[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 17697)
File  []
>> No. 17697 Anonymous
13th September 2014
Saturday 9:40 pm
17697 Terminator: Genisys
Are you excited about the new Terminator film(s)?

The word on the street is that this new film, or potential trilogy, will disregard T3 and TS and just take into account the first two films. Which is more than fine by me.

I will deliberately have expectations set to low but by fuck if it's actually good I will marry Megan Ellison.
Expand all images.
>> No. 17698 Anonymous
13th September 2014
Saturday 11:24 pm
17698 spacer
That was actually one of the things I liked about the Sarah Connor Chronicles: the very first thing they did was go back and erase T3 from the timeline.
>> No. 17699 Anonymous
13th September 2014
Saturday 11:40 pm
17699 spacer
Is it really called Genisys? That's a terrible name.
>> No. 17700 Anonymous
14th September 2014
Sunday 12:10 am
17700 spacer

>> No. 17701 Anonymous
14th September 2014
Sunday 12:34 am
17701 spacer

Yeah the name is awful. Hopefully that'll change before it's released. It sounds like some shitty PSP or mobile phone game.
>> No. 17702 Anonymous
14th September 2014
Sunday 12:53 am
17702 spacer
I didn't mind T3, but Salvation was piss poor, even if you tried to consider it a stand alone movie.
>> No. 17720 Anonymous
14th September 2014
Sunday 11:51 am
17720 spacer
Yeah, Salvation was bollocks. So was the TV series.

I have a soft spot for T3.
>> No. 18289 Anonymous
5th December 2014
Friday 6:06 pm
18289 spacer
That'll be yer trailer out now, lads.

>> No. 18290 Anonymous
5th December 2014
Friday 6:31 pm
18290 spacer

>I look at each of you, and I see the marks of this long and terrible franchise

Also I just noticed how wrong Dragon Girl's mouth looks.
>> No. 18291 Anonymous
5th December 2014
Friday 6:43 pm
18291 spacer
Was gutted when they axed that show.

Sorry m8, but T3 was dreadful.
>> No. 18292 Anonymous
5th December 2014
Friday 7:03 pm
18292 spacer
If I've followed this right:

John Connor has sent back a, more muscular, Kyle Reese back in time to save Sarah Connor from a T-1000, but when he gets there he finds out that she's already combat training and has a T-800 bodyguard. Is this going to be a clusterfuck that mixes the plot of the first two films?
>> No. 18293 Anonymous
5th December 2014
Friday 7:25 pm
18293 spacer

> Is this going to be a clusterfuck that mixes the plot of the first two films?

Yes and that's great. it looks like a lot of fun.
>> No. 18294 Anonymous
5th December 2014
Friday 8:33 pm
18294 spacer
Emilia Clarke is so terribly cast here.
>> No. 18295 Anonymous
5th December 2014
Friday 10:12 pm
18295 spacer


She at least looks like Linda Hamilton. The guy playing Kyle Reese looks fuck all like Michael Biehn and seems to have a permanent dumb, wooden expression on his face.
>> No. 18296 Anonymous
5th December 2014
Friday 10:16 pm
18296 spacer

I think they might have done a worse job with John Connor.
>> No. 18297 Anonymous
5th December 2014
Friday 10:25 pm
18297 spacer

I hate how they've made the resistence too advanced again. They're meant to be just scraping by and living in squalor. Not planning big missions in fancy bunkers with flat screen TVs, helicopters and earpieces.
>> No. 18299 Anonymous
6th December 2014
Saturday 2:22 am
18299 spacer

To be fair (a) it's presumably a modified timeline by this point and (b) it was never very convincing that there'd still be anyone alive or mounting a meaningful resistance if they were as fucked as originally portrayed.
>> No. 18300 Anonymous
6th December 2014
Saturday 2:52 am
18300 spacer
I recollect the latter guy's face and I really dislike it.
>> No. 18301 Anonymous
6th December 2014
Saturday 3:35 am
18301 spacer

