Terminator: Genysis (2015): Stop Making Up Words

[Joe]

I remember reading that she was asked back for T3, but didn't want anything to do with another Cameron-related project ever again.

[FurryFury]

They made a really good TV show, and not enough people watched it to keep it on the air.

 

They've made a show with some promising ideas, but far from consistently good. It failed to keep its original audience, and that was entirely its fault. I did like some of it, but it was often a mess, TBH.

 

The new movie looks like something I'll watch for the lulz rather than expecting something good, and I actually do like Emilia Clarke.

[greenbean]

Le Blog did a What ever happened to Linda Hamilton article. The TL;DR is that immediately after T2, she married James Cameron and started a family with him. They had a rocky relationship and marriage for the rest of the 90s. Then she got $50 million from the divorce settlement so she never had to work just for money again. She probably made the decision to focus on her new family and it's quite easy to fall out of the lime light in Hollywood and it's not like she ever needed the money either.

 

Having her career laid out like that, really drives home how she never really was a star. Yet she was in such an iconic movie, the perception to me at least, is that she was/is.

[Raja]

I can't believe the plot twist they gave away on the trailer shown during The Avengers Age of Ultron. It was more of a detriment to buying knowing yes they are going there. That my explosions bigger than there's is all that is left to get me into the theatre, and that didn't work from Christian Bales Terminator

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I remember reading that she was asked back for T3, but didn't want anything to do with another Cameron-related project ever again.

 

Hamilton also went through a fairly extreme bout with bipolar disorder, which is part of what affected her marriage to Cameron and may have affected her ability to get movie roles.

[The Kings Foot]

I can't believe the plot twist they gave away on the trailer shown during The Avengers Age of Ultron. It was more of a detriment to buying knowing yes they are going there. That my explosions bigger than there's is all that is left to get me into the theatre, and that didn't work from Christian Bales Terminator

 

 

I agree. If i had come across that twist in the movie i would have given it an extra  point. Now, i feel like i know the entire plot, so whats the point in watching ?

Edited May 3, 2015 by The Kings Foot

[Danny Franks]

Saw the trailer for this last night. It... does not look good.

 

Sometimes things need to be rebooted, sometimes things need to be built upon. Sometimes, they just need to be left alone. The trailer revealed way too much, and what it showed was silly and felt like the most sequelly sequel ever (along with Jurassic World, which looks possible worse).

 

A reveal that Sarah Connor was actually already a badass would have been enough. The rest of it? I think I heard laughter in the cinema.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Danny Franks

[Too Late Kev]

The additional plot twist

(that John Connor is somehow a bad guy/terminator-human-ash-cloud-who-the-hell-knows...hey, maybe he's the smoke monster from LOST)

doesn't mean I won't go see this movie. It's a Terminator movie; I'll see it. But I'm dreading that twist, and also wondering if they'll end the movie with the twist still in place (and expect us to come back for the 2nd and or 3rd movie), or they'll "fix" things within this movie, or this is just the new normal that won't be fixed. Whatever they do, I don't forsee ever thinking this twist was a good idea.

 

Has anyone seen a hint of Matt Smith in any trailers? The fact that I haven't makes me think, "Maybe they haven't given away everything in the trailers." Because once they showed that twist, I started to wonder if there was much of anything unrevealed.

[nicepebbles]

I saw a trailer for this and was like, "Oh, no!" It seemed to be a reboot. Why? I haven't seen any Terminator movies since T2. I loved the showed, at least the part before the writer's strike (at least I think that's what happened). I'm all for reboots if they look promising, then the "why" doesn't really matter. This doesn't looke promising for a couple of reasons.

 

- Arnold. 'Nuff said.

- It's a reboot so they can cast who they want to play Sarah. And Linda in T1 was Linda in T2 lookswise. At least in T1 thought she looked like an adult. EC may be 27 but she doesn't look like it and it's offputting to a certain degree.

[Kromm]

The more I see and hear about this, the more it seems like total shit.

[BooBear]

 because it seems to demonstrate a fixation on just trying to put new, weird twists on what has already happened, instead of actually exploring new ground with the franchise.

I have always felt the problem with this franchise is that the audience wants a compelling good movie with John Connor and what happens after Judgement day and we just never get it.  When I heard there was going to be a T2 I thought that was what it was going to be about. With the way T1 ended. But instead it seems like a massive stall not to finish a story the fans want to see because no one has a vision for it or can make it as compelling as the first one and most scary of all.. somehow there is the belief that Arnie makes the terminator movies... when that is just flat out not the case. Stop it! Stop it.

I actually liked T3 because of the ending but the rest was quite a mess. Salvation.. shouldn't even be considered a terminator movie.

 

I hate the actor they got for Kyle. Kyle Recece in the first movie *looked* like he had spend 20 years in a bloody battle against the machines. Anton Yelchen and this guy do not.  There was an essence to Michael Bien that captured a weary military guy (see Aliens)

[Too Late Kev]

J.K. Simmons is definitely involved; he's in one or two of the trailers.

 

It looks like the first showings for this are Tuesday evening, June 30th. Good, bad, or indifferent, it's a Terminator film so I'll be seeing it, but probably not until Friday.

[SallyAlbright]

I will only see this to support my girl crush Emilia Clarke. JK Simmons is a nice bonus, but I don't have very high hopes.

