Terminator Genisys

Mr Freeze

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

T3, while certainly no classic doesn't deserve most of the hate it got from many, myself included at the time.

My main gripe with T3 was the humour. It really didn't suit it.
T1 and T2, there is such a sense of hopelessness in the two films, granted there are some funny bits in T2, but they work. There was too many and they didn't work in T3.

Thats what I remember about it anyways, I never watched it a second time.
Same with Salvation, couldn't watch it again.

I think Geneysis looks more like a Terminator parody. I could be completely wrong and I will watch it at some stage in the hopes that its decent.

Bacchus

I didn't think Salvation was that bad either. It made for a change of pace in a Terminator movie. The main thing that really fell for me in Salvation was the general look of the future. It was nothing like what we saw in Cameron's vision of it. That and the silly fight with the Terminator at the end of course with the constant throwing of John and Marcus away from itself and then them both surviving heart punches.

As for T3, the fan edit on YouTube (it was linked earlier in this thread I think) with about 10 minutes cut out really helps it a lot. T3 had all the components of a great Terminator movie and then they added inflatable boobs, pink sunglasses, etc.

The description of the future scenes in that last review linked above has gotten my attention. It sound like it'll be the proper future war we've wanted to see. Between that and the Arnie vs Arnie scenes, my head has been slightly turned. I'm still far from convinced that this will be anything but a limp CGI action flick though.

ancapailldorcha

T3's humour killed off any tension. Marvel films suffer from the same problem to a much greater extent. I can't see myself ever liking Salvation. The latter half of the film is just a large plot hole.

frostyjacks

When I was young the Terminator scared the bejaysus out of me. The idea that something could exist that couldn't be bargained with or reasoned with, that didn't feel pity or remorse, or fear, and that absolutely would not stop, ever, until you were dead, was terrifying. So to strip that out of the films, to remove the horror, violence and bad language just seems wrong. I'm sure it'll be an entertaining action movie, but it's lost it's core values. That little red light in the eye is going out permanently for me.

ancapailldorcha

In hindsight, I'm amazed that they were able to make the same trick work well twice.

the_monkey

frostyjacks wrote: »

When I was young the Terminator scared the bejaysus out of me. The idea that something could exist that couldn't be bargained with or reasoned with, that didn't feel pity or remorse, or fear, and that absolutely would not stop, ever, until you were dead, was terrifying. So to strip that out of the films, to remove the horror, violence and bad language just seems wrong. I'm sure it'll be an entertaining action movie, but it's lost it's core values. That little red light in the eye is going out permanently for me.

Exactly, T3 just seemed to take the piss, Arnie didn't seem threatening in it at all - and he did in T2 even though he was the "good" guy, the fact he was about to shoot those jocks dead for nothing showed this, and he only didn't kill cos he was programmed to obey JC orders.

ps3lover

This **** still 12A? I'll wait till Netflix.

ps3lover

frostyjacks wrote: »

When I was young the Terminator scared the bejaysus out of me. The idea that something could exist that couldn't be bargained with or reasoned with, that didn't feel pity or remorse, or fear, and that absolutely would not stop, ever, until you were dead, was terrifying. So to strip that out of the films, to remove the horror, violence and bad language just seems wrong. I'm sure it'll be an entertaining action movie, but it's lost it's core values. That little red light in the eye is going out permanently for me.

Yes but the studios only care about making money so they'll off course censor the **** out of products to make them as appealing as possible to the widest audience, making the safest product they can think of. Censoring for profit it should be called.
William Friedkin even came out recently and said this is what's destroying movies, trying to make them appealing to the widest possible audience.
Hell, most of the time it backfires horrible and the movie ends up losing money ( Robocop, Total Recall and Expendables 3 are recent examples of this).
Even horror movie producers talk about Making pg13 horror movies to make more money, yet the R rated ones are the highest grossing ones recently.

MrWalsh

ps3lover wrote: »

William Friedkin even came out recently and said this is what's destroying movies, trying to make them appealing to the widest possible audience.

Movie by committee. You see it all the time in modern movies.

ps3lover

MrWalsh wrote: »

Movie by committee. You see it all the time in modern movies.

John Landis said the same thing as well.

MrWalsh

ps3lover wrote: »

John Landis said the same thing as well.