I think he was the geezer from Zero Dark Thirty. To be fair he actually could pass as an older Edward Furlong.
>> No. 18302 Anonymous
6th December 2014
Saturday 9:51 am
18302 spacer
Yeah this is true.
They've sent a shitload of robots back in time to fight for the resistance, it would be sillier to expect the original films timeline to have remained in place after that.
>> No. 18303 Anonymous
6th December 2014
Saturday 1:49 pm
18303 spacer
That gormless and confused expression Jason Clarke seems to almost constantly wear makes it impossible to take him seriously.
>> No. 18587 Anonymous
18th January 2015
Sunday 9:34 pm
18587 spacer

I thought the entire point of the Terminators being sent back was that it was all a last ditch effort to kill John Conner? Pretty sure thats how they managed to send back their own defenders since they had effectively won the war at large and discovered the time travel gubbins.

That said, it'll be shit. Terminators main draw was Terminators being Terminators with a side of Ahnarld. These action movies are pretty poor and are just obviously cash ins.
>> No. 19321 Anonymous
16th April 2015
Thursday 6:23 pm
19321 spacer


So the second trailer is out. It reveals the rumoured twist. If you can even call it a twist since it's in the trailer. This film looks like an absolute clusterfuck that completely does not understand the heart and soul that was put into the first two. Pay special attention to the absolutely, shockingily bad CGI used to give Arnie his "Terminator eye". It is astounding that a $170 million budget blockbuster has SyFy channel quailty special effects. T2, released nearly 25 years ago, has far superior CGI and special effects. It's honestly mindblowingly bad. This film has to be a money laundering scam.

Oh and this promo below is serious. No joke; this is genuine:
>> No. 19322 Anonymous
16th April 2015
Thursday 6:38 pm
19322 spacer


>> No. 19324 Anonymous
16th April 2015
Thursday 7:52 pm
19324 spacer
It looks like it might be better than Salvation.

That isn't much of a compliment.
>> No. 19325 Anonymous
16th April 2015
Thursday 11:22 pm
19325 spacer
This promo

Is it a trend nowadays with all those dominatrix females in movies?
>> No. 19326 Anonymous
16th April 2015
Thursday 11:53 pm
19326 spacer

> dominatrix females

Dominatrix is already feminine, lad. Latin innit.
>> No. 19327 Anonymous
17th April 2015
Friday 12:12 am
19327 spacer
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed dominatrix.
>> No. 19348 Anonymous
19th April 2015
Sunday 2:19 am
19348 spacer


>> No. 19349 Anonymous
19th April 2015
Sunday 3:07 am
19349 spacer
This is just embarrassing.
>> No. 19350 Anonymous
19th April 2015
Sunday 3:25 am
19350 spacer

No, what's embarrassing is that dumb fanboys will watch it regardless.
>> No. 19351 Anonymous
19th April 2015
Sunday 3:32 am
19351 spacer

the dominatrix sed wot m8?
>> No. 19352 Anonymous
19th April 2015
Sunday 7:59 am
19352 spacer

The earlier two look like animatronic and skilled makeup. I could be wrong, but did they take the cheap route just going purely with CGI?
>> No. 19353 Anonymous
19th April 2015
Sunday 12:56 pm
19353 spacer

They took the route of not really giving a shit about making a quality product. Arnie is now "too good" to sit in makeup for 6-hours before shooting. It's a crying shame that such a classic franchise is in the industrial prefab process that big films are made by now.