[WildFlower87]

This is getting terrible reviews, not surprised since everything I've seen related to this film looked like dog shit. Just let this franchise die, T1 and T2 are the only ones that matter.

[spottedreptile]

I always felt the first movie had a lot of charm, even though it was quite brutal at times. I really felt for Sarah and wanted her to succeed. I cared about Kyle, and their romance was sweet and pathetic. T2 was also brilliant, again, I cared about them, even the Arnold terminator. The final scene was amazingly compelling.

I liked the third one without loving it; but I can rewatch it and enjoy it. The fourth was a snorefest, and the tv show left me cold. 

I don't see the point of this film. Why go back and try and remake a classic? You can only make it worse. Sadly I felt that about Star Trek; and Abrams just brought out my worst fears. But it's all sequels/reboots/remakes these days, nobody wants to take a risk on original material. 

[Rick Kitchen]

So the scenes with young Arnold are not clips from the original movie, they're entirely CGI.  They found a body double and superimposed a young Arnold's face on his.

[Iguana]

So I saw this tonight and it was acceptably watchable. I know that's damning it with faint praise but as a huge fan of the first two movies I can't bring myself to be much more enthusiastic. Arnie was back in the role he was meant to play: a relatively stoic, emotionless, cyborg. And the created a believable explanation for his aging. Emelia Clark was okay as Sarah but nowhere near the badass that Linda Hamilton brought to the role, especially in T2. And I found the new Kyle Reese far less appealing and believable than Michael Biehn.

It's hard to believe they decided to give away the main twist about John Connor in the movie trailer. If I hadn't been expecting it, The impact would have been far greater and I probably would have felt more positive towards the movie. As it is, the theater tonight was only about 75% filled, which is a bad sign for the first day the movie is released, and I don't think it will do a lot of box office.

Oh, and Matt Smith is in it for maybe 3 minutes at most. I have to wonder if his part was seriously edited in post production.

[NoWillToResist]

It's hard to believe they decided to give away the main twist about John Connor in the movie trailer. If I hadn't been expecting it, The impact would have been far greater and I probably would have felt more positive towards the movie.

 

Speaking just for myself, I did not know the twist going in and it made no difference to my overall "meh" reaction to this movie. I admit I had minimal interest in seeing this anyway; the one trailer I saw a billion days ago didn't leave me chomping at the bit to see it.

Truthfully, I felt battered after watching this. There were just so many action scenes and explosions and blah blah blah...I got bored!! Oh look, the protagonist is shooting at a bad guy. Oh look, the protagonist is shooting at the bad guy again. Oh look, the protagonist is shooting at a different bad guy. Oh look, the protagonist is shooting at that bad guy again. Like, holy fuck, I GET IT.

 

All the actors were serviceable but nothing noteworthy and the less said about all the plot hand-waving and timey-wimey bullshit, the better, IMO.

 

I had basically given up by the time we got to the end where Sarah, Reese and Arnold are racing to blow up Genesis (fuck them, Imma spell it properly) before it goes live and destroys the world and/or the bad guy catches them and stops them. Oh, excuse me, I said "racing to blow up Genesis"...silly me...I meant WALKING AT A SEDATE PACE WITH NO SENSE OF URGENCY AT ALL. Of all the bullshit that took place in the movie, that made me throw up my hands in disgust. I mean, if they can't even muster the energy to SPEED WALK in the last few minutes humanity has left, why the fuck should I care?

 

The best thing about the movie was the opening scene of all the bombs going off. I snarked to my husband that, between this movie and San Andreas, San Fransisco is having a very bad year. :)

[benteen]

I ended up enjoying it but it was a mixed ride getting there.

 

Jason Clarke was fantastic as John.  Liked the idea behind JK Simmons character.  HATED the Sarah Connor character throughout most of the movie.

[Bruinsfan]

Did they get Joe Morton back to reprise his role?

[Raja]

Did they get Joe Morton back to reprise his role?

Why would he be in it?

He was in T2 and only became involved because the original terminator left a piece behind when it was destroyed in The Terminator.

[ribboninthesky1]

Liked the idea behind JK Simmons character.  HATED the Sarah Connor character throughout most of the movie.

 

Emelia Clark was okay as Sarah but nowhere near the badass that Linda Hamilton brought to the role, especially in T2. And I found the new Kyle Reese far less appealing and believable than Michael Biehn.

 

This. I don't understand why they decided to rewrite Sarah Connor as an unnecessarily combative, petulant girl who declared "Bite me" as a retort. Jai Courtney does anti-hero/antagonist much better - he brought little to Kyle Reese. He had more chemistry with Jason Clarke than Emilia.       

 

I think the idea of the movie could have been interesting, but the execution and odd cast chemistry nosedived the film. 

[Proclone]

I had pretty low expectations going into this. I thought the name was stupid, I wasn't a fan of casting Jai Courtney as Kyle and the trailers made it seem like there was a pretty fair shot at it being absolutely terrible.  I'm not even a super fan of the Terminator series.  I wasn't born yet when the original came out (oddly enough John Connor and I would almost be the exact same age) and my mom wouldn't let me see T2 until long after it had been released on video. I really only went because I like Emilia Clarke and wanted to see what she would do with the character of Sarah Connor.

