Terminator Genisys

bullvine

4 reviews up on RT, not very good so far.

ancapailldorcha

According to IMDB, James Cameron gets the rights to the franchise back in 2019. There could be hope yet.

Looper007

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

According to IMDB, James Cameron gets the rights to the franchise back in 2019. There could be hope yet.

With the way he's making movies over the last few years I prefer someone young and ambitious who's willing to take chances. The films ever since two have played it far too safe.

ancapailldorcha

Looper007 wrote: »

With the way he's making movies over the last few years I prefer someone young and ambitious who's willing to take chances. The films ever since two have played it far too safe.

Fair point though I'd say it's the shareholders and bean counters who get to decide what, if any chances are taken.

Looper007

bullvine wrote: »

4 reviews up on RT, not very good so far.

To be honest the way Arnie has been promoting this over the last few weeks and with the no personality that is Jai Countney in it plus a 12A rating and the months and months of bad reports about it , I think its fair to say this was always going to be a disappointment and that's why I think they cut it down to 12A cause the kids will eat this up no matter what the film is like and I say the studio be happy if this makes 500 million overall.

py2006

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

According to IMDB, James Cameron gets the rights to the franchise back in 2019. There could be hope yet.

Eh Arnie will be well passed it.by then. Plus Cameron aint no spring chicken either.

Why are people against Jai Courtney? Then again, who exactly are they? The name doesn't ring any bells!

Looper007

Deleted User wrote: »

Why are people against Jai Courtney? Then again, who exactly are they? The name doesn't ring any bells!

An Australian actor. He was in the 5th Die Hard film as Willis's Son, was in Divergent films and the bad guy in Jack Reacher. He made his name in the Spartacus.


He's one of those guys that Hollywood really want to be a big action star, but he's sadly got the gift of making watch paint dry seem more interesting. Sadly he didn't get the gift of charisma from fellow Aussie greats like Hugh Jackman or Russell Crowe. I feel bad for him cause they are pushing the poor lad into a position he's just not capable off. Not everybody today can be like Chris Pratt, A likeable action star you either born with the likeability or your not.

Looper007

Looper007 wrote: »

An Australian actor. He was in the 5th Die Hard film as Willis's Son, was in Divergent films and the bad guy in Jack Reacher. He made his name in the Spartacus.


He's one of those guys that Hollywood really want to be a big action star, but he's sadly got the gift of making watch paint dry seem more interesting. Sadly he didn't get the gift of charisma from fellow Aussie greats like Hugh Jackman or Russell Crowe. I feel bad for him cause they are pushing the poor lad into a position he's just not capable off. Not everybody today can be like Chris Pratt, A likeable action star you either born with the likeability or your not.

Ohhh now I know who he is. God, he was terrible in that Die Hard!

ancapailldorcha

py2006 wrote: »

Eh Arnie will be well passed it.by then. Plus Cameron aint no spring chicken either.

Fair enough. I've accepted that the days of 5 star Terminator films are long gone.

_Kaiser_

SouthTippBass wrote: »

I thought that was awful myself.. let's compare to the original (NSFW language/violence of course!)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-TmQ1ktaLU

- The punks seem/sound more menacing as mentioned earlier. The new lads sound awful and the make-up/costumes are wrong
- Arnie's responses/expressions in the original are more dead/robotic which you'd expect
- The classic dun-dun-dun-dun is better in the original
- The lighting is off too

Rather than give me hope, this new clip makes me cringe to be honest

Bacchus

StarshipPooper wrote: »

The t800 ran in the original. Remember it chased Kyle and Sarah out of the nightclub?

bullvine wrote: »

He ran in the original, very very fast!

StarshipPooper wrote: »

Nope it definitely ran, although it didn't look remotely as daft as it does in that clip.

Had a look on YouTube at the scene. Yeah, he runs when chasing them from the club. Not in the same charging way shown in the clip for Genisys but yeah, the T-800 runs.

the_monkey

SouthTippBass wrote: »

The CGI for young Arnold looks surprisingly good, and I really like the delivery of old Arnolds line here.

Disclaimer: Must not get hopes up, the movie will still suck.

Simon2015 wrote: »

I'd go and see Genisys just for that scene.

Really ? I think it looks terrible, the eyes just are wrong, they still can't get that right , look the way they move when he hears old Arnie talking behind him... also the mouth movement looks off as well when he speaks.



Yes, I probably will go see it for just that scene :P

Dair76

I've never understood why a machine, built by other machines, needs a heads up display in English! :pac:

MrWalsh

the_monkey wrote: »

Really ? I think it looks terrible, the eyes just are wrong, they still can't get that right , look the way they move when he hears old Arnie talking behind him... also the mouth movement looks off as well when he speaks.

The CGI eyes are dead, but I think this adds to it! It's a machine, it should have dead eyes! Rarely does it make sense, but in this case, it does. For me.

