Terminator 5/Terminator: Genisys, opening July 1, 2015

[TangledThorns]

No, the only sad thing about The Sarah Conner Chronicles was that it didn't get a third season.

But yeah, Genisys isn't exactly a high point for the franchise. Not as bad as T3, though.

T3 was far better than the last two films. Also had one of the best film endings ever IMHO. Nick Stahl was the best John Connor too, yes he was better than Christian Bale. Shame about Nick's drug use as he's a very talented actor.

[Sandman]

Every new terminator film released after T3 makes T3 seem so much better. After Genisys, T3 is practically a work of art in comparison. It's too bad because Genisys had a decent idea implemented badly. Except that John Conner twist which was stupid beyond belief.

[Falcon]

T3 strays so far away from the elements that made T1 and T2 great. I feel it's without doubt the worst of all the sequels. Despite how bad the others are, I feel the others had to work with T3 in mind as part of their universe that makes it horrible.

I really wanted a Terminator movie where we find how John does it without any time loops.

[JB0]

T3 strays so far away from the elements that made T1 and T2 great. I feel it's without doubt the worst of all the sequels. Despite how bad the others are, I feel the others had to work with T3 in mind as part of their universe that makes it horrible.

Salvation's biggest problem was a writer that wasn't thinking four-dimensionally. There's HUGE leaps of logic because the writer just assumed all events from each movie happened in the year said movie was released. So Sarah Conner knows all about everything in the future, because that future happened in the 80s. And Skynet knows who John Conner is, because the dude's been foiling the machine's plans since the 80s.

Terminator 3 gets points from me for remembering the entire thing is built on a causality paradox, and that this is not a story with a happy ending. . Everything has to happen, because it DID happen. As stupid as it was, it was trying to reconcile the first and second movies and create a world where they both made sense(it only partially succeeds, but a complete victory is impossible where those two are concerned).

I still prefer to think of Terminator and The Terminator as different universes. The sequels do such an amazingly bad job at following up on the original, including the much-loved Judgement Day(which, as fun as it is, takes a huge runny crap all over the first movie), that it is better to assume they're sequels to a movie we never saw. Genisys could've been the movie we never saw, and that is the saddest thing about how big a trainwreck it apparently turned out to be(I still haven't seen it).

I really wanted a Terminator movie where we find how John does it without any time loops.

It can't happen. John Conner only exists because of a causality paradox.

Hell, he brainwashed his dad into gettin' it on with his mom to ensure his existence. The original movie is all KINDS of creepy.

But the first film is also a very well-edited time-travel story. Everything locks together and creates a cohesive causality paradox, and there's none of the occasional shifting of the rules so common in time travel films. The past cannot be changed, and if the past contains time travellers from the future it is only because they were always there.

[Sildani]

This is why time travel gives me nosebleeds.

[Dynaman]

Latest Dr. Who season handled the old question about what came first pretty well.

First rule of time travel is not to look too closely - it will always turn out badly.

[JB0]

First rule of time travel is not to look too closely - it will always turn out badly.

ALMOST always. There is, rarely, a story that takes the time to polish all the rough edges off and makes sure everything fits together and it all obeys a single consistent set of rules.

The Terminator was one of those precious few stories. Looking too closely makes it BETTER.

[Dynaman]

ALMOST always. There is, rarely, a story that takes the time to polish all the rough edges off and makes sure everything fits together and it all obeys a single consistent set of rules.

The Terminator was one of those precious few stories. Looking too closely makes it BETTER.

No - it falls apart. But I can agree to disagree.

[JB0]

Awww, but that's no fun! Nitpicking beloved movies and arguing about time travel is the best way to spend a day!

[Dynaman]

Better is just watching the movie. Which for the first two Terminators (and I argue the third) is the way to go.

Onto an older bit in this thread - is there still another Terminator movie in the works?

[JB0]

Yeah, I don't loathe the third the way a lot of folks seem to. I think some of the problems it has stem from trying to be a sequel to two very different movies.

...

Though I still have to shout at the screen when they claim a single computer virus is ripping through so many different computers running unrelated operating systems and processors. Computer plots completely bypass my suspension of disbelief and yank me right back to the real world with cries of "IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!".

[TangledThorns]

Better is just watching the movie. Which for the first two Terminators (and I argue the third) is the way to go.

Onto an older bit in this thread - is there still another Terminator movie in the works?

According to Wiki, no however Hollywood is out of ideas so expect more dumpster fires.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_Genisys#Planned_sequels_and_spin-off_television_series

[Dynaman]

Though I still have to shout at the screen when they claim a single computer virus is ripping through so many different computers running unrelated operating systems and processors. Computer plots completely bypass my suspension of disbelief and yank me right back to the real world with cries of "IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!".

I don't remember Hollywood EVER getting computer interactions and capabilities correct. (I was going to give the most egregious examples but my brain exploded trying to think of the worst ones...). Ask any professional about how Hollywood depicts their specialty and they say the same thing - which make me wonder how well the movies ABOUT Hollywood depict things...

[TangledThorns]

I don't remember Hollywood EVER getting computer interactions and capabilities correct. (I was going to give the most egregious examples but my brain exploded trying to think of the worst ones...). Ask any professional about how Hollywood depicts their specialty and they say the same thing - which make me wonder how well the movies ABOUT Hollywood depict things...

