Terminator Genysis movie outline

[Morrus]

Hmmm. This does *not* look good to me. Then again, it can't be as bad as T3 or T4.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/69299

Nothing massively ruinous here in terms of spoilers, but this is our most detailed illustration yet of how the revised TERMINATOR mythology is being tweaked for this proposed new trilogy.

The beginning of Terminator: Genisys, the first of three planned films that Paramount hopes will relaunch the beloved sci-fi franchise, is set in 2029, when the Future War is raging and a group of human rebels has the evil artificial-intelligence system Skynet on the ropes. John Connor (Dawn of the Planet of the Apes’ Jason Clarke) is the leader of the resistance, and Kyle Reese (Divergent‘s Jai Courtney) is his loyal soldier, raised in the ruins of post apocalyptic California. As in the original film, Connor sends Reese back to 1984 to save Connor’s mother, Sarah (Game of Thrones‘ Emilia Clarke), from a Terminator programmed to kill her so that she won’t ever give birth to John. But what Reese finds on the other side is nothing like he expected.

[EDIT]

Twist No. 1? Sarah Connor isn’t the innocent she was when Linda Hamilton first sported feathered hair and acid-washed jeans in the role. Nor is she Hamilton’s steely zero body-fat warrior in 1991’s T2. Rather, the mother of humanity’s messiah was orphaned by a Terminator at age 9. Since then, she’s been raised by (brace yourself) Schwarzenegger’s Terminator—an older T-800 she calls “Pops”—who is programmed to guard rather than to kill. As a result, Sarah is a highly trained antisocial recluse who’s great with a sniper rifle but not so skilled at the nuances of human emotion.

 

[Ryujin]

Ug. It's things like this, that are the reason my default mode is pessimism, where Hollywood is concerned.

 

[Umbran]

Whenever you are tempted to say, "It can't be as bad as..." stop. It *can* be as bad. Or worse. Whatever the worst you can imagine it to be, it can be worse.

I mean, they could throw in a Sharknado, or an epic battle with a ball of lint. It can always be worse

 

[trancejeremy]

Hmmm. This does *not* look good to me. Then again, it can't be as bad as T3 or T4.

I kept saying that about the Highlander movies and somehow they kept getting worse and worse.

Low budget or high budget, how many series actually ever get better? Or at least stay reasonably high quality? I would guess only the James Bond stuff

 

[Jhaelen]

Low budget or high budget, how many series actually ever get better? Or at least stay reasonably high quality?

I thought the second 'Hunger Games' movie was way better than the first. The same for 'Captain America' and 'Thor'. Many feel it's also true for 'Alien'.

And what about 'The Lord of the Rings'? I think 'Harry Potter' also qualifies at least for consistently (high) quality.

 

[Ryujin]

I thought the second 'Hunger Games' movie was way better than the first. The same for 'Captain America' and 'Thor'. Many feel it's also true for 'Alien'.

And what about 'The Lord of the Rings'? I think 'Harry Potter' also qualifies at least for consistently (high) quality.

I rather enjoyed all of the Thor and Captain America movies.

Aliens was better, to my mind, than was Alien, but then I'm not really a fan of the horror in space thing. In my opinion the movies that came later were garbage.

The Matrix was the perfect movie, to me. What came later shat all over the first film.

The Lord of the Rings series were beautifully shot and, despite not remaining true to the letter of the novels, were true to the spirit of them. I often marvel at how many people say to me, "It looked exactly like I imagined it in the books." The Hobbit tries to take a fairly simple story, that starts small and grows into something epic, and tries to make it epic from after the first half hour of the first movie. It left me cold.

Any time you set out a rule like "sequels are always garbage", you'll be wrong. The issue is with how the material is treated in the sequel. Is the story made because it demands to be, or is the studio just going back to the well for more money? Is it made with respect, or as a rubber stamp of a successful film?

 

[jimtillman]

sounds interesting to me but i am easy to please

 

[mcbobbo]

This makes the biggest problem faced by the Terminator story worse: paradoxes.

See this 'setting' seems to employ paradoxes when they help the story and ignore them when they don't. So if Sarah was now raised by 'Pops', she probably knows all about Skynet, etc. And as we all recall Sarah is a little crazy when it comes to stopping Skynet. Also there's the notion put forward that she wants nothing to do with being John Connor's mother.

So it seems the paradox is already set. Skynet has stopped the birth of JC, so they win. But if that's the case, why would they send back anyone to murder her parents?

Or, as I alluded to first, she now has a couple extra decades to bring about the downfall of Skynet before it even starts.

The final problem with the concept - if Sarah is 27 (or near it) as is the actress selected to play her, then the 'modern-day' sequences are all set in the 1980's. Which seems likely to suck, movie-wise.

 

[Ryujin]

If we were to take all of the various paradoxes into account then either The Terminator series has spawned a few hundred new universes, or they are stuck in their own collapsing pocket dimension.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

http://www.mjyoung.net/time/terminat.html

You need to check out this website where they do an awsome job working out what is and isn't a paradox​