Game of Thrones Actress Will Be Sarah Connor in Terminator Reboot
- Thread starter StewShearerOld
- Start date
Okay, let's be fair. How many of us expected Linda Hamilton's complete "amazonification" in T2? I mean, with the benefit of hindsight you could say you saw the signs, but back then a lot of us were floored by the transformation from the first film.
Don't get me wrong, it's pretty clear that this re-reboot is going to fall on its face quite spectactularly- but I think the fault will be far more on the producers than on Emilia Clarke.
Don't get me wrong, it's pretty clear that this re-reboot is going to fall on its face quite spectactularly- but I think the fault will be far more on the producers than on Emilia Clarke.
So? It's a reboot. Why do people think that characters in reboots have to act the same as characters in the original? They don't. Some of them don't even have to exist.Quazimofo said:
So that pale fragile little thing from GoT who looks the wrong side of underweight AND like she hasn't even seen a weight in her life, let alone lifted one, is going to be the badass muscular masculine Sarah Connor?!
Sure, what else could go wrong? Hell, while we're at it, lets get Justin Bieber to be the new Mrk. IV Terminator!
Sure, what else could go wrong? Hell, while we're at it, lets get Justin Bieber to be the new Mrk. IV Terminator!
Well sure they don't but if you're going to change things that are particularly important to the story/setting, why not change more stuff and make a new IP or story rather than a re-boot or re-make of the original? Besides, they apparently aren't trying to make it significantly different if they got Arnold to come back and reprise his role, so I'm just wondering why cast an actor more similar to Linda Hamilton?Adam Jensen said:
For all we know, the re-make can be good, I'm not trying to be a "they changed it so it sucks" fanboy, I was just expressing my thoughts since Sarah Connor as she was was pretty important to the Terminator universe. I sincerely doubt they can improve over the original, since this IS modern hollywood we're talking about, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now.
Also, just going to say my opinion on the original is not tinted by nostalgia goggles. I saw it for the first time just a week or so ago and I wasn't even born until after the 80s . It's just a good-if somewhat cheesy- movie with surprisingly decent cg for a robot all things considered.
I'm fine with a reboot of Terminator. But she's just too, pretty and girlish to play Sarah Connor. Sarah is a warrior.
I'm really worried about this. I love the films, with Terminator 2 being one of my favourite movies of all time, and the Sarah Conner Chronicles was so good. Why don't they just continue the tv series instead of trying reboots? Is it just me, or is nearly every film/game series getting rebooted now? Do something NEW Hollywood, I bloody dare you. I mean, it's telling when the news that a beloved franchise is coming back is met with horror and trepidation instead of excitement. Clearly you're doing something wrong.
Well, the problem is that "Terminator" works best as a more or less self-contained story, once you start trying to spin it into an infinitely perpetuating temporal cycle it starts to get pretty eye rolling. "Sarah Conner Chronicles" was decent for what it was trying to do, but I admit I felt it was really stretching things, and it doesn't shock me that the series didn't make it into the long term franchise it was intended to be.Realitycrash said:
I think half the problem is that "Terminator" tries to maintain the status quo from the first couple of movies that were decent, as in wanting to portray the humans as plucky underdogs. This typically involves having to make John Connor into an incompetent or at least reluctant whining weiner of a character who might "one day grow into a hero" while focusing entirely on Mommy and whomever the action guy of the moment is (Future soldier, renegade terminator, or whatever). That formula worked well for a story but when you try and pretty much do it again and again, or try and justify that status quo remaining as is when the whole concept doesn't allow for it outside of a specific brief story framework it becomes a problem. The point of the reboot seems to be intended to re-do the same old story yet again without having to worry about the flimsy justifying they already created to try and stretch it out.
