Solid Snake

He's said something many of us have said. Unfortunately people are too lazy.

Hokeyboy

tl;dr

Why So Blu?

tl;dr


Stuckmann is a blowhard.

hanshotfirst1138

The Internet doesn't do anything bad to our attention spans at all!

JumpCutz

"Terminator Genisys" is the cinematic equivalent of untangling Christmas lights.

"Salvation was boring, but Genisys makes you sad. Risk-averse Hollywood has made a crash-test dummy of a once great franchise, simply throwing everything at it to see what it stands".

"Plenty of noisy cyborg-on-cyborg CG violence with lots of clangy metallic head-butt action is part of the mix. Sound and fury, signifying it's past time to put this franchise out to pasture".

"All three human leads-Courtney and the two Clarkes-fall somewhere on the spectrum of weak to terrible".

"Someone needs to go back in time and stop movie executives from greenlighting more "Terminator" movies. It's not that Terminator: Genisys is a laughably bad movie. Worse, it's an interminably boring one".

Mike86

I get what Stuckmann is saying but I don't entirely agree with it. Its a reality that studios want to take known franchises and capitalize on them. Creatively that may not always be the best decision but it makes sense and I understand why they do it. Its the same reason that sequels, remakes/reboots, spin-offs, etc. will continue to be made.

In the case of Terminator to make it appeal to a broader audience the filmmakers likely simplified things to an extent, but at the same time they tried to respect the previous entries in the franchise and the fans of those films by doing the alternate timeline.

brayzie

I don't necessarily agree with him either. Why would we expect the fifth installment of the Terminator series to be groundbreaking or even something successfully different? I would like to see something like that and I think it could be done but considering the baggage the franchise brings with it, the weak reputation it's eventually gained, the merchandising possibilities etc, they're not going to take any artistic risks with the material. T3 did well financially but is not considered to be up there in quality with the first two. T:S didn't do that great financially and is considered to be not very good. The Sarah Connor Chronicles had a small but loyal fan base but didn't do great in the ratings and got cancelled after only two seasons. So the producers want to make money and considering how every other direction the Terminator franchise went it didn't do well, so, to make money, they want to replicate what did do well: the storyline for T1 and T2, and Arnold as the terminator.

Hollywood is still putting out great films, and even if we only look at the SF genre and the sub-genre within that of artificial intelligence-themed movies, one just came out, Ex Machina.

inri222

I believe that the people who made this film have more respect for the money in fans pockets than their intelligence. Audiences are getting what they deserve, as long as they pay to see shit then that's what the studios are going to give them. Low expection having bastards need to demand more from their movies and vote with their dollars.

Mike86

Of course money is the motivator behind this film, just like with most things in life. Terminator isn't high art. The Cameron films are classics and won't be matched, but apparently the studio thinks there's something to be made off its name value still. I still think that the filmmakers have some respect for the original films and the fans as there's no real reason to do a film that directly references the Cameron films otherwise.

islandclaws

The biggest problem here is this movie should have been entirely Future War. All of it. Instead, the filmmakers decided to bank on hitting it big with a retro-origin opening film before moving on to the bigger pieces of the planned trilogy... films we'll likely never see after this turd hits the bottom of the summer box office bowl.

Mike86

Salvation tried that and failed. That's the reason the studio is going the more proven safe route.

hanshotfirst1138

I think that part of what was effective about the future war scenario was how little you saw it. There were hints and glimpses of it, but basically you just knew that there was rubble-strew apocalypse where John Connor led mankind's broken remnants against an empire of evil murderous robots. Less, as ever, was more.

RichC2

Future War is the least interesting aspect of the story to me, I really don't need to see a man vs robot all out war, hell, it was the worst part of T2 as well.

hanshotfirst1138

It's probably possible to make that aspect of the storyline interesting, but T4 did not do a good job of encouraging such a notion.

pinata242

T4's future war wasn't what we had seen in Ts 1-3. No one gives a shit about 2018, we all want 2029!

The movie wasn't good but it was better than I expected thanks to lowering my expectations. I don't think I'll ever need to see it again.

Why So Blu?

The movie was cool. It wasn't better than Mad Max but I don't think anything will top it this year.

PatD

What helped T1 and T2 that doesn't get mentioned enough: casting.

The casting of those two classics was brilliant. Let's take a look at the first one for example: Michael Beihn played Kyle Reese so convincingly, that you could believed he was a soldier from the future. He imbued the character with intensity, intelligence, and a war-weariness. Linda Hamilton was played as a normal person thrust into an grim, unbelievable situation. Arnold was deadly serious. But most of they all came off as REAL.

What do we have now? Pretty faces. People look like they came off the set of a TV show. It's pathetic. The Terminator is now sanitized for your protection.

Mike86

Funny how there's so much shit being talked about this movie in this thread, but yet just about everyone who's seen it and posted about it in the reviews thread so far liked it. I'm hopefully going to see it tomorrow and am excited for it.

Mr. Cinema

I'm not seeing mixed reviews. I'm seeing mostly reviews basically saying this is a really crappy movie and hoping they don't make anymore. A 27% RT says this movie stinks.

Giles

versus 72% from 'audience score' - must be the fanboys

RichC2

The 4.8 score suggests there are a lot of 2.5 star ratings for it, which is less "stinks" and more "it isn't good, it isn't awful."

RocShemp

ne thing I haven't seen mentioned in the reviews (and the only thing I want to know) is why the fuck is the movie called something as stupid as Genisys? Is it a silly acronym or did someone misspell Genesis?

hanshotfirst1138

They did. And so did the director.

Obi-Wanma

Clearly they sold the naming rights to offset production, you know, like an arena.

RocShemp

^