 

All that being said, I actually thought it was pretty good.  Is it as good as T2?  No, and nothing is ever going to touch the bar that movie set.  It's not as good as the original Terminator either (which to be fair I haven't seen in years, but I never thought it was as good as Judgement Day).  It is leaps and bounds better than either Rise of the Machines or Salvation.  Which were both awful for different reasons. I actually prefer T3 because as stupid as it is, it at least it has enjoyable action moments, Salvation was bleak, boring and took itself way too seriously.

 

This movie has humor and doesn't take itself too seriously, without being campy.  Arnold doesn't spend the entire film regurgitating lines he made famous in the previous superior films, although  "I'll be back," makes an appearance, but at least makes sense in the context.  Jai Courtney is surprisingly likable as Kyle.  I'm not a huge fan of his, but he does mange to pull off making me believe he was both a pretty competent solider and kind of naive romantic guy who's in love with a women he's only seen in a picture.  He doesn't play Kyle with the intensity that Biehn did, but I don't think that would have worked in this movie anyway.

 

Emilia Clarke I also thought was a pretty good Sarah Connor.  I think there's a real risk for any actress who plays the character to wind up just coping Hamilton's performance because it's so iconic.  I think Clarke managed to avoid that and play her own take on the character  The trailers show that she's already a bad ass at the start of this movie, but she's not the super intense character from T2.  Actually if anything I thought her portrayal of Sarah is closer to that of John in T2 (sort of petulant and snarky) than Sarah in either movie.  It actually makes sense that they're personalities would be closer since now their upbringings are closer than they were in the original timeline.  They both now know their futures and feel trapped and burdened by them and try to rebel against them. Sarah resents Kyle's presence in this one because she knows she's predestined to fall in love with him.   The way Clarke plays Sarah also makes sense since she is not yet a mother (I think John is still an abstraction to her, she knows she will be his mother but doesn't really know what being a mother entails yet), but she's also not the college student and waitress from the original either.  I also thought that she and Courtney had decent chemistry.

 

So, overall I really enjoyed it.  It had pretty good action, I laughed a few times and I liked and rooted for the characters.  And I think this one actually managed to explain some the paradoxes that are inherent in these movies.  This is the third sequel/re-boot to films I remember from my childhood I've seen this summer. Mad Max Fury Road was the best by far, but in many ways I enjoyed this more than Jurassic World.  Most films have plot holes, it's not a big deal to me if I realize something doesn't make sense after I watched the film, but if I'm taken out of the film to say "Wait, what?" then it bothers me.  I had that happen to me in Jurassic World.  I'm sure I'll be able to name plot holes for this Terminator tomorrow, but I wasn't ever taken out of the movie while watching it.  

Edited July 3, 2015 by Proclone

[MartinKSmith]

I saw it tonight, I actually didn't know much of anything going into the film (beyond that they'd changed the timeline), but nothing really surprised me. They made some interesting (and occasionally cool) creative decisions along the way, but in the end, it was all very paint by numbers. 

 

It was by no means a bad film, just not a very good/great film either. 

 

I'd probably put it in at number 3 in the top 5 list though. I never saw Salvation, and Rise of the Machines was kind of a bust - though I remember, when seeing it at the cinema, being impressed that they didn't go with the heroes winning. Seeing Skynet nuke the Earth was pretty cool. 

 

I read that they already greenlit the two sequels, because the rights (no matter what) revert back to Cameron in 2019. If they go ahead with completing the trilogy, I'll probably see them. Probably not opening night though.

[benteen]

About the humor, yes, I was glad this movie had it unlike the last one.  Terminator Salvation was easily the most humorless summer movie I have ever seen.

[bluvelvet]

Saw this movie last night. It was enjoyable for what it was. Emilia was an okay Sarah but as mentioned above no one is going to touch Linda Hamilton in T2.

I actually really liked the relationship between Sarah and "pops" and the obvious affection between the two

[Proclone]

As I said before, I actually really enjoyed the movie (much more than I ever expected).  I think it's going to be one those movies I will happily watch on cable every time it comes on, but one thing I think could have made it better was to make it more frightening.  The first two movies are scary.  The T-800 is terrifying in the original and the T-1000 is supper creepy. There is real tension in those movies.  There is never that claustrophobic sense of being stalked by something that just will not stop until it kills you in this movie that exists in the first two films.  It's more of a straight up action movie.  I'm not sure how they bring that sense of terror back, but if they do wind up making two more I would like to see the Terminators not just be cool, but really scary again.

 

It would have helped if they hadn't spoiled the plot twist in the trailer (I'm not sure why this is a recurring problem in the Terminator franchise, they did it in T2 as well).  John finally reveling himself as a Terminator would have pretty upsetting.  They also could have made him able to turn other people into the same type of Terminator he was.  I think a mission not to kill Sarah Connor but to transform her this time would have been more frightening, at least to Sarah.  I don't think either her or Kyle were really afraid of dying, but being transformed into the thing they've been fighting their entire lives would have terrified them both.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Proclone

[thuganomics85]

Eh, it was way better then Salvation at least, but I wasn't too impressed.  I vaguely remember a few nifty action bits, but kind of pedestrian.  It's weird since Alan Taylor did some really good Game of Thrones episodes, but between this and the second Thor film, I feel like he isn't transitioning to films very well.  The story actually wasn't too bad: I actually understood what was going on, and the differences were kind of fun.  I still think it was stupid of them to reveal so much in the trailers.

