TERMINATOR Reboot Titled TERMINATOR: GENESIS

by     Posted 252 days ago

the terminator

Alan Taylor‘s Terminator reboot may have an official title.  According to Production Weekly’s Twitter feed, the upcoming film will be called “Terminator: Genesis“.  The production is currently deciding between Emilia Clarke (Game of Thrones) and Brie Larson (Short Term 12) to play the new Sarah Connor, and they’ll also be looking for a new John Connor and Kyle Reese.   Terminator: Genesis is currently set to open on July 1, 2015.

Also, as we reported a few days ago, there’s going to be a new TV series that will tie into the film.  That’s a whole lot of Terminator for a franchise that flopped hard when Terminator Salvation was released back in 2009.  But I guess you can’t keep SkyNet and its army of killer robots down.  We don’t know what the TV series will be called, but I hope they go with my suggestion, “Terminator n’ Friends“.




Like Us


Comments:

FB Comments

  • http://thenonessentials.blogspot.com/ Sean Chandler

    Can we try to use the term “Flop” in a more meaningful sense please? The movie cost $200 million and made just shy of $400 million at the box-office worldwide. I’m not sure how that is flopping hard. That seems far more like a financial disappointment.

    If your point is the movie wasn’t received well by fans or critics, fair enough. But that’s not the same thing as a flop.

    Words matter, and when you have a large megaphone and you misuse terms you spread confusion.

    • Adam Mitchell

      Not surprising to be honest. The writer in question has a long history of confusing fact with fiction. Credibility is just something for other people it would seem as long as the page views are high.

    • axalon

      You’re also not factoring in marketing costs which may have been upward of $100 million or so. If that were the case, the movie only profited $100 million which, yes, is a lot but no where near what the studios were hoping for.

      So from the vantage point of the studio, it is a “flop”.

      • http://thenonessentials.blogspot.com/ Sean Chandler

        I’m aware of marketing costs.

        My problem is with calling a movie which makes $100 million a flop (which may be a generous estimate). I have a problem with using the same term to describe movies which : make less than they hoped, break even, lose money, and lose enormous amounts of money.

        If everything except a “Hit” is considered a “Flop” (which I would argue this line of reasoning supports this idea), then our language has become far to imprecise.

      • axalon

        I agree — and really I’m just playing Devil’s advocate here — but if the metric is the consensus by which studios are operating on then what choice do we have?

      • http://thenonessentials.blogspot.com/ Sean Chandler

        My issue is only with language. I also get frustrated with sloppy use of the word “reboot.” These words need to have unique definitions or else they’re useless.

      • Archer

        Don’t forget that just because a movie makes the number that gets reported doesn’t mean that the studios get it all back. A big chunk of it goes to the theater chain. Overseas, it’s an average of about 55% of the ticket prices goes to the international theater instead of the studio. That’s why a movie like John Carter had to make 3 times its huge budget back just so Disney could break even and turn a small profit.

      • http://thenonessentials.blogspot.com/ Sean Chandler

        I understand the complexities of movie finance. I just like to use precise terminology. John Carter brought in it’s budget globally, and is considered a flop. Terminator Salvation brought in roughly double it’s budget globally. I don’t like the idea of using the same term for both of these films performances.

        I don’t like having such imprecise language that everything can fall into the categories of either “Hit” or “Flop” when we all know there’s more to it than that.

    • Farrell

      Keep in mind that studios only see about half the box office take…which means the film barely recouped its budget, if at all…meaning, yes, it’s a flop. It’s not about how much it makes, it about how much it recoups in profit.

      • http://thenonessentials.blogspot.com/ Sean Chandler

        I understand the complexities of movie finance. I just like to use precise terminology. John Carter brought in it’s budget globally, and is considered a flop. Terminator Salvation brought in roughly double it’s budget globally. I don’t like the idea of using the same term for both of these films performances.

        I don’t like having such imprecise language that everything can fall into the categories of either “Hit” or “Flop” when we all know there’s more to it than that.

  • Gojiro

    “Nims Qarlo Clobregnny prite arem aean teaan deao”
    “My name is Qarlo Clobregnny, private, RM EN TN DO”

    Story by Harlan Ellison

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GTYUHjFwKE

  • Steven

    The most important thing when making a Terminator movie is whether Arnold Schwarzenegger is in it.

    T3 had many issues but his presence and charm kept it afloat. I think people forgot how important he is to these movies. It isn’t like Batman where they can cast someone else and it will reinvent itself.

    • Faptain America

      Rise of the Machines wasn’t bad at all, much better than Salvation, for sure.
      The franchise has a bit of a limitation though. How many times can you keep sending a killing machine back in time before it gets boring? Salvation recognized this and just skipped to the future, but it sucked otherwise, heh.
      Interesting that Star Trek and now X-Men are both using time travel to reboot their continuities. But Terminator already used time travel. So it’ll be interesting to see whether Terminator:Genesis works.
      The other limitation: Schwarzenegger MUST be in it, and he won’t last forever. I think they need another “good” Terminator that does more of the action, with Arnold helping. The Rock, anyone?

      • Bob

        Well there has been that rumor floating around that The Rock is the new Terminator…so yea lol. Hope it works out.

        Oh, ans lets go Emilia Clarke!!!

  • Pingback: Scelto il titolo del nuovo Terminator diretto da Alan Taylor | Il blog di ScreenWeek.it

  • Pk

    I thought they had already cast Tom hardy as the new John Conner? As for emilia Clarke and Brie Larson, they look way too young to play Sarah Conner. They might be playing a love interest

    • http://thenonessentials.blogspot.com/ Sean Chandler

      They’re the right age to be playing Sarah Connor if she’s the same age as she was in the first film.

  • Cmdr. Miscavige

    “Xenu” Cruise for Terminator!

  • http://mattedscreen.blogspot.com/ TheMattedScreen

    I would have thought that Super Terminator or Terminator Graphic 16 would have been better titles – that is of course if they’re planning to continue to use 16bit video game systems for their inspiration. Hope this next one is good that way we can look forward to Terminator 64, Terminator Dreamcast, and maybe, eventually we’ll get to see Terminator 360 where they reboot the entire franchise from scratch yet again!

  • DJRickyV

    Looks like the Terminator franchise and various TV and movie retellings and recastings is about to become as convoluted as the entire Skynet timeline…

  • Strong Enough

    I hope the Rock and Arnold go at it

  • Lucas Accardo

    In a Terminator movie, like many of the action movies started in the 80′s , (or in the tone of many action movies for that matter) the rating is an important issue.
    The violence is as necessary almost as a good script. One of the worst aspect of Terminator Salvation was the need to keep the violence to a minimum. There’s no way to succeed in doing that while trying to tell the tale of a killing machines apocalypse. Terminator Salvation in fact had to become a movie about robots keeping people alive, to store them, instead of terminate them, making the whole menace of the terminators a weaker one and thus a bland movie (not completely devoid of good action sequences though). Let’s hope for a R rating for this one so that everyone involve can let himself go to freely produce a new story about the good old murderous machines.

  • Pingback: Emilia Clarke Set for TERMINATOR Reboot as Sarah Connor | Collider

  • Pingback: “Terminator 5″ officially titled “Terminator Genesys” | World of Entertainment

  • Pingback: “Terminator 5″ officially titled “Terminator Genisys” | World of Entertainment

Click Here