Terminator Genisys - Discussion and Grading Thread (Spoilers)

[hux]

I'm aware that it was a piece of crap but to me, mind-bendy time travel stories are like watching a pair breasts bouncing in slow-motion (worthy of intense discussion and interpretation).

The latter half of the film (after Connor goes evil) was tedious but before that, it was all kinds of interesting time stuff and paradox which is fascinating to ponder and debate.

Additionally, you can still enjoy something that is somewhat lacking in quality. Voyager is not the best of the Star Trek franchise but it's the one that tickles me the most.

 

[Gaith]

^ Fair enough. I actually enjoyed X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but I in no way mistook it for a good movie.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Three thoughts about the massive electromagnetic/radioactive experience that is time travel, and a fourth thought that's really just a barely acceptable sexist rant.

1. In the TV show The Sarah Connor Chronicles time travel was super chemotherapy which cured her cancer. Sweet!

2. In Genisys jumping forward to 2017 probably sterilized her. Of course Kyle still had a working scrote after his backstep to 1984, but then men and women are different.

3. When the gravity in the time machine starts making them float, which way does Kyle's flaccid penis float? Electro stimulus used in physiotherapy (I've experienced this) causes involuntary flexing and contraction. Although penis size is about blood flow, not muscle contraction. Ditto, same question about Sarah's errant free floating boobs.

4. A round of applause for Sandrine Holt (one of the FBi Agents in Genisys.) who magically still appears to be under 30, when she is actually over 40. HA! Look it's Buck Henry again, talking to Sandrine Holt in the movie 1999( That I am watching). Worlds collide! Point is that for the last 2 years (since Crisis) I have been thinking of Sandrine as a moderately attractive 29 year old, and not a fantastically attractive 44 year old. Her trick backfired.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

4. A round of applause for Sandrine Holt (one of the FBi Agents in Genisys.) who magically still appears to be under 30, when she is actually over 40. HA! Look it's Buck Henry again, talking to Sandrine Holt in the movie 1999( That I am watching). Worlds collide! Point is that for the last 2 years (since Crisis) I have been thinking of Sandrine as a moderately attractive 29 year old, and not a fantastically attractive 44 year old. Her trick backfired.

Agreed about Sandrine Holt. She came onto my radar in 2004's shitfest Resident Evil: Apocalypse (along with Sienna Guillory). That was eleven years ago. This year, I watch Terminator: Genisys, The Returned, and Fear the Walking Dead, and she still looks exactly the same age if not younger.

 

[Kor]

I enjoyed this on the same level that I enjoyed the recent "RoboCop" remake, and I am looking forward to getting Terminator: Genisys on blu ray.

I certainly don't expect "Citizen Kane" or "2001" when I'm watching a futuristic action romp with robots.

Kor

 

[Trekker4747]

I dunno, I found the Robocop remake utterly dull and devoid of what made the original so interesting and fun. But T:G I liked and will own on BD.

 

[Mage]

I enjoyed this on the same level that I enjoyed the recent "RoboCop" remake, and I am looking forward to getting Terminator: Genisys on blu ray.

I certainly don't expect "Citizen Kane" or "2001" when I'm watching a futuristic action romp with robots.

Kor

But it has to be, these days. You make a movie about a killing robot, and people want it to be up there with Schindler's List.

You're making a movie about a supersoldier, a god, a man in a metallic suite, a green monster and some super assasins? If that ain't as good as Se7en, we'll hate it.


The thing is..... In the 80s and 90s, I feel we were kinda cool with stupid movies that made no effing sense whatsoever, because entertainment is ok. These days, not so much. It HAS be perfect, on all counts. Acting, writing, directing, cinematogrophy. People hold entertainment to such a high standard, it's ridiculous.

The first Superman with Christopher Reeve...... God, that is one BAD MOVIE!!! But Superman Returns or Man Of Steel are rated below that by just about everyone. Why? Well, we don't have special childhood feelings for those movies, do we? So we compare. And since 'back then' will always be superior to 'right now', there is no way any kind of sequel or remake will ever be fairly rated.

And as for the the studios? They don't care about reviewers. They care about money. And you know what's really funny? All those people who said from the get-go that this movie would suck..... STILL BOUGHT A TICKET!!!!!!!!! The studios actually made money from people who were convinced from day one that this would be bad. So, they went out, bought a ticket, a drink and snacks, put their 3D glasses and on and before the light even went out, decided this was gonna suck.

Afterwards, a big rant about how awful the movie was goes out on several forums and whatnot. They have been redeemed and were right all along. And the studios? They got 10 more bucks to add to the box-office.

Guess who was really right in the end?

 

[FPAlpha]

I still don't understand the time travel aspects in that movie.

Up until the point where the Resistance enters the Time Portal room and John sends Kyle into the timemachine it plays out exactly like the backstory we know from T1 and T2.

This time there is a twist and Skynet has a new advanced Infiltrator that attacks John and suddenly Kyle travels to a different timeline with an aged T800 and an already trained Sarah Connor.. why/how?

They tried to explain it with multiple timestreams and such but either i zoned out or missed some crucial bit but i never understood it so i accepted it and moved on (still was not the total mess of a movie i expected from the trailers) but this still bothered me a little in the back of my mind?

Anyone care to take a minute and try to explain it how this new timeline came to be?

 

[hux]

Anyone care to take a minute and try to explain it how this new timeline came to be?

Read through the thread. There's a number of whacky theories. I think the current prominent theory is that Skynet from one reality is competing with Skynet from another reality so that it can be the ultimate Diablo Skynet.

I subscribe to the theory that Skynet realised the importance of John to its own existence only after sending a terminator to successfully kill his mother in 1984 so sent another terminator to go back and stop it succeeding then take its place and pretend to try and kill Sarah but deliberately failing.

The new timeline is just a different reality playing out where uber Skynet sent a terminator to pretend to kill Sarah in 1973 so future Sarah sent pops to protect her younger self (even though it wasn't necessary because Skynet is just playing).

 

[Kor]

The first Superman with Christopher Reeve...... God, that is one BAD MOVIE!!! But Superman Returns or Man Of Steel are rated below that by just about everyone. Why? Well, we don't have special childhood feelings for those movies, do we? So we compare. And since 'back then' will always be superior to 'right now', there is no way any kind of sequel or remake will ever be fairly rated.

I loved the Christopher Reeve Superman movies when I was a kid (all of them, especially 3 and 4 ).

Now, I think that Superman: The Movie is excellent through the beginning, right up to the point where Clark becomes Superman. But after that, it devolves into silliness. It's like two separate movies.

Anyway, back on the subject of Terminator: Genisys. I think all the confusion around timelines was kind of handwaved away with a glib line of dialog, and we, the audience, are supposed to just accept it.

Kor

 

[Trekker4747]

And as for the the studios? They don't care about reviewers. They care about money. And you know what's really funny? All those people who said from the get-go that this movie would suck..... STILL BOUGHT A TICKET!!!!!!!!! The studios actually made money from people who were convinced from day one that this would be bad. So, they went out, bought a ticket, a drink and snacks, put their 3D glasses and on and before the light even went out, decided this was gonna suck.

Afterwards, a big rant about how awful the movie was goes out on several forums and whatnot. They have been redeemed and were right all along. And the studios? They got 10 more bucks to add to the box-office.

Guess who was really right in the end?

Which is explains why the Fantastic Four reboot/remake was the Box Office success this summer! Wait....

 

[Gaith]

The first Superman with Christopher Reeve...... God, that is one BAD MOVIE!!!

I agree, it's brain-deadening dry toast. As bad as the overall movie is, however, it does have one great element in Reeve's Superman performance. T5, on the other hand, is, apart from J.K. Simmons and one or two decent moments with Arnold, awful from start to finish.

And now, with everyone's permission, I would like to rant a bit on the subject of T5's dominant setting:

-----------------------

I love San Francisco. It's my home, and I'm very proud of it. I'm proud of our rich cinematic history, from The Maltese Falcon to Vertigo to Dirty Harry, Milk, Zodiac, and beyond. I also think San Francisco should be in more movies. Granted, it's gotten a lot of starring roles lately, and even when movies I have no interest in are set there - like the new Apes series, nu-Godzilla, and more - I like and appreciate that.

And I love Terminator 1-3.

But to set a Terminator movie in San Francisco is one of the worst ideas in the long, sad history of horrible cash-in sequel ideas.

San Francisco is a gem of Planet Earth. It's one of the world's most beautiful cities. It's a very educated, very progressive place. It's the home of Starfleet Academy, the beating heart of the United Federation of Planets. I am also proud of this, fiction as it is. (Though it was inspired by the fact that the United Nations Charter was signed there, in '45.)

Terminator, however, is a Los Angeles story. In its endless sprawl, oppressive heat, pollution and all that, it's freaking important for Terminator stories to take place in LA because LA is already kind of dystopic and dehumanizing and all that. LA is very large; SF - at least the downtown/urban parts - is quite small. SF represents the light; LA represents the dark. LA is also directly adjacent to desert, which is itself important; whereas SF is adjacent to evergreen forests, massive bays and estuaries, and pleasant, smallish towns. Even T3 understood this completely, and stuck to LA and its surroundings as it should have.

In short: a Terminator movie should never be mostly set in San Francisco. No, no, no, no.
...

(Now, am I saying one can't set a dark/dystopic movie in SF/the Bay Area? No, I am not. I kind of love that The Matrix Reloaded basically places the virtual Megacity in/as Oakland. And sure, there is good satire/sci-fi paranoia to be made out of our digital/Cloud-dependent culture, which is indeed largely based in and around SF, but, gosh darn it, Terminator is a Cold War story, based in Los Angeles.)

Ugh.

 

[Tosk]

Haven't you already done the San Fran rant? I feel like I've read it a few times already.

 

[DWF]

I'm pretty sure there's only maybe two or three scenes set in San Fran. with them returning to LA for the assult on Cyberdyne.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Never having visited either SF or LA, I must admit that I love to see Francisco in the movies. Nothing wrong with LA, but SF is so cinematic. I do take Gaith's point about the Terminator series being associated with LA all the same.

 

[Guy Gardener]

The machines would love San Francisco because of the cable car tracks on the roads.

That sort of infrastructure would give Skynet's urban planning managers a real estate boner.

 

[Gaith]

Haven't you already done the San Fran rant? I feel like I've read it a few times already.

I ranted about how it made no sense to set up a post-apocalyptic colony in SF rather than the East Bay (to say nothing of SoCal) in Dawn... Apes. Whole different rant.

I'm pretty sure there's only maybe two or three scenes set in San Fran. with them returning to LA for the assult on Cyberdyne.

Wrong. Once Chippendales Reese and Sarah go to 2017, it's SF (not "San Fran", what is that sh*t?) all the way. (Remember the sequence on the big red bridge?)

 

[M.A.C.O.]

I heard this somewhere on the internet ( I forget where), but I had to share.

Does anyone else find it odd, that the best Terminator movie since T2, is called X-Men Days of Future Past?

 

[Captaindemotion]

I heard this somewhere on the internet ( I forget where), but I had to share.

Does anyone else find it odd, that the best Terminator movie since T2, is called X-Men Days of Future Past?

Funny, the first time I read the comic of DOFP (probably around 1990), it reminded me of The Terminator.

 

[Gaith]

I heard this somewhere on the internet ( I forget where), but I had to share.

Does anyone else find it odd, that the best Terminator movie since T2, is called X-Men Days of Future Past?

That's a light-hearted question, I know, but I don't find it odd at all. The Connor family was never intended to be a clan of superheroes, just ordinary people with one guy who happened to be a first-rate post-apocalyptic tactician. So it naturally follows that the more scrapes the family gets in, and the more completely lethal disasters they walk away unscathed from, the thicker the bullsh*t gets, and the same goes for flippant attitudes. At least in T3, the humans still feel like humans - Nick Stahl plays haunted very effectively, and Claire Danes remains likable even when she spends most of the movie scared out of her mind. In T5, Chippendales Reese and Sarah banter about traveling forward into a time that could well be post-Judgment Day. Ha, ha, ha?!

So, it is surprising that a franchise actually based around superhumans was able to borrow the basic Terminator idea and make a much more effective and enjoyable one-off adventure movie? Not one tiny bit.