 

Acting was a mixed bag.  Highlights were Arnold bring back the old Terminator charm and J.K. Simmons was a riot as the detective who basically acted like what a normal person would act like, if shit started going down.  Jason Clarke was kind of meh when he was "regular John Connor", but got way better when he became evil.  I really wanted to like Emilia Clarke in this, but I thought she was only OK.  Some of it might have been faking the American accent, but I think a lot of it was the writing just made Sarah kind of obnoxious and annoying.  Granted, I remember Sarah from the original films being pig-headed too, but I felt like Linda Hamilton was able to make it work in a way that I still rooted for her, and I felt like Emilia fell short here.  As for Jai Courtney, I really don't know what to think.  I really enjoyed him as Varro on Spartacus, but it really feels like after that performance, he's suddenly became very stiff and wooden. 

 

Bummed that they wasted both Byung-hun Lee and Matt Smith.  Or, if the credits are any indication, he's apparently going by "Matthew Smith" now.  Not sure what was the point of bring the Dyson character again, considering how little they were used.  Was fun seeing Mad Men's Michael Gladis pop up as the police lieutenant.

 

Did enjoy some of the callbacks.  I was bummed to hear that they originally wanted to get Bill Paxton back to play one of the punks at the beginning.  That would have been fun.

[Rick Kitchen]

Two Australians and a Brit, all doing creditable American accents.  I had a good time, can't expect too much more than that.

[AimingforYoko]

I found Emilia Clarke very appealing in this, but she is the third best Sarah Connor behind Hamilton and her GoT castmate Lena Headey.

[Kromm]

I found Emilia Clarke very appealing in this, but she is the third best Sarah Connor behind Hamilton and her GoT castmate Lena Headey.

Headey IMO was even better than Hamilton--at least in terms of acting.  Hamilton committed like hell physically for the second movie, but "super intense" isn't really that complex to act.  Headey had a ton more light and shade to act through. 

Edited July 5, 2015 by Kromm

[MrsRafaelBarba]

I remember reading that she was asked back for T3, but didn't want anything to do with another Cameron-related project ever again.

Nasty split, but Linda had to know the type of douche she was marrying.

Cameron was married to fellow director Kathyn Bigalow, when an on set affair began with

Them. Bigalow was his side piece, while he was married to TWD's Gale Anne Hurd.

While filming Titanic, Cameron started an affair with actress Suzy Amis.

Who is his current wife.

Unlike the others, Linda got a huge cash settlement from the divorce.

During the Awards season competition between CRAPatar and Hurt Locker, Cameron was

Bigalow's biggest cheerleader. Watching Suzy Amis looking constipated amused me.

While he openly fan girled over his ex-wife.

Edited July 5, 2015 by MrsRafaelBarba

[Racj82]

Nope, I'm not giving movies like this a pass anymore. "It could have been worse". "I had low expectations so...". "Of course it's not better than the best movies in franchise but..." I personally can't do it anymore. This is not a target aimed at anyone else.  But, I started feeling this way with Jurassic World. A passable movie for me that people seem to praise mainly for not be terrible. I know some people love it for genuine reasons but that World is a hollow movie with none of the heart, suspense or wonder of the first film.

 

This is just more of that kind of blockbuster. It's passable. It's not terrible. But, that's not enough for me to praise it. I can't recommend it to people. I can't pretend like this is actually a need to see movie.

 

There is no heart here. It's a money grabber. It erases the awesome first two movies which I'm not a fan of. Emilia is poor womans Sarah Conner. I don't buy the bond between "pops" and Sarah. We needed to see more of them together with her younger to fully invest in that. Arnold is too old for this shit. He's not bad in the movie at all but I'm tired of seeing him reach back for old glory and failing. Jai Courtney and Jason Clarke left no impression on me. I'm tired of the Connors. They need to explore some new people.

 

The Sarah Conner Chronicles was the best follow up to T2 with ease. More characters to invest in besides the same old stand bys. We followed Sarah more which is always the right call. Cameron and Cromartie brought new layers to the Terminator lore that were interesting. They did the alternate timeline thing WAY better. I'll take Derrick Reese over this Reese any day.

 

Most of all, I wont give this movie another thought in two days unless someone asks me about it. I need more than that in a movie these days. They don't have to be high art but I need to be interested in whats going on or give a damn about the characters.

 

As a side note, that Bad Boys mugshot thing was one of the dumbest comedic beats I've ever seen.

[Princess Consuela]

I enjoyed this movie. i thought Emilia & Jai were good as Sarah & Kyle. I liked the references to the first two movies & that John ended up turning into a Terminator. Terminator movies are always convoluted but they are still enjoyable. I will watch this one again ( and yes it is because I love Jai)

[benteen]

I've felt for a long time that the problem with the Terminator franchise was that they just waited way too long to do a sequel after T2.  If they had done one in 1994 or 1995, I think it would have been a big hit.  Granted, it worked out for the best for Cameron because he did Titanic in 1997.  But by the time the third Terminator came out, 12 years had past.  Cameron and Hamilton were gone and Arnold was past his prime.

 

Hollywood just refuses to accept that the time for a Terminator franchise has long since past.  Granted, old franchises proved they can be reborn (Jurassic World and Mad Max being two example this summer) but Terminator has never shown this ability.  While I ended up liking Genisys, it didn't give me a desire to watch more Terminator movies after this one.  I just don't find anything exciting about this war against the machines and it's been pretty much stuck on this plot point for more than 30 years.

Edited July 5, 2015 by benteen

[Racj82]

I've felt for a long time that the problem with the Terminator franchise was that they just waited way too long to do a sequel after T2.  If they had done one in 1994 or 1995, I think it would have been a big hit.  Granted, it worked out for the best for Cameron because he did Titanic in 1997.  But by the time the third Terminator came out, 12 years had past.  Cameron and Hamilton were gone and Arnold was past his prime.

 

Hollywood just refuses to accept that the time for a Terminator franchise has long since past.  Granted, old franchises proved they can be reborn (Jurassic World and Mad Max being two example this summer) but Terminator has never shown this ability.  While I ended up liking Genisys, it didn't give me a desire to watch more Terminator movies after this one.  I just don't find anything exciting about this war against the machines and it's been pretty much stuck on this plot point for more than 30 years.

There was no waiting too long. There should have never been a sequel to T2. There should have never been a sequel to Terminator. But, at least with T2, Cameron did his best to make conclusion to the series. Now the series is beating a dead horse. It's all variations of T2 all over again. The bad Terminators want to destroy The Connors and create Judgement Day. The Connors and the good Terminator fight to stop judgement day and stay alive. Over and over and over again. It's played out. There best bet was to show us the actual war and they fucked that up too. They need to rebuild completely. Stop following the Connors. Put Arnie to bed. Look at the plot from a different angle instead of these cat and mouse movie all the time.

[ribboninthesky1]

Someone mentioned Sarah being pig-headed in the first film, but that made sense to me because of the circumstances.  I also understood why T2's Sarah Connor was no-nonsense, extremely cynical, with a veil of perpetual sadness. It was so bizarre to have this Sarah Connor seemingly regress. I think both versions were around 20, but Emilia's seemed more...child-like? Which made no sense to me because of her backstory.  If anything, she should have been mature beyond her years.    

 

I have to agree with Racj82 about not feeling the relationship between Pops and Sarah.  The relationship between the Terminator and Sarah in T2 resonated so much more because, by the end, it felt earned. But this ties into why I felt there was really odd cast chemistry. Everyone recited their lines and demonstrated the appropriate facial expressions. Yet...meh. I know casting British (Commonwealth) actors for American characters is the thing now, and some fare better than others. But I don't believe American actors would have done any worse.

 

Plus, the story was so convoluted.  I don't remember much about T3, but the first two films seemed to keep it relatively simple, which allowed the actors to really shine.

 

Bigalow's biggest cheerleader. Watching Suzy Amis looking constipated amused me.

 

Heh. While Cameron is a train-wreck in his personal life, he seems to be among the very few male writers/directors/producers who actually LIKES his female characters, and perceives them as human beings. That's really been lost in the later Terminator films, among other things.     

[benteen]

There was no waiting too long. There should have never been a sequel to T2. There should have never been a sequel to Terminator. But, at least with T2, Cameron did his best to make conclusion to the series. Now the series is beating a dead horse. It's all variations of T2 all over again. The bad Terminators want to destroy The Connors and create Judgement Day. The Connors and the good Terminator fight to stop judgement day and stay alive. Over and over and over again. It's played out. There best bet was to show us the actual war and they fucked that up too. They need to rebuild completely. Stop following the Connors. Put Arnie to bed. Look at the plot from a different angle instead of these cat and mouse movie all the time.

 

That's a fair enough assessment.  Just because you can do a sequel doesn't mean you should.

 

But if they had to do a sequel, it should have been in the mid-90s.

 

And I agree, if you're going to do more movies (we'll see given the disappointing box office numbers) then it's time to move away from Arnold and the Connors.  Skynet needs to think of another plan as well.  They stick to the time travel plan like Congress continuing to throw money at a failed government program and expecting different results.

Edited July 5, 2015 by benteen

[savinggrace]

I officially give up on this franchise. I have accepted that it will never get better than T1 & T2. This movie was just a whole lot of nothing. They basically took iconic characters and made them less serious and less interesting.

Sarah and John were miscast. I just wasn't feeling either of the actors.

T1 clearly established -- rather awesomely-- that terminators have no emotions and are programmed to not stop a task until it's complete. Why were they working so hard to give Arnold's character human sentimentality? The whole thing with Pops was so corny I couldn't stop rolling my eyes. Between the need to ret-con 1984 Sarah into a badass and the presence of Pops, Kyle Reese was rendered obsolete.

Can we please get back to casting Americans to play Americans? I felt like Emilia Clarke's acting was affected by her focus on keeping up the accent. When she slipped up a few times it took me right out of the film. On top of that, none of the acclaimed British/Aussies they keep casting have topped the original American actors who played Sarah, Kyle or John.

