original t1 terminator, and in the process ruining a few actors future prospects (game of thrones girl included)

Myrddin

fergus1001 wrote: »

I see what your at prevent the scouring of the story with t3 and salvation, but I think they are going for a clean slate by killing the original t1 terminator, and in the process ruining a few actors future prospects (game of thrones girl included)

Yeah but at the end of this new film, I'm wondering if they'll somehow act via time travel to ensure the events of this film never actually take place...if you (somehow) get me Therefore, allowing the original timeline to be the one that takes place. Actually no, don't mind me, this is a planned trilogy isn't it?

fergus1001

Myrddin wrote:

Yeah but at the end of this new film, I'm wondering if they'll somehow act via time travel to ensure the events of this film never actually take place...if you (somehow) get me Therefore, allowing the original timeline to be the one that takes place. Actually no, don't mind me, this is a planned trilogy isn't it?

Yeah it's a trilogy,

I swear to god my phone and everything in my pocket would be fired at the screen if it ended up that the whole movie never took place !

I think sky net would activate to protect itself because of the ensuring riots because of the ending you mentioned

py2006

MrStuffins

That T-1000 looks f*cking sh*te!

No_Comply

I really really wanted this to be a sequel T2 deserved (but didn't need, granted).

It looks dreadful.

ps3lover

Am I the only one who finds it extreamly sexist and mysoginistic the way they inflate Emilia Clarkes breasts like that?

py2006

ps3lover wrote: »

Am I the only one who finds it extreamly sexist and mysoginistic the way they inflate Emilia Clarkes breasts like that?

It is something that is always done. They often make males look more toned and muscled etc. Sexist? Maybe. Misogyny? No way.

timetogo

MrStuffins wrote: »

That T-1000 looks f*cking sh*te!

Have computer graphics regressed in the last 20 odd years. On the ads the T1000 looks crappier than the one in Terminator 2. I had presumed it was becuase they weren't finished doing the effects yet and those were early shots. Maybe not.

py2006

timetogo wrote: »

Have computer graphics regressed in the last 20 odd years. On the ads the T1000 looks crappier than the one in Terminator 2. I had presumed it was becuase they weren't finished doing the effects yet and those were early shots. Maybe not.

Well aren't they just (bad) Photoshop creations rather than stills from the movie?

Duggy747

I just can't get over how shockingly bad the endoskeleton looks on Arnie in a lot of those shots


Compared to T3

Mr Freeze

^Genisys has a lower budget than Salvation and T3. Could that be a reason? Its not much lower but CGI should be cheaper now compared to when T3 was being made.

fergus1001

Mr Freeze wrote:

^Genisys has a lower budget than Salvation and T3. Could that be a reason? Its not much lower but CGI should be cheaper now compared to when T3 was being made.

What's the money on this compared to t3 ts and t2 for that mater

Mr Freeze

fergus1001 wrote: »

What's the money on this compared to t3 ts and t2 for that mater

I was only looking at it last week on Wikipedia*

170 Million for this.
Around 190m for T3
and 200m for Salvation.

*how reliable that is I don't know.

Mickeroo

Terminator 3 is 12 years old now, when it came out big budget blockbusters weren't as over saturated with CG as they are now and there was still a lot more practical effects used, so it has aged fairly well in that regard as a result imo.

Also, it might be an unpopular opinion but I have always felt T3 is quite underrated. Tonally it was a lot lighter than T1 & T2 and that's the main reason it gets derided, on it's own merits it was a pretty fun summer blockbuster imo.

fergus1001

Mr Freeze wrote:

170 Million for this. Around 190m for T3 and 200m for Salvation.

Just to put these figures into context I compounded the cost of terminator 2 judgement day to what that cost would be today (inflation) it cost 102 million at the time (wiki 2015)

Compounded forward the movie would cost 207 million today (assuming an average inflation value of 3%)

timetogo

fergus1001 wrote: »

Just to put these figures into context I compounded the cost of terminator 2 judgement day to what that cost would be today (inflation) it cost 102 million at the time (wiki 2015)

Compounded forward the movie would cost 207 million today (assuming an average inflation value of 3%)

At that time I remember they were using cutting edge software / hardware to produced the effects. At that time (around 1991) a high spec home PC would have something like a 386 processor, 1Mb RAM, 30Mb HDD and a 512Kb graphics card
I've no idea what the movie companies were using.

That software & hardware is a loooot cheaper now. I don't know how that changes any numbers. Just my 2c.

fergus1001

timetogo wrote:

That software & hardware is a loooot cheaper now. I don't know how that changes any numbers. Just my 2c.