I wrote a (mildly) interesting paper on the effect of capitalism on art a few months ago. Its a bit dim in my memory now but I remember how impressed I was with the ideas of Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer - Adorno more or less predicted what we now see in cinema (and popular music) with standardisation, predictability, conformity and uniformity.

I started seeing it everywhere after Id read some of his stuff.

ps3lover

MrWalsh wrote: »

I wrote a (mildly) interesting paper on the effect of capitalism on art a few months ago. Its a bit dim in my memory now but I remember how impressed I was with the ideas of Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer - Adorno more or less predicted what we now see in cinema (and popular music) with standardisation, predictability, conformity and uniformity.

I started seeing it everywhere after Id read some of his stuff.

Did the director of Robocop remake also complain about it. I recall it leaked out that he described making that movie as a living hell. The studio didn't allow him any creative control and watched him like a hawk to insure he delivered a pg13 rated product. I recall he said the final product was still going to be a fun movie, just not the movie he wanted to make.

Saying that the film has been censored is a little unfair considering that the film passed the censors uncut. There is no reason that the film needs to be an 18 cert, especially when you consider that were the original two being released today they would most likely pass with a 15A or 16 cert. One of the reasons that so many R rated or 15 cert horror films can make so much is because they are cheap to produce, a film like the Conjuring can cost $20 million and as such it doesn't take a whole lot for it to be in profit. It's a very different thing for a summer blockbuster costing north of $200 million to so easily make money, it needs to appeal to as wide a base as possible. And your three examples don't work when you look at the fact that all three films were in profit before they left cinemas.

ps3lover

Deleted User wrote: »

Saying that the film has been censored is a little unfair considering that the film passed the censors uncut. There is no reason that the film needs to be an 18 cert, especially when you consider that were the original two being released today they would most likely pass with a 15A or 16 cert. One of the reasons that so many R rated or 15 cert horror films can make so much is because they are cheap to produce, a film like the Conjuring can cost $20 million and as such it doesn't take a whole lot for it to be in profit. It's a very different thing for a summer blockbuster costing north of $200 million to so easily make money, it needs to appeal to as wide a base as possible. And your three examples don't work when you look at the fact that all three films were in profit before they left cinemas.

Really because in the leaked Sony emails they discuss how Robocop was supposed to be the start of a new franchise but that ended when they lost money on it.

Also I'm talking about R rated horror movies out grossing the PG13 rated ones.

frostyjacks

The original would still be 18 rated if it was released today. It was the nature of the violence, rather than the violence itself. Committing mass murder in order to murder again, that police dept. shooting spree was pretty brutal looking back. Imagine trying to release that in the States with all that's going on over there right now, not a hope.

ps3lover

frostyjacks wrote: »

The original would still be 18 rated if it was released today. It was the nature of the violence, rather than the violence itself. Committing mass murder in order to murder again, that police dept. shooting spree was pretty brutal looking back. Imagine trying to release that in the States with all that's going on over there right now, not a hope.

I doubt it would be 18. No way would it be 12a but I'd say it would get a 15.

ps3lover

ps3lover wrote: »

Really because in the leaked Sony emails they discuss how Robocop was supposed to be the start of a new franchise but that ended when they lost money on it.

Also I'm talking about R rated horror movies out grossing the PG13 rated ones.

Robocop cost $100 million to make and by the time it had left theatres it had a worldwide gross of $242,688,965 and when you factor in home sales and Television/streaming rights you have quite the money maker. When Americans look at a film and call it a flop they generally mean that it hasn't made back it's production budget at the American box office.

As for saying that R rater horrors out gross PG13 films, well that is one of those things that isn't really comparable. Ananbelle was the strongest performing horror film in US cinemas last years with Ouija coming second. Both were huge hits and both made over ten times their production budgets but then you look at the top performing horror films of last year you realise that most of them were R rated. The whole R v PG13 thing is nonsense, most films are released as they are, very few are tampered with so as to attain a lower rating though certain films are shot so as to give the studio the option of releasing either a PG13 or R rated version and I have no problem with that.

The fundamental problem with films such as The Expendables 3 is not that they aren't gratuitously violent but rather that they are so poorly written.

frostyjacks wrote: »

The original would still be 18 rated if it was released today. It was the nature of the violence, rather than the violence itself. Committing mass murder in order to murder again, that police dept. shooting spree was pretty brutal looking back. Imagine trying to release that in the States with all that's going on over there right now, not a hope.

The Terminator has already seen it's rating lowered to a 15 on DVD and Blu-ray.

frostyjacks

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The Terminator has already seen it's rating lowered to a 15 on DVD and Blu-ray.

I must be easily shocked so.

ps3lover

There is a slasher movie coming out. The director has stated it's supposed to be a throwback to movies like My Bloody Valentine, The Prowler, The Mutilator etc. it was written to be very R rated and violent, the director wanted to make it like that, he faught tooth and nail to make it that way, the studio refused to let him and forced him to make it pg13 so we won't even get a directors cut. The budget it $2 million but it's PG13, why? Apperently R rated horror movies don't make money.
This alone should show that there is a serious problem with how Hollywood is run.

Warper

This looks awful. What have they done? It looks like a Terminator film aimed at kids and with a 12 rating wtf? It looks like its taken bits from all the movies and mish mashed them together

MrWalsh

So IMDB is showing: Ratings: 8.0/10 from 1,684 users for it.

Nothing change on Rotten Tomatoes.

ps3lover

ps3lover wrote: »

There is a slasher movie coming out. The director has stated it's supposed to be a throwback to movies like My Bloody Valentine, The Prowler, The Mutilator etc. it was written to be very R rated and violent, the director wanted to make it like that, he faught tooth and nail to make it that way, the studio refused to let him and forced him to make it pg13 so we won't even get a directors cut. The budget it $2 million but it's PG13, why? Apperently R rated horror movies don't make money.
This alone should show that there is a serious problem with how Hollywood is run.

What's the name of this slasher film? There is a number of reasons that a studio may demand cuts to get a rating down, the film may not be very good for one or maybe they recognise that it doesn't need to be a hard R. There is this ridiculous notion a higher rating makes for a better film but that isn't always the case. Also a film made for $2 million doesn't have a lot of leeway for reshoots or extra shooting.

Mick Flanagan's next film is rated PG13? Does this mean that the studio forced him to cut it so as to appease them or perhaps it's a case that he shot the film he wanted and it didn't need to be R. Not every horror film needs to be R The film Muck was much talked about before it's release and how it was going out unrated but that didn't make it a good film. In fact it was one of the worst horror films to come along in years, one which no amount of sex or violence could save.

ps3lover

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What's the name of this slasher film? There is a number of reasons that a studio may demand cuts to get a rating down, the film may not be very good for one or maybe they recognise that it doesn't need to be a hard R. There is this ridiculous notion a higher rating makes for a better film but that isn't always the case. Also a film made for $2 million doesn't have a lot of leeway for reshoots or extra shooting.

Mick Flanagan's next film is rated PG13? Does this mean that the studio forced him to cut it so as to appease them or perhaps it's a case that he shot the film he wanted and it didn't need to be R. Not every horror film needs to be R The film Muck was much talked about before it's release and how it was going out unrated but that didn't make it a good film. In fact it was one of the worst horror films to come along in years, one which no amount of sex or violence could save.

Wow, are you actually making excuses for them making an 80s slasher throwback PG13? Are you serious? You are defending greed. The only reason it's PG13 is for money, it's a product, not a movie, studios must be delighted they have sheep like you praising their greed. I really hope something you love gets destroyed just for greed.

readyletsgo

With all this talk of T3 I think I'll watch it tonight, and enjoy it for the bit of fluff that it was .

T1 and T2 are timeless, and Hollywood will never capture that again in a Terminator movie in the future. But I will go see T5 in a couple weeks. Just for a Sunday view or something.

Looper007

readyletsgo wrote: »

T1 and T2 are timeless, and Hollywood will never capture that again in a Terminator movie in the future. But I will go see T5 in a couple weeks. Just for a Sunday view or something.