Edited July 5, 2015 by savinggrace

[benteen]

Headey IMO was even better than Hamilton--at least in terms of acting.  Hamilton committed like hell physically for the second movie, but "super intense" isn't really that complex to act.  Headey had a ton more light and shade to act through. 

 

As much as I like Headey, I wasn't a fan of her Sarah Connor.  Hamilton's Sara was strong while Headey's Sarah was incredibly wishy-washy.  I also find Headey's character on Game of Thrones to be wishy-washy though I think that has more to do with the writing for the character.

 

Why they decided to make EC's Sarah an unlikeable brat in the vein of The Sarah Connor Chronicles version of John Connor, I have no idea.

[Rick Kitchen]

 

Why they decided to make EC's Sarah an unlikeable brat in the vein of The Sarah Connor Chronicles version of John Connor, I have no idea.

 

Because she doesn't like being told what her life WILL be like.  She WILL sleep with this unknown guy named Kyle Reese, and she WILL have a son named John, and the world WILL be destroyed.  That would mess with anybody.

 

I wonder now if she and Kyle will consciously decide that if they have a son, he will NOT be named John.

[Racj82]

Because she doesn't like being told what her life WILL be like.  She WILL sleep with this unknown guy named Kyle Reese, and she WILL have a son named John, and the world WILL be destroyed.  That would mess with anybody.

 

I wonder now if she and Kyle will consciously decide that if they have a son, he will NOT be named John.

All of the versions of Sarah Conner have had a future put upon them they didn't ask for. Not even 1984 Sarah was annoying brat about it.

 

Linda and Emelia were the exact same age when they first played Sarah but one actually felt like her age (while playing younger). The other feels like the age she's playing it just doesn't come off as well.

[Proclone]

All of the versions of Sarah Conner have had a future put upon them they didn't ask for. Not even 1984 Sarah was annoying brat about it.

Sarah in the original timeline gets all the information about her role in the survival of humanity while being chased by a killer robot and she falls in love with Kyle before realizing that he's going to be John's father all within 48 hours. After that she has John and has to focus on him and preparing him for his future. There isn't really any time for her to sit and dwell on how destiny dealt her a crappy hand. Sarah in this movie's timeline has a decade to think about and grow to resent her destiny and the fact that she doesn't even get a choice in who she will love. I can see why this Sarah is angrier about her future than the Sarah in the other movies was. I'd be pretty resentful if I was told that I had to fall in love with this one guy or the human race is screwed, and oh yeah, he's going to die just after getting me pregnant.

Not to mention this Sarah was basically raised by a Terminator, which probably doesn't lead to the best emotional health or social skills.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Proclone

[Cirien]

Not to mention her life was messed up by the Terminators at a far earlier age. There's an argument to be made that she is still stuck at a far earlier age emotionally because of that

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Sarah in the original timeline gets all the information about her role in the survival of humanity while being chased by a killer robot and she falls in love with Kyle before realizing that he's going to be John's father all within 48 hours. After that she has John and has to focus on him and preparing him for his future. There isn't really any time for her to sit and dwell on how destiny dealt her a crappy hand. Sarah in this movie's timeline has a decade to think about and grow to resent her destiny and the fact that she doesn't even get a choice in who she will love. I can see why this Sarah is angrier about her future than the Sarah in the other movies was. I'd be pretty resentful if I was told that I had to fall in love with this one guy or the human race is screwed, and oh yeah, he's going to die just after getting me pregnant.

 

All of the above is why I liked Nick Stahl's version of John. Unpopular? I dunno, maybe, but it just made so much sense to me that Stahl's iteration of the character would be kind of a loser. Sarah was the driving force behind getting him ready to be this great leader, and in the second movie we learn that before she was institutionalized and he was put into foster care, they moved back and forth across the country while she hooked up/shacked up with anyone who could teach her stuff in preparation for Judgement Day. Her death is what takes away that impetus, since this is probably not a woman who was in the habit of asking her adolescent son "What should we do next?" Without her guidance and/or leadership, John likely had nowhere to turn once she died.

 

I haven't seen this yet, and nothing I've read here has been overly encouraging. I was willing to give Clarke a chance because I really like her (and Daenerys, which is a different matter for a different thread) but I dunno. Maybe I'll wait until its on Redbox.

[ribboninthesky1]

The "Sarah knows her destiny and doesn't have a choice" part of the plot never resonated with me. Yes, the devastation of losing her parents at 9 years old is traumatic, but that's a decade of knowledge about destroying Skynet before Reese, which can be done without Kyle and John.  And this is where the convolution starts to unravel the story - it's fine to anticipate and save Reese, but what was Pops doing to prevent Skynet's creation in the 10 years before Reese arrived? Why wasn't part of his programming, in addition to protecting Sarah, also to track down the minds behind the technology before Skynet is even conceived? Why did they need to wait for Reese to go into the future with their machine?    

 

There is the choice NOT to get involved with Kyle Reese.  Sarah from T1 (and if I recall, Kyle himself) doesn't realize that John is the son they have together - so when they fall in love, it's not like they realize that their coupling results in the savior to mankind. Sarah in this film knows all about Skynet before Reese is even in the picture AND Pops has a time machine to take them into the future - technically, she doesn't need to get pregnant from Reese to have a son and raise him to prepare for Judgment Day and the machines. So all of this, "I can't fall in love with Kyle and have his baby" stuff was irrelevant and dumb.  Kyle was Sarah's connection to the future in T1, and the nature of how they met and fall in love is integral in how she raises John.  There was some dialogue about Pops being obsolete, when Kyle was the obsolete one in this film.         

[Racj82]

Sarah in the original timeline gets all the information about her role in the survival of humanity while being chased by a killer robot and she falls in love with Kyle before realizing that he's going to be John's father all within 48 hours. After that she has John and has to focus on him and preparing him for his future. There isn't really any time for her to sit and dwell on how destiny dealt her a crappy hand. Sarah in this movie's timeline has a decade to think about and grow to resent her destiny and the fact that she doesn't even get a choice in who she will love. I can see why this Sarah is angrier about her future than the Sarah in the other movies was. I'd be pretty resentful if I was told that I had to fall in love with this one guy or the human race is screwed, and oh yeah, he's going to die just after getting me pregnant.

Not to mention this Sarah was basically raised by a Terminator, which probably doesn't lead to the best emotional health or social skills.

And I'm still not interested in this version of Sarah. There are interesting ways they could have went with this but they didn't. I also don't really care why this Sarah comes off like a petulant child most of the time now. All I know is I don't like it. I don't need Sarah to be acting like the new teenage John Conner from T2. Now we have a Sarah I can't get into AND a John that is much different than I would have liked. No thank you.

[Proclone]

All of the above is why I liked Nick Stahl's version of John. Unpopular? I dunno, maybe, but it just made so much sense to me that Stahl's iteration of the character would be kind of a loser. Sarah was the driving force behind getting him ready to be this great leader, and in the second movie we learn that before she was institutionalized and he was put into foster care, they moved back and forth across the country while she hooked up/shacked up with anyone who could teach her stuff in preparation for Judgement Day. Her death is what takes away that impetus, since this is probably not a woman who was in the habit of asking her adolescent son "What should we do next?" Without her guidance and/or leadership, John likely had nowhere to turn once she died.

 

I haven't seen this yet, and nothing I've read here has been overly encouraging. I was willing to give Clarke a chance because I really like her (and Daenerys, which is a different matter for a different thread) but I dunno. Maybe I'll wait until its on Redbox.

 

I think it's a testament to Linda Hamilton's acting that people love (and don't get me wrong I'm one of those people) Sarah Connor because on paper (at least in T2) she's rather unpleasant, and I think most people would agree, probably not up for any mother of the year awards.  Despite the movies' statements to contrary I don't think John Connor became a great leader because of her, but rather in spite of her.  Sure she teaches him how to survive and how to fight, but I don't think we ever see her teach him how to be a good man (hell, in T2 John bonds more with the Terminator than his own mother).  It takes more than just knowing how to fight to inspire people to follow you and wherever John got that, it wasn't Sarah.  Even in the Sarah Connor Chronicles, while she's certainly more mentally stable, she's still stubborn and single minded (to be fair I have not seen every episode and what I watched I watched during the original run so details are hazy for me of the show).  So, I didn't mind the portrayal of John Connor being pretty screwed up either, especially since he thought his entire reason for existing was no longer necessary.  That's not to say I thought Rise of the Machines was good, but John's characterization didn't bother me.

 

I rather like Clarke's Sarah Connor.  I liked that she didn't seem willing to just accept her fate.  And I rather liked that she seemed rather ambivalent about Kyle and even seemingly towards John.  Kyle certain seems more upset by what happens to John than Sarah does, which makes sense to me because he's not really her son yet.  I think we have to remember that Sarah in this movie is a 18/19 year old kid.  I still had my bratty moments at that age and I didn't have the excuse of knowing that I was going to be the mother of the savior of mankind on my shoulders or evil robots trying to kill me.

 

The "Sarah knows her destiny and doesn't have a choice" part of the plot never resonated with me. Yes, the devastation of losing her parents at 9 years old is traumatic, but that's a decade of knowledge about destroying Skynet before Reese, which can be done without Kyle and John.  And this is where the convolution starts to unravel the story - it's fine to anticipate and save Reese, but what was Pops doing to prevent Skynet's creation in the 10 years before Reese arrived? Why wasn't part of his programming, in addition to protecting Sarah, also to track down the minds behind the technology before Skynet is even conceived? Why did they need to wait for Reese to go into the future with their machine?    

 

There is the choice NOT to get involved with Kyle Reese.  Sarah from T1 (and if I recall, Kyle himself) doesn't realize that John is the son they have together - so when they fall in love, it's not like they realize that their coupling results in the savior to mankind. Sarah in this film knows all about Skynet before Reese is even in the picture AND Pops has a time machine to take them into the future - technically, she doesn't need to get pregnant from Reese to have a son and raise him to prepare for Judgment Day and the machines. So all of this, "I can't fall in love with Kyle and have his baby" stuff was irrelevant and dumb.  Kyle was Sarah's connection to the future in T1, and the nature of how they met and fall in love is integral in how she raises John.  There was some dialogue about Pops being obsolete, when Kyle was the obsolete one in this film.         

 

I didn't really think saving Kyle was their main goal that night (I assume that Sarah probably couldn't just let him die in all good conscience and Pop's wanted him and Sarah to "mate" in case their time travel scheme didn't work), it was destroying the original Terminator and getting the chip in it's head. Sarah was trying to destroy Skynet.  That's why she and Pop's built the time machine.  They can only really try to stop Skynet within a few years of it's creation otherwise it would be like playing whack a mole.  You destroy a technology that helps lead to Skynet and someone else invents it again (or at least something very similar) and you're trapped in a never ending cycle of destroying labs and killing visionary people who might have gone on to also help the world just because something they did might have helped Skynet along.  Which is why jumping forward in time was at least a proactive move.

[ribboninthesky1]

I think we have to remember that Sarah in this movie is a 18/19 year old kid.

 

But that's the point some of us are making in drawing comparisons.  Hamilton's Sarah and Clarke's Sarah are the same age in their respective films. But Hamilton's version feels more mature, despite having a lot more unbelievable shit thrown at her in a very short amount of time. 

 

Though, if I'm being honest, even if I had seen only this version of Sarah, I'd still find her annoying.  I'm never a fan of unnecessarily combative characters, man or woman. For me, it feels like some female characters are written as such under the guise of "being strong." It's fine that she's fully capable of protecting herself (well, not really since she relies on Pops).  But Kyle had no context into this version of her life, so he wouldn't know that.  I guess that was her way of distancing herself, but for someone who apparently loathed her life being decided for her, she certainly had no problem with lying (by omission) to Kyle about them and John.  

 

I don't think anyone has said T2 Sarah was a nice person, but her demeanor and perspective make a hell of a lot more sense to me.  

Edited July 6, 2015 by ribboninthesky1

[Proclone]

But that's the point some of us are making in drawing comparisons.  Hamilton's Sarah and Clarke's Sarah are the same age in their respective films. But Hamilton's version feels more mature, despite having a lot more unbelievable shit thrown at her in a very short amount of time. 

 

Though, if I'm being honest, even if I had seen only this version of Sarah, I'd still find her annoying.  I'm never a fan of unnecessarily combative characters, man or woman. For me, it feels like some female characters are written as such under the guise of "being strong." It's fine that she's fully capable of protecting herself (well, not really since she relies on Pops).  But Kyle had no context into this version of her life, so he wouldn't know that.  I guess that was her way of distancing herself, but for someone who apparently loathed her life being decided for her, she certainly had no problem with lying (by omission) to Kyle about them and John.  

 

I don't think anyone has said T2 Sarah was a nice person, but her demeanor and perspective make a hell of a lot more sense to me.  

 

I understand the point people are trying to make in comparing Sarah in the original and this one, I just don't think that's really fair to do.  As I've said they now have completely divergent backgrounds and this one can no longer be expected to react how the original Sarah did.  And I as I said I actually think everything happening to Sarah in a short time in the original gives her less time to get angry (let's face it all of our default emotions would be fear in that situation), wheres this one had a decade to get angry first.  I merely point out her age to say, that her reactions are not out of the realm of those I would expect from someone in their late teens, not that it would be the reactions of everyone that age.  Honestly though, the first time I saw the Terminator I really had no idea that Sarah (and actually Reese as well) were supposed to be younger than the actors playing them (I actually don't think I realized it until I watched the Sarah Connor Chronicles and her age was stated).  They both came across as older than late teens.  I get it for Reese because he's a solider and from post apocalyptic future (and if anything he seemed younger than Sarah to me, but that just might be the whole virgin thing), but there's really not an explanation why Sarah would come across as older than 19 other than it was because Hamilton was older.  Clarke seemed 19 in this to me though.  I don't think there's a real reason (or at least not one I can remember) for Sarah or Reese needing to be younger than their actors so, I'm not sure why Cameron chose to do that, but if the character is 18/19 in the cannon I don't think you can blame Clarke for playing her as 18 or 19.

 

I saw Sarah's reactions to Kyle in this movie as trying to emotionally distance herself from a guy who she honestly thought was going to be dead in a couple days. She knows that in the original timeline she falls in love with him in less than 48 hours so, she decides just to push him away so she won't ever see why she fell for him or be hurt when he eventually dies.  And I can't really blame her for not telling him he was John's father.  As she points out in the film, John lied (and creepily manipulated him into falling in love with Sarah) to Kyle from the moment they met while she only lied by omission to him for a couple days.  I don't think she really owed Kyle anything, especially since she never seemed to plan on sleeping with him and therefore he wouldn't have become John's father anyway.  I don't see how she took away any choice for him by not telling him.  Telling him or not telling him wouldn't really have given him an opportunity to change the path he was on at that point.  And just for the record Kyle was an idiot for not bothering to ask John what was going to happen to him in the past.  John admitted Sarah told him everything that would happen.  Who wouldn't ask what happens to them when they go back?  Hell he doesn't even ask (at least not on screen) how he's supposed to find Sarah.

 

If you didn't care for Emilia Clarke's performance that's fair, YMMV.  I just don't think it's really fair to compare the character in the original to this one since they are now essentially different characters.  And I personally think Clarke did a good job with a role that was certain to be compared to one of the most iconic female performances.  I certainly don't envy her that, and I think she had no choice but to make Sarah different from any of the other Sarah's we've seen on screen.  And I thought the Sarah we got was one that made sense given her new background and knowledge.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Proclone