Terminator: Genysis (2015): Stop Making Up Words

[ribboninthesky1]

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. 

 

This is what I mean by the convoluted aspect of the story. Why would Kyle die in her timeline when they have a terminator on their side? Kyle died in T1 because no human could realistically stop a terminator, and they certainly didn't have the technology in 1984 to counter it.  In THIS film, they do. 

 

On the one hand, I completely understand viewing this film on its own with little to no context of the first two films.  On the other hand, as I mentioned in my earlier post, if Sarah's background and present timeline are completely different, then the "Kyle and Sarah fall in love, he dies, and she's pregnant with John" plot is irrelevant because 1) she doesn't need Kyle to explain the future or protect her, and 2) because she knows all about the war against the machines, even if she needs to have a child to lead the revolution, it doesn't HAVE to be Kyle's.  

 

But nope, the film wanted to keep that aspect of the original, so it's acceptable for comparisons to be drawn between the two ( or three) films.   

[Proclone]

This is what I mean by the convoluted aspect of the story. Why would Kyle die in her timeline when they have a terminator on their side? Kyle died in T1 because no human could realistically stop a terminator, and they certainly didn't have the technology in 1984 to counter it.  In THIS film, they do. 

 

On the one hand, I completely understand viewing this film on its own with little to no context of the first two films.  On the other hand, as I mentioned in my earlier post, if Sarah's background and present timeline are completely different, then the "Kyle and Sarah fall in love, he dies, and she's pregnant with John" plot is irrelevant because 1) she doesn't need Kyle to explain the future or protect her, and 2) because she knows all about the war against the machines, even if she needs to have a child to lead the revolution, it doesn't HAVE to be Kyle's.  

 

But nope, the film wanted to keep that aspect of the original, so it's acceptable for comparisons to be drawn between the two ( or three) films.   

 

Sarah certainly has some serious abandonment issues in this film.  And Kyle outright tells her that he'll die to protect her.  Even with Pops on their side there's a real possibility that Kyle may do something to get himself killed.  Even if his death isn't 100% assured, I can see why she still wouldn't want to risk getting attached let alone fall in love with him, so she pushes him away.

 

 And I do think that if she has a child that leads the revolution, then it has to be Kyle's child.  John Connor is needed to lead the revolution, and John Connor is Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor's son, not just Sarah's.  If I had a different father I'm pretty sure I'd be entirely different person (whether he raised me or not). There is no guarantee that if she has a kid with someone else, that the child would grow up to lead the revolution.

 

And I think you can draw comparisons between the films, but I just think it's a little unfair to expect Sarah to be the same character when her circumstances are different. 

[LVmom]

As a huge fan of the first movie, here is my problem with the Terminator franchise now: While yes, the initial story was bleak, Sarah and Kyle  found love and John Conner was still born/managed to overthrow the machines/get his father back in time/etc. There was hope.

By this point, after many time travels, reboots  and movies, there is no hope. I left the movie theater after the picturesque ending at the farm thinking-suckers! If this movie does well or even if it doesn't, another freaking robot will come and try to stomp you out of existence.

 

Why watch? Even Carl on the Walking Dead has more hope than Sarah Conner.

[shrewd.buddha]

We rented it and it was okay in a mildly entertaining way. But it felt as if the movie only existed as a vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger. The writers were contorting time and logic just to explain an aged Schwarzenegger in the movie  ... and this one didn't even bother with needing to remove his dangerous future Terminator tech at the end. 

 

People and terminators are now being sent to and from the future so often that the concept has lost any sense of importance. They continue to change the time-travel rules,  the significant dates when Skynet takes over, and the consequences of whatever happened previously. Now there are no rules so it all feels as if nothing really matters -- these are stories written on a chalkboard that can be quickly erased and reinvented however they want to justify whatever actor they want in the movie.

 

As it stands : Originally Sarah needed to be saved so she could be the mother of the future leader John Conner. But this movie makes that an undesirable outcome. It also basically says that events will occur no matter what anyone does and Sara and the Terminator gang are just creating multiple alternate realities. 

 

It also gets more difficult to understand why the dozens of Terminators have such a hard time efficiently  targeting and eliminating one person -- and all the taunting by the villain, who is an emotionless machine, who passes up multiple opportunities to kill the humans so that everyone can engage in hand-to-hand fight scenes. 

Edited November 30, 2015 by shrewd.buddha

[Chaos Theory]

I got around to watching this and the one thing that struck me after the movie was over was how all the others threw around the term "No fate." This movie brought it to fruition. There was no fate but what you made. That the future could be changed and Sarah Connor decided to change it by not playing anymore.

The movie was hardly perfect. It was mostly a vehicle for Arnold.but I thought all the acting was good.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Chaos Theory

[Watcher0363]

I really liked this movie. Because it took the story where it should have gone. For once Skynet sent someone back through time there was only 3 possibilities. Judgement day would either move forward on the time line or move backward on the timeline.With the third possibility being Judgement day transform into understanding day. Where Skynet realize that it can never win or lose its fight with the humans so it agrees to let humans be humans and it creates its own world next to the humans.

 

Also it brought about what I thought was a nice surprise turn in the story. That being the timeline nexus did not flow through Sarah or John, but Kyle.

[paramitch]

I just finally caught this, and I thought it was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The horrible casting! The terrible acting! The hideous attempts at American (cough) accents! The sexism and mansplaining!

The biggest bummer (aside from the fact, as a Terminator fan, that I was so rooting for it to be good) -- was that this movie, to me, exemplifies so much that's wrong with most studio films today. It's all about concept, and almost certainly began production without a finished script. It's got some good set pieces, decent direction, nice special effects, etc. But what does that matter if the script is terrible? If the characters are miscast? If the performances themselves aren't good? I was sad at the end of this at the millions and millions of dollars that went into this, because they are wasted if the foundation itself is rotten.

The script was a joke. In every scene, the characters simply speak their motivations aloud and (in most cases) what the scene is about. It's horribly funny. Everything is simplified.

The best example I can give of this: The iconic picture of Sarah Connor (from the final moments of Terminator) is trotted out within the first 5 minutes -- with poor miscast Emilia Clarke restaging it of course -- and this time she is not staring sadly and bravely off into a cloudy future. Nope, she's looking RIGHT AT US (all the better to make Kyle love her INSTANTLY). (AGHGHGHGGHH. I can't even.)

But moving forward from there... the first 30 minutes of this movie are just especially wretched. It's like an SNL sketch on Terminator (but now it's even better because it's a MAN's POV, cough) -- complete with a hilariously bad actor as Kyle Reese, who proceeds to shout his inner motivations in every single scene from beginning to end:

KYLE REESE: I am Kyle Reese! Your favorite soldier! Look at my massive pecs! I will do anything for you!
JOHN CONNOR: Thanks, Dad! I mean, Kyle! I'm so sad I have to personally doom you! But I must send you back in time to protect my hot defenseless young Mom!
KYLE REESE: I will protect her! I will do anything for her! I love her! I know her better than anyone because I have stared at her picture for so long!
JOHN CONNOR: Thank you, Dad! I mean Kyle! There's nothing I'm not telling you! Although I apologize in advance for sending you back to get boned and killed!
KYLE REESE: 'Kay! Byeeee!

Sorry. But oh, man. The mansplaining! I seriously found it seriously, significantly gross that a huge chunk of this film was nothing more than a retread of T1 but eliminating the pesky female POV entirely, so that Sarah Connor is no longer the heroine but (1) the actual orphan-child to Schwarzenegger's Terminator-Fagin -- and (2) nothing more than a prize for Reese to go back and win, and now, we can cut to the chase. 

So instead of Kyle's painful, shy admission of love to Sarah when they have saved each other and survived multiple near-death encounters and both think they are about to die, this movie simplifies it to: Guy sees girl's picture (LOOKING RIGHT AT HIM). Guy says, out loud: "YOU KNOW WHY I'M GOING BACK. <cow-eyed look to John> Scene.

Seriously, this makes T3 and T:Salvation look like Shakespeare. This was just unwatchable.

On 4/22/2015 at 10:56 AM, greenbean said:

Has Linda Hamilton ever been invited back to this franchise? For me, she was always the lead. It's odd how she's been sidelined, it's not like she's busy. It seems that Hollywood thinks it's all about Arnie and the Terminators, but Terminator should have been like Sigourney leading the Aliens movies. This was Linda's franchise. Yes the second instalment moved towards John, but still she held it all together. 

I never watched the tv show, but I've read that it's quite good in these areas.

I think it's terrific that you note that Sarah is the key to the Terminator series. I definitely agree. So it's interesting that the movies abandoned her after T2 (because, hey, if John's a grownup, Sarah is no longer young and hot and therefore no longer worthwhile, grr). And yet the TV show -- which I loved (one of the most underrated and beautiful Sci-Fi shows ever on TV) was built around Sarah as its main POV -- and it was absolutely superb. It was very much a feminist perspective.

On 4/22/2015 at 3:13 PM, FurryFury said:

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.

I don't fault the show for not getting bigger ratings. Plenty of gorgeous shows didn't get the ratings they deserved but still succeeded as works of art. For me, I found TSCC consistently well-written and beautifully acted, and the plot arcs through the seasons ended on really satisfying notes. Especially the second and final season, which despite the cancellation managed to give viewers a thrilling conclusion, wrapping up the drama, characters and timelines in one of the best endings of a TV show I've ever encountered.

