Talk:Terminator Genisys

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 80.187.113.170 (talk) at 00:15, 10 July 2015 (→‎Year when Guardian first appears). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

T-950? T-5000?

I spotted these entries into the article (Matt Smith as "Tim/T-5000" and the T-950 is mentioned in the premise) but so far, aside from unverifiable rumours, I haven't seen anything official regarding the existence of these characters. Should they be removed? Gistech (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Reboot"

"Reboot" is a bit jargony, I'd say. I wonder whether it should be explained, at least in the opening paragraph -- or whether the opening should be rephrased. Small matter, though.

Samuel Webster (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we just focusing on the negative reviews from critcs?

Given how there's only two 'negative' reviews listed and one positive, that can hardly be considered a consensus. A small bit of digging finds the following reviews that would balance this out:

Metacritic has given the film a low score based on 4 reviews, which I would think is sufficient enough to include as a source at this point in time.

There's also no mention of James Cameron's views on the film. If anything, this would be 'mixed' reviews, not negative. Gistech (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask why are we just focusing on the negative reviews? We have the MetaCritic and Rotten Tomatoes scores, but only one 'positive' listed to balance it out. Gistech (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, there are plenty of negative reviews and only a couple of positive reviews listed on Rotten Tomatoes. And most of those are just weakly positive, (e.g. 2 1/2 out of 4, 6 out of 10). I suggest it is changed back to negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14C:1:4DD0:24B8:AF80:A779:1602 (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly disagree with this. Changing it to negative based on one site is not balanced. The article needs to remain neutral. Gistech (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tomatoes is not "one site". It is an aggregator of reviews from various media. It is 77 sites as for now. And Metacritic also lists T5 under "unfavorable reviews " based on 31 proffessional reviews. How many will be enough for you? Beaumain (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of this, it definitely does not address the issue I pointed out. Why are positive reviews largely being ignored? This does not seem particularly balanced. hell, no mention of even 'middle of the road' reviews. Excluding IMDB (which we can't list owing to its 'anybody can post' policy) here's some other ones I could list:

The whole 'negative reviews' thing seems to be solely based off the MetaCritic and Rotten Tomatoes scores with only a passing consideration to other reviews. By all means: mention that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic have given the film negative reviews. However, don't treat them like they're the only reviews. Perhaps it is best mentioned that "The film has received negative reviews from critics on Rotten Tomatoes and metacritic" for those reviews, and then focus on more independent reviews afterward: "Other critics have given the film X/Y?Z reviews". Gistech (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • You don't seem to understand what Tomatoes and Metacritic are. They are not some websites that write reviews. They are aggregators. They gather and store information on proffessional reviews all around the English-speaking Internet. They are a collection of links to various media sources, three of which you just mentioned, and some 70 more that you didn't.
  • In fact, the reception section is indeed not neutral... because it quotes mostly positive reviews, which are by far the marginal minority now. Beaumain (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Smith IS Skynet. Just not the same Skynet.

Two verifiable sources that explicitly state Matt Smith is Skynet:

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Hell-Did-Matt-Smith-Come-From-Terminator-Genisys-72379.html
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-07-02/this-is-who-matt-smith-is-playing-in-terminator-genisys
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggctuk (talk • contribs) 11:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian's nickname

The fact that the Guardian terminator is nicknamed "pops" should be removed from the plot section. It is not a detail relevant to understanding the plot. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should phrase it this way. Calling him "Guardian" would seem to be a piece of fancruft that has crept into this and other Terminator articles. This one in particular is filled with rumors and fan theories that do NOT have a basis in the finished film. The film never uses the terms Guardian, T-3000 or T-5000, and the whole Tim=Alex thing was a fan theory too. In fact, I don't think the name Alex even comes up except for in the credits. Shouldn't the whole article be swept clean of this kind of thing, or am I missing something? dstumme (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In recent edits to the plot summary, I've trimmed some of the fat, improved grammar, and added a few details. It doesn't matter to me whether we keep "Pops" or "Guardian" or both, but it does appear that the term "Guardian" is used in reliable sources when identifying the cast (although to be honest, I don't recall hearing that term spoken in the movie). As for T-3000 and T-5000, I'm pretty sure neither was mentioned in the movie, so I'm fine with sweeping those out of there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care whether the Terminator is called Guardian or not. I will remove "Pops" since it isn't an important detail and there seems to be no support for its retention. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last Paragraph in "Plot" needs to be edited for grammatical correctness

I've gone ahead and edited the paragraph to what it should say, so someone with editing privileges can just copy and paste.

"A post-credits scene reveals that the system core of Genisys was located in a hidden subterranean chamber and has survived the explosion, as a holographic Skynet gazes up at the core." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerpawraw (talk • contribs) 17:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Nice catch. Millahnna (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Include some backstory in the plot?