But they could capture it again, if the studio took a risk with someone who actually loved the Terminator films (that's my problem with the films after 2 they hired studio yes men and hack's like McG) and wanted to take it in a different direction. But sadly studio's won't take the risk they want a film all the family can see and Arnie with his tired one liners. Sad Really

We will all moan and groan about TG but we all know we will all go and see it and make it a big hit and then moan some more on here :pac:

Looper007

Deleted User wrote: »

Saying that the film has been censored is a little unfair considering that the film passed the censors uncut. There is no reason that the film needs to be an 18 cert, especially when you consider that were the original two being released today they would most likely pass with a 15A or 16 cert. One of the reasons that so many R rated or 15 cert horror films can make so much is because they are cheap to produce, a film like the Conjuring can cost $20 million and as such it doesn't take a whole lot for it to be in profit. It's a very different thing for a summer blockbuster costing north of $200 million to so easily make money, it needs to appeal to as wide a base as possible. And your three examples don't work when you look at the fact that all three films were in profit before they left cinemas.

No it doesn't need to be 18's Darko but it shouldn't be 12A either, For me a Terminator needs the violence and darkness that's what made the first two so great. Where the first two movies made for kid's? look at Mad Max Fury Road not as big a Franchise as Terminator's but it's by far the best film this year and made some decent money with a 15A cert. Imagine what a well written and violent Terminator film would make. It doesn't need to appeal to a kid audience though it would get a wider audience with teen's and adults if it was a great action film like MMFR. so I don't by what your saying Darko, a wider audience doesn't mean you take away everything that made it special In the first place.

Mister Vain

They should have got Christopher Nolan to direct it. It would be interesting to see what he'd do with it.

Riddle101

Mister Vain wrote: »

They should have got Christopher Nolan to direct it. It would be interesting to see what he'd do with it.

Lol I could see him using the cast of Inception and the Dark Knight Rises in that movie.

Christian Bale - John Conner(He already did play Connor anyway)
Tom Hardy - Kyle Reese
Marion Cotillard - Sarah Connor
Cillian Murphy - T-1000

Maybe some cameos from Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Michael Caine as well.

ps3lover

ps3lover wrote: »

Wow, are you actually making excuses for them making an 80s slasher throwback PG13? Are you serious? You are defending greed. The only reason it's PG13 is for money, it's a product, not a movie, studios must be delighted they have sheep like you praising their greed. I really hope something you love gets destroyed just for greed.

No one is making excuses for anything, until we see the film it's hard to know what the story is. I have no problem with a studio demanding a film be changed to suit them, it's not ideal but it's their money and as such they get to dictate the rules. You also fail to realise that when a PG13 horror film makes a fortune at the box office a lot of that money means that the studio can take a chance on something a little riskier. Why can't an 80s slasher throw back be PG13? It doesn't have to be about excessive violence and simply filling your film with sex and violence and calling it an homage to 80s horror isn't necessarily a good thing. Take a look at Muck for example.

And cinema is a product, it has been since the beginning. Sure there are films that stand out but overall the entire industry is about making money.

Plenty of films I love have had dreadful updates or remakes but that doesn't lessen my love of the original.

Looper007 wrote: »

No it doesn't need to be 18's Darko but it shouldn't be 12A either, For me a Terminator needs the violence and darkness that's what made the first two so great. Where the first two movies made for kid's? look at Mad Max Fury Road not as big a Franchise as Terminator's but it's by far the best film this year and made some decent money with a 15A cert. Imagine what a well written and violent Terminator film would make. It doesn't need to appeal to a kid audience though it would get a wider audience with teen's and adults if it was a great action film like MMFR. so I don't by what your saying Darko, a wider audience doesn't mean you take away everything that made it special In the first place.

Why shouldn't it be a 12A? There's plenty of room in a 12A rating to be dark and a little bit violent. When T2 came out it was edited down from an 18 to a 15 in the UK, no one seemed to have any problem back then with it.

Terminator is a franchise I love from my childhood, it's dark and violent and a lot of fun and is a film that we all saw when we were 11 or 12. At that age we would have killed for a 12 rated Terminator film that we could see.

The simple fact is that when you are spending hundreds of millions on a film you have to aim at a broad audience. Fury Road is doing great and it's a fantastic film but the violence isn't excessive. It's pitch perfect for the rating and a lot of rather violent films have been getting the 12A or 15A cert recently.

e_e

MrWalsh wrote: »

So IMDB is showing: Ratings: 8.0/10 from 1,684 users for it.

Nothing change on Rotten Tomatoes.

IMDB rating is always ridiculously inflated before release. Think last year Godzilla had a 9.2 or something close. :pac: