• 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!

Terminator: Reboot

You know how when a woman is so beautiful that right at that moment you don't care if she's got herpes and admits it outright as she's taking her clothes off, and getting down on her hands and knees?

That's what Eddy's got, but he eats you until you're dead.
 
Patrick is his mother's son as far as looks go. I'm about as scared of Patrick as I am any other skinny douche I pass on the street every day.

He looks about is scary is Edward Cullen.


Thank you! :techman:
Because everyone wants "gritty" and "realiistc", I was aiming for that, plus it'd bring the masses to the theaters. "Oh look, the son of the original Terminator is the new Terminator!". Given that Cameron actually wanted an obscure unscary looking fella to be a Terminator, this would be going back to the roots so to speak. The Terminator shouldn't scare you, he should be non-imposing who could sneak up on you then snap your neck or stab you. Sort of like the T-1000 as depicted by Robert Patrick.
 
He looks about is scary is Edward Cullen.


Thank you! :techman:
Because everyone wants "gritty" and "realiistc", I was aiming for that, plus it'd bring the masses to the theaters. "Oh look, the son of the original Terminator is the new Terminator!". Given that Cameron actually wanted an obscure unscary looking fella to be a Terminator, this would be going back to the roots so to speak. The Terminator shouldn't scare you, he should be non-imposing who could sneak up on you then snap your neck or stab you. Sort of like the T-1000 as depicted by Robert Patrick.

In reality a Terminator shouldn't scare you. In a sci-fi action thriller if the Terminator doesn't scare you then you really screwed up.
 
Really? Of the three Terminators I only found Arnold frightening. Though if you take TSCC into account I thought Garret Dillahunt was quite intimidating as Cromartie. But he too was a big guy. What can I say? I'm a big guy and I'm not frightened by smaller men. :)
 
If you were Skynet and creating a terminator then that would be the smart thing to do. However if you were a director casting the lead villain in a movie that wouldn't be so smart.
But I'm not a director, I'm Skynet.:klingon:

Don't get me wrong a terminator who isn't built like a Sherman tank isn't a bad idea, since they are infiltrator units. However you still have to cast somebody intimidating in the part.
All you need is a great actor, probably not Patrick Schwarzenegger, but someone with his looks could be good. A pretty boy who looks like a weak shrimp and can turn on his intimidating killer machine stare on command would be my first choice for the Terminator.
 
Last edited:
I agree Ryan Gosling (or his Hollywood twin Ben Foster) would be a great Terminator. And I'll watch Jennifer Lawrence in just about anything.

I'd drop the vaporizer thing personally. And we aren't all on Facebook or am I the only one left?
I don't do Facebook, MySpace or Twitter either, too much exposure of your computer, IMHO.

I avoid it specifically to avoid being easily tracked down by Skynet.

I'm with James Cameron on this one. The two best stories were already told in T1 and T2, and with the coolest Terminator you could ever have in Swarzenegger.

Actually, James Cameron has been working as an unofficial consultant on Terminator 5, which would bring back Arnie as the T-800 again.

"I was talking to him back in fall about a new Terminator film and quietly advising on that, I suppose you could say. I was trying to be as encouraging as possible. Frankly, at that time, I thought it needed to be more about him. I told him he should not do it until it's focused on his character or he shouldn't do it. I think there are some great stories that can be told about that character that haven't even been thought of yet."

http://www.movieweb.com/news/james-cameron-wants-terminator-5-to-focus-on-the-t-800
 
Essentially, every Terminator film was a reboot.

The first film was a closed loop. Subsequent ones, including the TV series, always rebooted it. There's not a consistent one in the bunch.

There are some arguments in favor of T1 not being a predestination paradox and there being an existing timeline where John Connor has a different father than Kyle Reese, didn't learn to fight the Machines from his mother (or at least, she wasn't informed of them before the war and couldn't prepare him for leadership until after Judgment Day), and where Skynet was developed and started a nuclear war without the technology from the future first spurring on its creation.

http://io9.com/5191092/10-different-timelines-from-the-terminator-universe

Personally, I kind of prefer the closed loop of T1, but since the other films and TV shows ditch the closed loop idea and establish that each incident of time travel creates alternate timelines, this makes sense as well.
 
The inconspicuous terminator idea made me realize if they did a remake the "big reveal" would be that one of the normal average-built human characters was a second Terminator. Probably "Kyle Reese"...not the real Kyle Reese. A terminator killed Kyle, skinned him and is now wearing Reese's pieces. ;)

Prompting people online to say "I guessed that early on..."
 
Dont forget the other 3 sequels to Terminator, The Matrix, 1, 2 and 3!! LOL. Set in the the 22nd century of the Terminator universe .. LOL i joke, but you know there is no proof that they could not be connected if John Connor failed and the machines enslaved all the humans.
 
^ Terminator and Matrix couldn't be connected, if only for the fact that Skynet didn't want to enslave humanity - it wanted to *destroy* it.

Unlike the Matrix, where the machines lived off the energy generated by human bodies and so it wouldn't have been in their best interests to let humanity die.
 
^ Terminator and Matrix couldn't be connected, if only for the fact that Skynet didn't want to enslave humanity - it wanted to *destroy* it.

Unlike the Matrix, where the machines lived off the energy generated by human bodies and so it wouldn't have been in their best interests to let humanity die.

Not according to Terminator: Salvation, remember they took them to a slave camp in San francisco. The still needed human to do some things, otherwise why capture them at all??

...So the humans led by john connor revolt, and think they killed skynet only to find out they did not, and Skynet lives. the humans then get desperate and blacken the sky but that does not work becuse Skynet learns it can get its energy from a human being ... etc..
 
Not according to Terminator: Salvation, remember they took them to a slave camp in San francisco. The still needed human to do some things, otherwise why capture them at all??

Just a means to an end. It seems clear that Skynet really did want to wipe out humanity. Otherwise, why start a nuclear war to begin with? That alone means extinction.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top