I haven't seen this one yet, and I am a bit of a Terminator purist, so take this with a grain of salt! Is it worth going in to some basic backstory in the plot section (Skynet becomes self aware, makes war on humans, etc.) before starting in with John Connor's last offensive? Obviously, the entire concept of 'back story' is going to be tough in a time-travel narrative, but I thought I'd ask. Dumuzid (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth consideration, but it's important to point out that the current plot summary is crossing the 600-word mark. So essentially, we're running out of space! I would suggest looking at how other plot summaries from good and featured sequel articles turned out to judge whether or not this is a generally-accepted common practice. With the limited space advised per WP:FILMPLOT, I'm not sure how this would be accomplished effectively. Perhaps a complementary section that ties the plot to the franchise would be a better alternative? --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Cameron's opinion of Terminator 3 and Terminator Salvation

James Cameron's opinion of Terminator 3 and Terminator Salvation is not relevant to this article, which is not about those films. Gothicfilm was wrong to restore that off-topic opinion, and his edit summary ("The quoted speaker didn't think it was off-topic") did not give a clear explanation. It's not even clear to me who "the quoted speaker" is supposed to be, Gothicfilm, or what you are trying to say in that edit summary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather obvious the quoted speaker is James Cameron. The cited source makes this clear. Whether we agree with him or not, he wanted that context for his remarks on this fifth film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make a difference what he wanted. The material explains nothing, and should be removed, as it's useless. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. It's the context Cameron wanted it in. You should note the previous version claimed Cameron said he was counting Genisys as the official third film in the franchise. I took that out, as he said nothing about his statement being "official", or that the other films "didn't count". - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what if he did want it in? Are editors supposed to report anything and everything Cameron might say? Why is his opinion so important? I don't see any way in which his comments on Terminator 3 and Terminator Salvation are relevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes need to be in context. Let's see what others have to say, rather than repeating the same things. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Quotes need to be in context" is a meaningless generality. The article at present states that, "After having watched the film's prerelease screening, Cameron unequivocally voiced his support for Terminator Genisys, characterizing it as being extremely respectful of the first two movies, and added he’s not a fan of the third and fourth films." I think it's perfectly obvious that the last part of that sentence, "he's not a fan of the third and fourth films", contains no relevant or pertinent information. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does contain the information that Cameron regards Genisys as a return to form for the series. The significance of the series creator thinking of Genisys as "the third film" isn't clear unless you briefly mention his views on 3 and Salvation. —Flax5 02:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it really doesn't explain anything without further elaboration. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: First of all, thanks for tidying up the plot summary section. Those were some much needed changes. While I disagree with the way Cameron's opinion is worded now ("and added..." isn't really in line with the source), I do believe that the information in question helps put his opinion in better context. For example, if I knew nothing of the Terminator franchise and came across his favorable opinion about Terminator Genisys, I'd be wondering why it was significant to the article. However, if I knew about his unfavorable opinion of the 3rd and 4th installments coupled with the fact that he was the franchise's creator and considered Genisys the true successor to the 2nd film, then that would put his opinion in a different light and make it much more relevant. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron did not say he considered Genisys the true successor to the 2nd film. It's important we keep this to what he actually said - he’s not a fan of the third and fourth films. He did not say they're non-canon, and it's too easy for some people to jump to that conclusion, as shown by the previous version claiming Cameron said he was counting Genisys as the official third film in the franchise. I took that out, as he said nothing about his statement being "official", or that the other films "didn't count". - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes and no. He didn't use the term "successor", but he did say, "In the new film, which in my mind I think of as the third film...". While my choice of words may have been a little off, the gist is the same. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, don't see a problem with that remark. It just goes on to say that Cameron likes Genisys better than the previous two films. Nothing wrong there. --uKER (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2015

Terminator Genisys real budget is 220 million. Source: http://pro.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/terminator-2015

90.191.215.102 (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The $220 million figure includes promotions and advertising costs. Per Template:Infobox film, the budget in the infobox should be the "cost of the actual filming" and should "not include marketing/promotional costs". Now if there is a tendency to mention this somewhere in prose, it might be fine to include it in the body somewhere granted there is at least one additional reliable source confirming that number. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, really? Sounds like somebody should go and edit The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988) accordingly because both Gilliam and Schühly have stated in interviews that their actual production budget was really $35 million, and then Columbia went and blew more than 10 million on advertizing that was never used, such as producing comics and advertizing spots with international celebrities, both customized for national markets. Plus, their oral deals had always been $35 million from the start, but then libelous trade press went after Terry (as studio beancounters were still hating him for winning the Battle of Brazil) and Columbia was sold, which led to even more turmoil that neither cast & crew were responsible for (such as never using the expensive merchandize materials and, as Robin Williams put in, the new regime at Columbia "was like the new lion that moves in and kills all the cubs of the old guy"), and all that was sold to the public as "madman director immensely overrunning his budget whilst not knowing what he's doing". --80.187.113.170 (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That should be addressed at that article's talk page, and its existence doesn't excuse the same action here. I'm not familiar with that particular situation, but the "cost of filming" we would go by would be the one cited in a majority of reliable sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retcon in lead section