Truthfully the big problem I had with "Terminator" was that the entire concept is supposed to pretty much be that Skynet is losing, and losing badly. We see images of a grim future with a couple of human scouts getting chased down (human scouts which I might add seem to take marksmanship lessons from Imperial Stormtroopers given their inability to hit a slow moving robo-gunship with a vehicle mounted energy cannon) but the basic premise is that the whole point of Skynet sending back a "Terminator" is that it's a desperation gambit being tried in the 11th hour. I could accept the events of the first movie perhaps having delayed the inevitable enough for a second chance, but beyond that there was a point at which you pretty much have to accept that it should be over given the premise. What's more the guys elaborating on the future setting never seemed to really grasp the concept that especially in "Sarah Conner Chronciles" humanity should be portrayed as having the situation pretty much under control, with Skynet and it's forces being the things hiding in the cracks (not humans) trying any desperate gamble to turn the war around as that was the initial premise that held the entire thing together.
Those are just my thoughts though. If I was ever going to reboot the series, not that I think it should be done, I might take some inspiration from other sources about intelligent machines and start raising some questions about whether Skynet was entirely wrong if some kind of mechanical AI genocide was being planned beforehand. Not to mention that if Skynet is putting people into camps as opposed to just killing everyone, perhaps even make the argument that where humans are trying to kill all Machines, Skynet at least plans to let humanity survive and try and re-build it into a species it can cohabitate with... once the war is over. Very old ideas (old long before Mass Effect covered the material) but still something you could do if you really HAD to try and drag this franchise out... which IMO you
really shouldn't do to begin with.
Why a reboot? I could agree if it was part of an ongoing series of movies so all new characters are important. But even then if your going to reboot it why even have a Sarah Conner? Why not just make a new sequel with new characters? All this reboot will achieve is retelling the same story except they will use crappy cgi instead of a Terminator model like in the original. Why not just have the movie based around a group of future soldiers on present day earth as they are dealing with other terminators? Be more interesting that a reboot. Hell even the Terminator comics that came out over 10 plus years ago had more originality in them than this reboot will.
You dont need Sarah Conner to make a great Terminator movie. The same way you dont need Ripley to make a great Aliens movie. Which is the reasons the comics of those franchises are so much better than the movies. Both those movies are so old its only the older generation that even care about who Sarah and Ripley are. Most 18 year olds (even moreso if they make it a 13 movie) wont even care. New characters and new plots and story.....not recycling.
You dont need Sarah Conner to make a great Terminator movie. The same way you dont need Ripley to make a great Aliens movie. Which is the reasons the comics of those franchises are so much better than the movies. Both those movies are so old its only the older generation that even care about who Sarah and Ripley are. Most 18 year olds (even moreso if they make it a 13 movie) wont even care. New characters and new plots and story.....not recycling.
Agreed. That show was awesome, and the way it ended made me really want to know what happened. Except it was cancelled, so we will never know. Though there is talk of another new Terminator tv show, though not the SCC show. Which is a big mistake.Realitycrash said:
I dont know why they cant make a new reboot of the first movie but set it after the first movie, a kind of sequel i guess but instead of retelling the story from scratch, just have flash backs to the original. So the reboot can be a whole original story and allows people who havnt seen the original, the option to watch it to get more back story.
They say reboot like every single other Terminator movie wasn't (They all reset the timelines). I've never really understood the bagging on Salvation either. Other then the flub of blowing your "twist" in the opening prologue, it was a decent enough take on sci-fi action in the Terminator future-verse (as opposed to the more horror oriented 1&2), and certainly better then the non-existent tone of 3.
As long as they don't take their bloody time getting to the war in the future and seeing John lead the resistance to it's victory or defeat, then I'm up for giving this a chance, and I'm a big Terminator fan.
Kenbo Slice said:
Sgt. Sykes said:
Kennetic said:
a Whole lot of people seem to be remembering Sarah Connor/Linda Hamilton from T2:JD, and not the original. A couple have commented that she was a very different woman physically in the first to the second, and that is very important to the character.Realitycrash said:
Hamilton was 28 when the first terminator was made, Emilia Clark is what 25? Hardly too young, will probably be the same age by the time it was released. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.
The terminator skeletons were done with stop-motion clay animation, not CG, and were an amazing piece of special effects work, especially for the time. Just a bit of useless info.Quazimofo said: