• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Emilia Clarke cast as Sarah Connor in Terminator reboot

AvBaur said:
DevilEyes said:
So, if it exists as a word, what does it mean? It can't mean "regardless", because it doesn't make sense - "irregardless" should mean the opposite of "regardless", just as "irrespective" is the opposite of "respective" or "irresponsible" is the opposite of "responsible"! So, it should mean... regarding? With regard to?
Click to expand...
"Irregardless" means the same as "regardless" - just like "literally" now means the same as "figuratively." ;)
Click to expand...

Or like inflammable means the opposite of flammable...oh, wait.

English as a language is determined by how it is used. Word meaning is determined by how it comes to be used in conversation as acceptable English. Irregardless has been used for over 150 years as a word in print so it should be accepted as common usage.

One of the reasons the OED is such a great dictionary is because it is a biography of the English language. Words become included based on their use in English not based on whether somebody says a word should be or not be.
 
Interesting. Although they do that so quickly these days that I don't think it really say much about the movie.
 
I'm guessing that all three movies are being shot at the same time, which saves money and time, which is how the Lord of the Rings/Hobbit People do it.

Back to the Future two and three were filmed at the same time, hell there was a trailer for three at the end of of two, which completely blew my mind.

The problem with this is that it's a massive immediate expenditure.

If the first movie flops, by the time they figure that out, they're 3/4's through the next one and already half finished the last movie in the trilogy.

If the first movie flops, they're ####ed.
 
Consider, if they have all three scripts finished, and they know where all the time travel is that these actors and actresses are supposed to be in the two places at the same time, they can do so with considerably less bluescreen, or recreating the same sets 3 years later.
 
I'll take the planned releases of T6 & 7 with a pinch of salt tbh, esp after what happened with Sony and Amazing Spider-Man 3 etc
 
Guy Gardener said:
I'm guessing that all three movies are being shot at the same time, which saves money and time, which is how the Lord of the Rings/Hobbit People do it.

Back to the Future two and three were filmed at the same time, hell there was a trailer for three at the end of of two, which completely blew my mind.

The problem with this is that it's a massive immediate expenditure.

If the first movie flops, by the time they figure that out, they're 3/4's through the next one and already half finished the last movie in the trilogy.

If the first movie flops, they're ####ed.
Click to expand...

Well, I think the first movie has wrapped already. But it's possible they could film the next two together, if there are really a next two.

I love Terminator and everything, but I don't have much faith in it being super successful. I think the best we can hope for is that it doesn't fail like Salvation did. I hope I'm wrong though.
 
davejames said:
Am I the only one who's kinda starting to feel a bit bad for Arnold? I realize he's a multimillionaire and doesn't need our sympathy, but it's still seems sad that every movie he's headlined since he came back has just been a complete bomb.

Even if the movies themselves haven't been any good, you'd think the nostalgia factor alone would be enough to make up for that, considering he's, you know, a freakin icon. But nope, audiences clearly have just completely lost interest in the guy (even more so than Sly or Bruce or any of those other 80s stars). It seems like the Terminator franchise is the only real hope he has left anymore.
Click to expand...


i don't know about sad as much as mystified...did "Sabotage" come out in theaters? I onlyheard of it as a DVD preview. ANd i've noticed several other DVD movies with big stars in them....which seems pretty weird. One example: I think it's called "Into the Furnace" with Christian Bale & Zoe Saldana that i only saw on Redbox & never heard of it in the theaters.
 
Product testing & focus groups.

A studio can change it's mind about releasing a film at the last possible moment.

Eating a potential bomb is better than airing a bomb in 30,000 screens across the country, if no one is going to go watch it.
 
I think it went "The governor is coming back to movies!"

Then it turns out he had sex with his maid and has at least one child out of marriage and the movie studios went "Fuck!"
 
Plot spoilers, really big plot spoilers:

"Sarah Connor isn't the innocent she was when Linda Hamilton first sported feathered hair and acid-washed jeans in the role. Nor is she Hamilton's steely zero body-fat warrior in 1991's T2. Rather, the mother of humanity's messiah was orphaned by a Terminator at age 9.

Since then, she's been raised by (brace yourself) Schwarzenegger's Terminator—an older T-800 she calls "Pops"—who is programmed to guard rather than to kill. As a result, Sarah is a highly trained antisocial recluse who's great with a sniper rifle but not so skilled at the nuances of human emotion."

http://io9.com/terminator-genisys-insane-plot-reveal-is-a-total-nightm-1652315938
 
Other than Matt Smith, this cast is horrible. The director is decent though so you never know.
 
Much like Ryan Reynolds and Sam Worthington, I wish Hollywood would stop trying to push Jai Courtney as some next big thing. I'm not buying it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top