Yeah, I don't loathe the third the way a lot of folks seem to. I think some of the problems it has stem from trying to be a sequel to two very different movies.

...

Though I still have to shout at the screen when they claim a single computer virus is ripping through so many different computers running unrelated operating systems and processors. Computer plots completely bypass my suspension of disbelief and yank me right back to the real world with cries of "IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!".

I work for an ISP and for science-fiction's sake it seems plausible. Especially if you had to deal with CEF going wrong like I have, ugh.

[JB0]

I work for an ISP and for science-fiction's sake it seems plausible. Especially if you had to deal with CEF going wrong like I have, ugh.

I just can't accept a single computer virus running on Android/ARM and Windows/x86. It is patently absurd.

And if we accept that a virus that hits all operating systems and processor architectures WAS possible, connecting a supercomputer to the internet to cure it seems the worst possible idea since it will almost certainly just infect that machine too.

And then there's the added plot wrinkle where the supercomputer was responsible for releasing the virus to the internet... as a way to force the military to connect it to the internet. Wait, what?

Ultimately, it is a lot like the Matrix. There are ways the idea could've worked and made a lot of sense, but in the end they chose the least plausible explanation.

[electric indigo]

Didn't I just read somewhere that the NSA has a backdoor into practically everything?...

[JB0]

Most likely, yes. But it isn't the SAME backdoor on everything.

[Falcon]

Salvation's biggest problem was a writer that wasn't thinking four-dimensionally. There's HUGE leaps of logic because the writer just assumed all events from each movie happened in the year said movie was released. So Sarah Conner knows all about everything in the future, because that future happened in the 80s. And Skynet knows who John Conner is, because the dude's been foiling the machine's plans since the 80s.

Terminator 3 gets points from me for remembering the entire thing is built on a causality paradox, and that this is not a story with a happy ending. . Everything has to happen, because it DID happen. As stupid as it was, it was trying to reconcile the first and second movies and create a world where they both made sense(it only partially succeeds, but a complete victory is impossible where those two are concerned).

I still prefer to think of Terminator and The Terminator as different universes. The sequels do such an amazingly bad job at following up on the original, including the much-loved Judgement Day(which, as fun as it is, takes a huge runny crap all over the first movie), that it is better to assume they're sequels to a movie we never saw. Genisys could've been the movie we never saw, and that is the saddest thing about how big a trainwreck it apparently turned out to be(I still haven't seen it).

It can't happen. John Conner only exists because of a causality paradox.

Hell, he brainwashed his dad into gettin' it on with his mom to ensure his existence. The original movie is all KINDS of creepy.

But the first film is also a very well-edited time-travel story. Everything locks together and creates a cohesive causality paradox, and there's none of the occasional shifting of the rules so common in time travel films. The past cannot be changed, and if the past contains time travellers from the future it is only because they were always there.

It sounds like your view of time travel is rather linear. My interpretation is it's a more like Looper where you can have multiple loops of timelines that interact with one another but I digress.

I still disagree with the T3 idea but to each their own.

Though T2 not the most closest to the source material of T1, it still was far more meaningful and fun than the others that came after it.

[JB0]

It sounds like your view of time travel is rather linear. My interpretation is it's a more like Looper where you can have multiple loops of timelines that interact with one another but I digress.

My PERSONAL view of time travel is completely undefined. I know nothing of how it would work, I can't venture a guess as to the behavior.

In fiction, I don't care what view they take, as long as they are consistent. Multiversal, a single malleable timeline, or straight predestination paradox, as long as they stick to one set of rules, I'm not bothered too much.

...

Or make it fun enough I don't notice they can't stick to one set of rules. I call this the Back to the Future exemption.

I do grant that a malleable time stream raises a LOT of questions about what happens when you make a big change that a multiversal outlook avoids.

To take (one corner of) Back to the Future as an example, and making assumptions for the sake of illustration...

When Marty stops his parents from getting together, he starts slowly fading out of existence. This implies a single malleable timeline.

So... when they get together, but his dad has a backbone, will his memories gradually change to reflect his new backstory? Does his NATURE change, or just his EXISTENCE? And if the new past overwrites the old past... does he still remember going back in time? DOES he go back in time if his history was changed? If New Marty doesn't go back in time, what changes the past to put it on the present route?

In the multiversal worldview, obviously the original Marty's actions caused him to "switch tracks" from the prime universe to the derviative one that his actions create. It doesn't matter whether the new derivative Marty goes back in time, because Marty Prime made the changes when he went back from the prime universe, so there's no issue there.

But one has to wonder why the prime universe Marty replaces the "new" universe's Marty instead of being a duplicate. But most multiversal time travel stories ignore the doppelganger problem. And in the prime universe, is Marty Prime now just a missing person poster on a bulletin board somewhere? Does the prime universe even survive the creation of a new timeline, or does conservation of energy result in the prime universe's destruction at some point? Or does every possible universe exist concurrently, and Marty is truthfully a "slider", not a true time traveler?

There's a lot of complex and subtle issues in the multiversal model instead of a few really big obvious issues, and I've seen one or two stories that laid out a very complex set of rules for multiversal time travel in an attempt to cover all these bizarre little corner cases.

And yes, I have thought about this entirely too much.

Though T2 not the most closest to the source material of T1, it still was far more meaningful and fun than the others that came after it.

And that's why I give Judgement Day a pass. It is a fun movie, so the Back to the Future exemption comes into play.