Personally I'm not a CGI nitpicker. Unless it's so bad that it confuses me.

the_monkey

Found a good review ..

http://geekculture.co/geek-review-terminator-genisys/

Slydice

Threw that clip into youtube doubler.

http://www.youtubedoubler.com/?video1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DV-TmQ1ktaLU&start1=0&video2=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DOhQcwku3DEg&start2=0&authorName=Terminate!

Looks well done.

Bacchus

Dair76 wrote: »

I've never understood why a machine, built by other machines, needs a heads up display in English! :pac:

Or why it needs a HUD at all really.

Dair76

Well yeah, my post missed a comma, but that's part of the point I was making.

SouthTippBass

the_monkey wrote: »

Really ? I think it looks terrible, the eyes just are wrong, they still can't get that right , look the way they move when he hears old Arnie talking behind him... also the mouth movement looks off as well when he speaks.



Yes, I probably will go see it for just that scene :P

I stand by my comment, I think the CGI looks really good. Although Im aware my nostalgia is being tapped, Im looking forward to seeing this (this scene at least)

Simon2015

One of the first reviews is out its not looking too good.

e_e

Alternative view: http://www.slashfilm.com/terminator-genisys-review/

Although like Jurassic World, saying "well it's better than the last two mediocre entries!" is damning with faint praise.

DoYouEvenLift

Just don't go see it on the opening weekend at least, if you've will power then you'll wait for it to come out online, that way this cash grab won't make it worth it for the studio...too bad the masses will still go regardless because they're completely unaware their wallets are the only method they have of influencing stuff like this


It's 38/10 on metascore right now...lol, just lol!

TerrorFirmer

If it's being heralded as better than Salvation and T3, then it's a must see for me. I didn't care much for Salvation but I did enjoy Terminator 3 for what it was. If this was on-par with that even I'd be pretty happy.

Everything I've read thus far paints a picture of a decent summer Blockbuster which pays homage to the original and strives to add in it's own take on things. I love the first two films and part 3 and 4 are nowhere near as bad as people make them out to be. The whole rating thing is just nonsense and if you let that dictate what you watch then more fool you. I don't need or want gratuitous violence from this film, nor do I need swearing, what I want is 2 hours of set pieces and a decent story.

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

Everything I've read thus far paints a picture of a decent summer Blockbuster which pays homage to the original and strives to add in it's own take on things. I love the first two films and part 3 and 4 are nowhere near as bad as people make them out to be. The whole rating thing is just nonsense and if you let that dictate what you watch then more fool you. I don't need or want gratuitous violence from this film, nor do I need swearing, what I want is 2 hours of set pieces and a decent story.

Part 3 is much-maligned, and apart from some misplaced goofy humour is a pretty good film with a real gut-punch of an ending; one of the braver final scenes you'll see in a crowd-pleasing blockbuster really. Salvation though is a pretty terrible film and deserves its poor reputation. It has great production design in places, but the story - and yes, narrative matters in action films despite some peoples' claims otherwise - is criminally inept and the characters uniformly charmless.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

Part 3 is much-maligned, and apart from some misplaced goofy humour is a pretty good film with a real gut-punch of an ending; one of the braver final scenes you'll see in a crowd-pleasing blockbuster really. Salvation though is a pretty terrible film and deserves its poor reputation. It has great production design in places, but the story - and yes, narrative matters in action films despite some peoples' claims otherwise - is criminally inept and the characters uniformly charmless.

The main issues with part 4 all stem from the casting of Bale and his demands that the other Nolan be hired to rewrite the script. The original script was a tighter and much more focused one that went to some quite dark places and kept Connor in the background. Considering what happened there's it's easy to give Salvation a pass in certain areas. In the original script Connor doesn't show up till the last scene, till then he's a voice on the radio who keeps himself hidden so that the machines can never know what he looks like.

McG wanted Bale to play Marcus and when Bale signed on to play Connor it was believed that he would eventually decide to to take the role of Marcus. Unfortunately Bale didn't let go of that and instead got in Christopher Nolan who added in a number of scenes with Connor doing nothing of any substance. There were fundamental issues with the initial script, the whole project angel stuff was just nonsense and had no place in a Terminator film but when Bale was cast those in charge didn't bother working on the overall script as they did allow Nolan to just write Connor into various scenes he had no part of. The only thing that could have worked was had they let Connor die in the end, in the original script it felt a little pointless given that he had so little presence in the film but in the film as shot it could have worked rather well. Even something as simple as having Connor's brain uploaded into Marcus could have worked.

Sad Professor

I have to say, based on the clips, this looks perfectly watchable.

ancapailldorcha

Can't possibly be any worse than Salvation. Some interesting points there, Darko. Shame they twisted the thing just to suit Bale's whims. T3, while certainly no classic doesn't deserve most of the hate it got from many, myself included at the time.

the_monkey

Didn't think Salvation was that bad ... better then T3 for me.

I didn't like the casting choice for John Connor in T3.