Terminator: Genisys

Author
Discussion

Halb

53,012 posts

182 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
Matt_N said:
I read that when casting was being conducted, Arnie did indeed intend to audition for the part of Kyle Reece, he career was kicking off and he obviously wanted to paly the part of an action hero.

But when he turned up Cameron changed his mind and said you literally are a machine and convinced him to play the Terminator role.
AhNOld has said that it was his choice to play the Terminator, the bad guy is always more interesting etc. There maybe be some truth in both stories.

edit.

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/kong-skull-island/...

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/terminator/36008/t...

http://io9.com/the-complete-guide-to-every-single-...


Edited by Halb on Thursday 2nd July 19:42

Veeayt

3,139 posts

204 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
A good film on its own. Not a masterpiece, just very above average, no matter if it has Arnie in it or not. I'd give it a solid 7/10. Kyle Reese was a casting failure, though - as per usual since Michael Biehn days.

Twincharge

221 posts

177 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
I went to watch it today.

A bit disappointed. Started off quite well, then went quite stupid. The Sarah character was very good, but the Kyle character? Nothing like the original.

Turning John Connor into the antagonist was an epic fail. He was always meant to be a strong and unbreakable character. It just ruined it for me, as soon as he arrives in 2017 the movie totally bombed.

5/10 for me.

Edited by Twincharge on Thursday 2nd July 23:32

BossHogg

5,973 posts

177 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Just back from the cinema, I went with my teenage son. We both enjoyed it despite the poor reviews it has received.

Collectingbrass

2,198 posts

194 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Twincharge said:
I went to watch it today.

A bit disappointed. Started off quite well, then went quite stupid. The Sarah character was very good, but the Kyle character? Nothing like the original.

Turning John Connor into the antagonist was an epic fail. He was always meant to be a strong and unbreakable character. It just ruined it for me, as soon as he arrives in 2017 the movie totally bombed.

5/10 for me.

Edited by Twincharge on Thursday 2nd July 23:32
I rate it at 7/10, especially after watching T1 and seeing how well they did (for the passage of time) in matching the start of the timeline.

Never mind turning John Connor to the dark side, Matt Smith's appearance as the human personification of Skynet ruined it for me. He has no air of menace at all, not even when he was doing his David Tennant accent. Also, seeing Dr Who in another time travel story took something away from it as well. Despite that, brill film

thehawk

9,335 posts

206 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
I enjoyed it, just as long as you don't think too much. Didn't particularly like the actor that played Kyle, he didn't bring any chemistry to the film.

SWoll

18,207 posts

257 months

Saturday 4th July 2015
quotequote all
thehawk said:
I enjoyed it, just as long as you don't think too much. Didn't particularly like the actor that played Kyle, he didn't bring any chemistry to the film.
Jai Courtney.

He never brings anything to any film he's in as far as I can tell, utterly lacking in any sort of charm or charisma. Gets plenty of work though so can only assume he must have something on someone high up in the industry. smile

highway

1,929 posts

259 months

Monday 6th July 2015
quotequote all
Much better than reviews indicate. An oversight not using the original score enough. Great to see Arnold back in this role.

Moonhawk

10,730 posts

218 months

Monday 6th July 2015
quotequote all
SWoll said:
thehawk said:
I enjoyed it, just as long as you don't think too much. Didn't particularly like the actor that played Kyle, he didn't bring any chemistry to the film.
Jai Courtney.

He never brings anything to any film he's in as far as I can tell, utterly lacking in any sort of charm or charisma. Gets plenty of work though so can only assume he must have something on someone high up in the industry. smile
Is it just me or does he look better suited to playing a baddie. He just has that look about him that says "bad guy". I didn't think we was cast well in the last Die Hard movie for that reason too.

Buzz word

2,028 posts

208 months

Monday 6th July 2015
quotequote all
I really wanted to like it but IMO the plot is terrible. Laden with paradoxes, impossibilities and sloppy plot devices. Shame as I really wanted to like it but walked out just exasperated by what I had seen.
Anyone got an explanation for how John Conner (a metal robot) got sent back in time when the very same machine kills him? And why a super smart machine had only bothered to complete the big magnet part that coincidentally was the only way to kill him?

highway

1,929 posts

259 months

Monday 6th July 2015
quotequote all
There are a lot more questions than that that went unanswered. I can't work out how to cover text for spoilers so I won't list . I enjoyed regardless

THP150

318 posts

150 months

Monday 6th July 2015
quotequote all
Was going to see it yesterday, but the projector was broken so no film :-(

Have to try next weekend.

Collectingbrass

2,198 posts

194 months

Monday 6th July 2015
quotequote all
Buzz word said:
I really wanted to like it but IMO the plot is terrible. Laden with paradoxes, impossibilities and sloppy plot devices. Shame as I really wanted to like it but walked out just exasperated by what I had seen.
Anyone got an explanation for how John Conner (a metal robot) got sent back in time when the very same machine kills him? And why a super smart machine had only bothered to complete the big magnet part that coincidentally was the only way to kill him?
John Conner was protected from the time machine in the same way the other Terminators are protected - the human flesh protects the metal endoskeleton of the robot from what ever damage the time machine does to ordinary metal.

As for your other question, you did stay till the end of the credits didn't you...?

remkingston

472 posts

146 months

Monday 6th July 2015
quotequote all
Saw this yesterday and really enjoyed it. Even the fact it was confusing added to the action as it wasn't clear what was going to happen next.

The obivious setups for the next 2 films felt a bit forced with some characters only really turning up to let you know that they will be back in later films.

The shot for shot remade parts were great too!

Buzz word

2,028 posts

208 months

Monday 6th July 2015
quotequote all
Collectingbrass said:
Buzz word said:
I really wanted to like it but IMO the plot is terrible. Laden with paradoxes, impossibilities and sloppy plot devices. Shame as I really wanted to like it but walked out just exasperated by what I had seen.
Anyone got an explanation for how John Conner (a metal robot) got sent back in time when the very same machine kills him? And why a super smart machine had only bothered to complete the big magnet part that coincidentally was the only way to kill him?
John Conner was protected from the time machine in the same way the other Terminators are protected - the human flesh protects the metal endoskeleton of the robot from what ever damage the time machine does to ordinary metal.

As for your other question, you did stay till the end of the credits didn't you...?
In the conversation about returning him to normal I'm sure they said that essentially every cell had been replaced by machine so he was a collection of nannobots so no flesh. No flesh obvious during the CT scanner ghosting or either.
No, I never stay to the bitter end I'll assume that part of him ended up in the polyalloy or one or two bots survived and started to rebuild.


It was a fun film but almost everything that happened left me with questions.

randlemarcus

13,507 posts

230 months

Monday 6th July 2015
quotequote all
Buzz word said:
No, I never stay to the bitter end

It was a fun film but almost everything that happened left me with questions.
To be fair, that's a bit daft these days - most films that are planned to have sequels have post-credit snippets.

As regards the questions, that's mostly fair, as they have to try and cover all the pedantic not-yet-invented grammatical tense questions and try and make it understandable for the average American biggrin

remkingston

472 posts

146 months

Monday 6th July 2015
quotequote all
There was a post credit scene as there are two more films coming out before the rights default back to Jim Cameron in 2019.

mk2 24v

644 posts

163 months

Tuesday 7th July 2015
quotequote all
Saw this Friday night and last night.
The first viewing of it I was left a bit underwhelmed by it, but having seen it again last night with my mate who wanted to see it, it was much better.

I do agree with the comments above about Jai Courtney tho, something odd about him laugh

And yes, there is a post credit scene, most had got up and left before it came on in both showings I went to

5potTurbo

12,482 posts

167 months

Tuesday 7th July 2015
quotequote all
You went to see it TWICE?

Holy, moly! I watched it last Thu. I was confused on the seeming to'ing and fro'ing, and the "WHY/HOW" in the spoilers, above.

I wouldn't pay to see it a 2nd time and it was only €7.50 last week in 3D.

Overall: 6/10

ajprice

27,318 posts

195 months

Tuesday 7th July 2015
quotequote all

hehe