They don't really have people with a common "vision" for the production. I like to use the uninterested event planner anology for modern blockbusters. The event planner has been given the job of doing a fancy party. He'll think "okay I want an ice sculpture. Phone the ice people and get them to make something. I don't care what. And put it over there by the door. Food? Phone some Japanese place and get sushi or whatever for when they walk in. Lights? Call up a lighting guy and see what he thinks."
That kind of disinterest is what is killing big name series.
>> No. 19354 Anonymous
19th April 2015
Sunday 1:11 pm
19354 spacer

>Nowhere are the battle lines more deeply drawn in usage questions than over the difference between disinterested and uninterested. According to traditional guidelines, disinterested should never be used to mean ‘not interested’ (i.e. it is not a synonym for uninterested) but only to mean ‘impartial’, as in "the judgements of disinterested outsiders are likely to be more useful". Ironically, the earliest recorded sense of disinterested is for the disputed sense. Today, the ‘incorrect’ use of disinterested is widespread: around a quarter of citations in the Oxford English Corpus for disinterested are for this sense.
>> No. 19364 Anonymous
21st April 2015
Tuesday 5:47 pm
19364 spacer

Calm down, you angry simian. Clearly the CGI looks so poor because it was:

a) Done in a rush for the purposes of the teaser trailer.
b) Visible for less than a second.
>> No. 19370 Anonymous
24th April 2015
Friday 1:21 am
19370 spacer

That's no excuse. There's no reason why that couldn't have been done in makeup.
>> No. 19371 Anonymous
24th April 2015
Friday 1:40 am
19371 spacer
Apart from not wanting to have the Governator sat in makeup for fucking hours on end, obviously.
>> No. 19821 Anonymous
4th August 2015
Tuesday 11:08 am
19821 spacer

Okay so now that the dust has settled what did we all think of Terminator Genysis?

My opinion is that it is the Alien Resurrection of the Terminator series. It's a watchable, okay film in its own right, but just has no place trying to even attempt to follow The Terminator and Terminator 2. It is devoid of the soul of the first two films and just tries to capatilise on the areas of T2 that weren't really that important. It is a damn sight better than T3 and Salvation, but then again that's not exactly a reason to celebrate. It had good moments such as most of the future battle scenes and... I'm sure there was another bit I thought was good while watching it. The CGI and effects in general were indeed actually not that bad on the big screen.

So I'd say worth a watch.
>> No. 19822 Anonymous
4th August 2015
Tuesday 11:48 am
19822 spacer
I'd like to know if it's a full on reboot, or if the stuff from the other films is acknowledged but invalidated due to Arnie coming back in time earlier etc. They hint at it but never really go into detail. Anything that invalidates Salvation is a winner.

Really though, it was pretty good. Watched T1-2-3-S the day before and i'd put it about third in the list. Could have done with being a 15 instead of a 12 though. Seems actions movies dont want to be like that today. I quite like JK Simmons character, I think he'll end up being the new Dr Silberman.
>> No. 19823 Anonymous
4th August 2015
Tuesday 12:55 pm
19823 spacer

>now that the dust has settled

Fuck off.
>> No. 19824 Anonymous
4th August 2015
Tuesday 3:04 pm
19824 spacer

I think I didn't mind it so much because I went in with such low expectations. It wasn't actually a bad film in the end. Obviously beyond terrible casting choices and some dumb as fuck parts to the story but it is by far the best of the non-canon fanfic films made after T2.
>> No. 19825 Anonymous
4th August 2015
Tuesday 4:47 pm
19825 spacer
My issue with Jai Courtney is that he seems to shoehorn himself into every beloved franchise, yet I still see him as Varro from Spartacus Blood & Sand.
>> No. 19827 Anonymous
4th August 2015
Tuesday 6:35 pm
19827 spacer
He has a shit name.
>> No. 19868 Anonymous
17th August 2015
Monday 1:33 pm
19868 spacer
Got around to watching this.

It's shit. Probably edges out T3 as the better movie, but not by much.
>> No. 19869 Anonymous
17th August 2015
Monday 2:18 pm
19869 spacer

All I really had to say about it after I watched it was "Well, it was better than Lost World." as me and my friends made a day of it and watched the two of them back to back.

Tangentially, they closed the bar down in my local Cinema and it's now a Starbucks. This annoys me, for reasons I can't fully articulate. The best I've come up with is "Ugh!"

Return ]

Delete Post []