It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I've read the premise on Wikipedia and it hasn't really helped me understand it any better.
On the verge of winning the war against Skynet, Connor sends his trusted lieutenant Kyle Reese back through time to save his mother's life and ensure his own existence. However, Kyle finds the original past changed. After being orphaned at age nine by a T-800, sent to kill her when she was young to prevent the future in which Skynet is defeated, Sarah Connor has been brought up by another Terminator T-800 programmed to protect her. This Terminator has then trained her to face her destiny, which she adamantly tries to reject.
So, after trying to kill Sarah in the first film and then John in the second film fails, Skynet send another Terminator back to before the events of the first one to try and kill Sarah as a child, which results in the death of her parents changes the past/the events of the first film, right? John becomes aware of this after sending Reese back so he sends back a Terminator which saves Sarah and protects/raises her, preparing her for Reese's arrival.
Idk. I just don't see the point in going back and changing the first film like that. It just seems like milking at this point and I don't think the film itself looks very good. It's cool that Arnold is back but I'm sorta unimpressed by the whole thing. Doesn't look awful (the smile bit in the trailer was funny) but I don't think it looks good enough to really warrant its existence. Seems like a mediocre film churned out to try and continue the franchise imo. Doesn't seem like a story that really had to be told.
@Agent007391 Just watched the newest trailer and you're right about John Connor. I thought after the first trailer he'd just have a small part at the beginning but it seems like he does have a major role, so I think it is a shame that they couldn't get Bale back.
Me too if i'm honest!
Me too if i'm honest!
At the moment, after Salvation (which wasn't a bad film, in my opinion), any Terminator release in the future will likely be milking the franchise. They probably decided that doing any more post-Salvation movies probably wouldn't be the right thing to do (most weren't happy with no time travel, despite the fact that the cause and effect of time travel was still felt throughout the movie), so they decided that the only thing they could do was futz with the existing continuity, and but to do it in a way that works as both a sequel and a reboot, much in the same way the last two Star Trek films did.
I have to say, though,
Edit: I did :|
I disagree. This trailer is the final coffin nail, saving me time and money.
Whether you plan on seeing the movie in theaters or not, the trailer is ridiculously spoilerific. John Harrison being Khan was a bigger surprise in Star Trek Into Darkness than anything we'll be seeing in Terminator Genisys.
Jai Courtney? - seriously this guy has a way of making Sam Worthington look charismatic. Two of the most wooden actors in cinema have now appeared in a Terminator film.
I count the SE from the one made in 1991 among the only two (next to JP) that manage to hold up well for more than five years.
Which makes it all the more so disappointing to see this trash, but it doesn´t really matter, because the whole film seems like a vaudeville show, with no underlying tension keeping it all together.
Haha, well put, @bondjames :-)). But to be fair, the guy who played John Connor in the 3rd one competes with them.
The only thing that could top them would be a bigger role played by John Terry in the next one.
In such a crowded summer there are going to be casualties and this looks dead on arrival.
Awash with awful CGI and now this John Connor as a Terminator rubbish. Arnie said he's glad he wasn't in Salvation because it was rubbish, well my friend this looks much worse and you were in T3 and that was atrocious.
Terminator 2- 9.5/10
T3- 3/10
TS- 5/10
*prediction* TG- 7/10
Pretty short but there is some new footage, including THE PUNKS!
When they say 'what's wrong with this picture' I hope it's not because Arnold left his wiener schnitzel at home...
Kudos for replicating the costumes though!
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/36772/-terminator-genisys-gets-new-poster-tv-spots
Like Scotty said, I'll let ya know.
The Terminator is carrying a freaking rocket launcher, so there must have been something going down there. I'm wondering if there will be an extended 70's sequence where Arnold is digitally de-aged (since he'll be a brand new Terminator at this point in time, then ages in real time as he raises Sarah)
I wish we could see him from the front....
I mean, look at Bill Paxton and Brian Thompson- they look like completely new guys here!
Oh well.
Also, word is getting out that James Cameron saw the movie and loved it. However, since I'm sure he gets a cut of the money I doubt he'll try to keep people away, even if it's bad, so we'll see
Here's more of old Arnold vs young Arnold. The youtube comments all range between 'this movie looks awesome' and 'the CGI is crap', but nobody is asking the most important question:
WHERE IS ARNOLD'S PENIS
GRRRRRR
but it looks so freaking awesome.
I'm fully expecting this movie to be better than T3 & 4, but to get my hopes up more than that would be foolish I think.