Noooooo just dealing with economics never mind that

my point is that the money spent on t2 is not that much more than what's being spent on this movie, t3 was 280 million in today's terms

shazzerman

Mickeroo wrote: »

Terminator 3 is 12 years old now, when it came out big budget blockbusters weren't as over saturated with CG as they are now and there was still a lot more practical effects used, so it has aged fairly well in that regard as a result imo.

Also, it might be an unpopular opinion but I have always felt T3 is quite underrated. Tonally it was a lot lighter than T1 & T2 and that's the main reason it gets derided, on it's own merits it was a pretty fun summer blockbuster imo.

T3 has really excellent effects work. Not as innovative as T2, but still hugely impressive.

Mr Freeze

Its not just Genisys though, the money is being spent on it, and CGI is probably cheaper to produce and the effects should look better, but a lot of films now the CGI looks terrible.

Even Avengers, that opening sequence had some brutal CGI.

I don't know what the excuse is, but newer films are not looking as good as they should.

Adamantium

Mickeroo wrote: »

Terminator 3 is 12 years old now, when it came out big budget blockbusters weren't as over saturated with CG as they are now and there was still a lot more practical effects used, so it has aged fairly well in that regard as a result imo.

Also, it might be an unpopular opinion but I have always felt T3 is quite underrated. Tonally it was a lot lighter than T1 & T2 and that's the main reason it gets derided, on it's own merits it was a pretty fun summer blockbuster imo.

I agree, I've always enjoyed it and if I wanted to go watch a Terminator film, it's the one I'll always put on.

Even where Connor ended up at the start of T3 made sense. It is a great ticking clock film, killing of his future Lientenants in the Los Angeles area, Judgement Day being TODAY. The whole film taking place over the course of the one day. THAT ending and the irony of it

It's an unpopular opinion, but I was annoyed when they didn't ask Nick Stahl and Claire Danes back in the sequel. I thought Stahl put a lot of soul and sincerity into the character. They're also normal people and not supermodel looking. Not an annoying Eddie Furlong and not a hard assed commando Christian Bale.


I think its one of the most powerful and shocking/beautiful endings I've ever seen in a blockbuster. Floored me. Claire Danes just sells it. That discordant music and the dawning realisation. You can hear the terrible howling wind over the radio outside. When she says "we could just let it go" referring to the bomb intended for the non existent Skynet core, you couldn't blame her.

I wanted the 5 minutes later sequel to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6gPPj8B_nU

_Kaiser_

Those posters/stills look awful.. almost like something from the (inevitable) spin-off XBox game rather than a live action movie.

The more I see/read about this the more I'm convinced it's going to be awful. I actually watched Salvation again the other night (in the context of having read the original script that someone posted previously) and it wasn't that bad really.. at least not compared to what I've seen of this and T3's cringe-worthy moments like Arnie and the sunglasses, "talk to the hand" etc... :rolleyes:

Faith+1

fergus1001 wrote: »

Noooooo just dealing with economics never mind that

my point is that the money spent on t2 is not that much more than what's being spent on this movie, t3 was 280 million in today's terms

Are you for real? 190m in 2003 does not equate to 280m today!

fergus1001

Faith+1 wrote:

Are you for real? 190m in 2003 does not equate to 280m today!

Using an online calculator it's 243.2 million

Pulled 3% inflation of the top of my head was only out by 35 odd million haha

Faith+1

fergus1001 wrote: »

Using an online calculator it's 243.2 million

Pulled 3% inflation of the top of my head was only out by 35 odd million haha

They could throw 500m at this movie and it'll still be sh*te!

fergus1001

Faith+1 wrote:

They could throw 500m at this movie and it'll still be sh*te!

That's the point I was making ....

py2006

Bacchus

Ugh, hate these posters...

A T-800 in a macho action hero pose. The lame torn skin revealing the metal beneath effect on the face. Even the de-aging of Arnie makes it all look so fake and cheap.
Sarah then, showing a bit of ass (cause every poster can't be about her wonderbra), and casually holding the head of of what was once a terrifying, unstoppable, metallic monster.

Not sure why I care TBH, this movie has looked like a disaster for a long time now.

FortuneChip

Emilia Clarke looks like she's had more upgrades than the new Terminator.

Stone Deaf 4evr

FortuneChip wrote: »

Emilia Clarke looks like she's had more upgrades than the new Terminator.

lol, whoever photoshopped the curve on her arse looks like he was aiming for accuracy within 6 decimal places of pi.