On 4/22/2015 at 3:59 PM, greenbean said:

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.

I dunno. I think Hamilton deserves her due. While she probably reached her pinnacle (and deservedly so) with Terminator 2 (an A-list film, certainly), she was what I would consider a hardworking and liked B-list actress -- by the time she did T2 and married Cameron (shortly after), she had 23 film and TV credits. I like her -- she's always come across as warm, to me, and I like that she appears to have allowed herself to age naturally, apparently without a lot of surgery, stretching or Botox. 

On 6/20/2015 at 4:59 PM, BooBear said:

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)

1. I admit it, I like T3, and loved the ending. I think it's decently written, beautifully acted, and beautifully produced, and the ending stayed with me for days after viewing it.

2. I thought the casting for this was abysmal, for both Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney was SO BAD) and Sarah (poor Emilia Clarke, bless her heart). Both of the two leads came across as flat, completely lacking in charisma, and shared (unfortunately) a similar inability to maintain a consistent American accent. Of the two, I thought Emilia did at least appear to be trying, but I've found her weak on GoT and this movie definitely didn't change my opinion of her as a rather limited actor.

Out of everyone (aside from the always-wonderful, wasted JK Simmons), I thought Jason Clarke was okay as John Connor -- he has the charisma to play that hero/villain hybrid needed here -- but even so, every once in awhile even his accent slipped, and I've never seen that from him before. He usually seems so meticulous.

So I just hung in there to see Matt Smith, not realizing he was in the film for maybe 4 minutes max. And he, too, disappointingly, had visible accent issues.

All I can assume is that the filmmaker was so focused on the huge (incredibly predictable action and set pieces that the little human moments were not important. Perhaps the performers were not given the support they needed to do better.

On 7/1/2015 at 2:06 AM, spottedreptile said:

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? 

I love Terminator, which has a ton of real raw power, even 30 years later. I also think the visible era-dating actually works in its favor -- Sarah is so vulnerable; Reese is so grim and focused. I love the arcs of the two characters and found the love story touching and memorable. I loved T2 as well, liked T3, and even enjoyed T4. Yeah, it's a lesser entry, but I found it well acted and a lot of fun, and Anton Yelchin (RIP) managed to somehow spookily evoke aspects of Michael Biehn as a very young Kyle Reese.

On 7/6/2015 at 6:00 AM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

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.

I loved T3, and really liked the haunting view of a messed-up, addict John haunted by a future that hadn't even arrived yet, and I loved the use of the Terminator as well as Claire Danes's Kate Brewster character, who (true to the legacy of the show) was a pretty fierce and independent woman. T3 even honored Sarah's legacy to the extent that her ghost certainly seemed to be present frequently in the film, to me.

On 7/7/2015 at 10:52 AM, LVmom said:

As a huge fan of the first movie, here is my problem with the Terminator franchise now: While yes, the initial story was bleak, Sarah and Kyle  found love and John Conner was still born/managed to overthrow the machines/get his father back in time/etc. There was hope.

By this point, after many time travels, reboots  and movies, there is no hope. 

Well said. I think this is a producer issue, an example of the studio people thinking "we have to be high concept! Cities exploding! Chaos on earth! Death of all mankind! The Golden Gate falling to pieces -- preferably multiple times!" etc. But to me it gets deadening and desensitizing, especially when the writing is as lazy as it was here and just revolves around John as a twist on biggest, baddest, most tragic Terminator yet! Bleah. 

Thanks for letting me rant, all. Suffice to say, I hated this. It had absolutely nothing new to offer and I felt vaguely insulted by what it did to the mythology. For me the franchise will now always end with T4.

[slf]

Title: Terminator- Genisys
Pairing: Kyle/Sarah, platonic Sarah/Pops, platonic Kyle/Pops ;), platonic Kyle/John
Rating: PG-13
Summary: "The timeline John sent you to no longer exists. Everything's changed... and we can stop Judgement Day." Terminator and T2 rewrite! This time Skynet tries to defeat the Resistance by killing Sarah Connor when she's a child but a T1000, "Pops", is send back to save her and he ends up raising her into a hardened soldier. The Resistance sends back their own soldier, Kyle Reese, to save the mother of the resistance but will she accept his help? Will John Connor still be born? Will Sarah, Pops, and Kyle be able to work together to save mankind? Read to find out!
AN: I suck at summaries.

[Chas411]

This was good - i don't think I've ever seen jai Courtney display chemistry with any female costar and this film wasn't any exception. For once tho I'm not blaming him - Emilia Clarke was miscast in my view and just couldn't rise above the less then stellar material she was given. There wasn't a hint of chemistry between Sarah and Reese and given the focus on them was probably the most significant part of the reboot I'd have thought the movie would be relying on them to come across even remotely compatible. 

Is there plans for a sequel?

[Raja]

1 hour ago, Chas411 said:

 

Is there plans for a sequel?

Its a franchise name, give it time there will be another going back into time in an attempt to grab cash

[Morrigan2575]

On 8/29/2016 at 6:51 AM, Chas411 said:

Is there plans for a sequel?

There was a new trilogy planned but this flopped/underperformed so the Studio cancelled the planed sequel. IIRC The contracts for Emilia Clark and Jai Courtney have lapsed. .

I have no doubt that the Studio will attempt a reboot in a few years but, it it won't be part of this Universe.

[methodwriter85]

They really just need to give it up. Rebooting Stars Wars worked because it has had a whole "legacy" deal going on. Rebooting Terminator is never going to work because despite technology and whatever, you're never going to get Arnold Schwarzenegger in his 1984 or 1991 form.

[ribboninthesky1]

Also, James Cameron brought something to the first two films that have really been lost (beyond the obvious of Sarah being the heart and soul).  Part of that is the belief that Arnold is an essential part of the franchise. He made sense in the 2nd film, but was unnecessary afterwards.  Others mileage may vary, but I liked the idea that the terminators would take on different forms each time. 

[Chas411]

Quote

There was a new trilogy planned but this flopped/underperformed so the Studio cancelled the planed sequel. IIRC The contracts for Emilia Clark and Jai Courtney have lapsed. .

Emilia Clarke had publicly said she doesn't want to be part of the franchise again and won't be returning while Courtney had more or less said he's not pushed but if they get it going again he'll get involved.

I get the impression Clarke took the flop badly (she was so miscast) while Courtney having being part of multiple franchise flops is used to it. 

[benteen]

13 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

They really just need to give it up. Rebooting Stars Wars worked because it has had a whole "legacy" deal going on. Rebooting Terminator is never going to work because despite technology and whatever, you're never going to get Arnold Schwarzenegger in his 1984 or 1991 form.

Agreed.  They've essentially been rehashing the same story for the past 15+ years.  I think people are tired of it as this point.

I like Clarke but agree as well that she was badly miscast as Sarah Connor. 

[Chas411]

I thought it had potential but I've always seen the Terminator as a darker franchise with moments of humour and I felt they kept trying to make it really funny and it just came off as badly written and cheesy. 

I've also always liked the Sarah/Kyle story so when I first heard about what they were planning I thought it had such good potential. It translated terribly and Courtney and Clarke had abysmal chemistry and I think the movie would have depended on them being rootable. 

[BooBear]

So I just saw this. Hulu had it along with my free trial.  For what it was...  I thought it was decent. In fact in the first 10 minutes I was getting excited. No one had ever fleshed that part out for me and over all it seemed pretty good, but there were four things wrong with it:

1. Arnold: Where Hollywood got the idea that he has to be in every Terminator movie, I have no idea. His character was simply unnecessary and way too much of the movie had to do with him.  We get it.... all the in jokes which were stale several years ago. Almost every moment in the movie that had him in it annoyed me.

2. John Connor. a. Jason Clarke was not a convincing Connor. Not only does he look nothing like his parents, he towers over them. Where did he get that height?  I also didn't find him that convincing as an actor. b. I don't like the idea that John Connor's fate is to be the bad guy.  Movie people... I have spent 20 years thinking of John Connor as a hero. I don't like him being the bad guy. 

3. Jai Courtney. They clearly decided to hire an actor and then wrote for that actor. It annoys me that Jai Courtney either couldn't act enough to be the character OR they told him he didn't have to and wrote for his streights. Kyle is not a smart ass. Nor would he be after living a life scrounging around for rats. No would he be that "pudgy" either.  Kyle doesn't joke beause he spent his entire life watching people he cared about die and also... trying to live. 

4. The entire premise of the plot. I think this may be the reason no one cares about the terminator franchise anymore. 20 years ago the idea of whiping out humans seemed horrible and scary but with the way the world is today... maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing?  Did anyone else have a moment of thinking when Skynet kept trying to get them to join in... err... maybe they should. Also, once again, reality has proven that there is no way to stop computer technology. Sure you stopped Geneysis this time but it won't end there.  Someone else will be working on some form of AI. And in reality even with the tremendous effect of this series people are still working on AI and prominent scientists are sounding the alarm and still, the work goes on. So if in reality we can't stop it... is blowing up a building or a man, or terminator ever really going to stop it? No... so maybe the next movie would be someone getting smart and using the time machine to stop the invention of the atomic weapon.  So that even if the computers did take over they couldn't wipe out humanity. 

[BetterButter]

Unmade ‘Terminator Genisys’ Sequels Would Have Been “Trippier” and Focused on the Time Loop, Says Co-Writer