@Gothicfilm: First of all, another editor placed the retcon reference in the lead originally. I modified the text later in this edit. So there are at least two editors that feel it should be there in some form. While I'm open to suggestions or even possibly removing it altogether, this is a discussion that really you should have initiated. So what is a retcon? I actually didn't know until I stumbled across it in this article. It's defined as an "alteration of previously established facts in the continuity of a fictional work". If we throw out the term retcon for a minute, we should be able to agree that the definition adequately describes Terminator Genisys. The cited source does not actually use retcon, but it does describe the alteration of the storyline, which is what a retcon is. On Wikipedia, the words we choose do not have to be present in the source, as long as the meaning is the same as what's being described in the sources. I'm interested to hear what your take is on this, and why you decided to remove the statement (diff) as opposed to modifying it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me amend that...
I just noticed that you moved it to the body of the article, and I'm fine with that for now. I still believe that some mention of this "reset" or "retcon" needs to be mentioned in the lead, since it's an integral part of describing the film. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) My latest edit - One actor's speculation 9 months before the release does not belong in the lead. It's a time travel story which changes things, not a "retcon". That word does not appear in the cited source. - did modify it and moved it down. A retcon assumes and implements changes from the beginning. For example, the novel 2010: Odyssey Two changed the key planet from Saturn to Jupiter, to match the film 2001. In Terminator Genisy changes occur during the story because of events within the story. The changes are a plot element. And again, putting that in the lead makes readers think it was an official announcement from the filmmakers, not speculation many months in advance by an actor. It is misleading to call it a retcon, and in my opinion this one actor's statement is not needed in the article at all. Plot developments do not belong in the lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's debatable as to whether or not this is considered a retcon given the descriptions of this film in multiple sources cited in the article (and take a look at this), but putting that aside for a moment, let's look at WP:FILMLEAD. It states, "If possible, convey the general premise of the film" and encourages the inclusion of "prominent themes". Obviously, we shouldn't cram a lot of plot elements and descriptions in the lead, but a one line statement about the film's approach to the franchise should be perfectly acceptable. Whether we describe it as a reset, reboot, retcon, etc., doesn't necessarily matter to me, but some form of that description should certainly be in the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't fit the exact definition of a retcon which really holds a negative connotation. A retroactive continuity is when two conflicting versions of events or backstories exist in several different works of pulp fiction (especially in Golden Age superhero comics, which is where the term originated) because each work was written by a different author and nobody cared to check their continuities or what other authors had written before because of the cheap pulp quality of their medium or work, but then, years later, somebody stumbles upon the many internal conflicts and does a retcon aka retroactive continuity by trying to explain how both can be possible (such as by alternate dimensions, universes, etc., it's why DC and I think also Marvel created their many different universes with "Earth no. XYZ" and such in order to clean up their mess). It's sort-of a cover up to explain away mistakes made by RL authors.
So, at the end of the day, a retcon is a shoddy emergency device which is implemented when RL authors make mistakes in their continuities or backstories and after the fact, some later RL editor or new author tries to clean up the mess. And that's decidedly not what happened with Terminator Genisys, because the changes we see are not there because some real person has made some mistakes (other than creating two crap films that were parts 3 and 4 in the series, and I think Cameron is right in pretty much declaring them non-canon and Genisys a much worthier part 3), but because in-universe characters travel through time and deliberately change what we once knew as canon. (P. S.: Even half-declaring something as non-canon, as does Cameron with parts 3 and 4, is not a retcon if it's not because of continuity errors, but done simply due to crap quality or close to zero resemblance to the franchise in quality, main setting, and/or things such as style, mood, and atmosphere.) Thus, what Terminator Genisys really is, is a deliberate reboot or a reset, as it's not to fix continuity errors, but to rejuvenate the franchise. --80.187.113.170 (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the backstory on its origin. You are right that the changes are deliberate through the actions of the characters, but I'm not sure that is the deciding factor on whether or not a film is considered a retcon, at least not anymore. The term has progressed to include films that develop a new continuity for the sake of laying ground for a new series, as described in this source, which cites "retcon reboots" like the Star Trek 2009 release – which is probably the best example to compare to Terminator Genisys. We have to look beyond the origin of the term and also consider its use today. Again, I'm not mindset on keeping the retcon description in the article, but it may warrant additional discussion to get a clear consensus established. Makes for an interesting discussion anyway! --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that especially plotwise, the recent Star Trek reboot is very close to the one done here, but still I consider it a case of careless, shabby, and imprecise use of the term in the press. --80.187.113.170 (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Year when Guardian first appears

Doesn't Sarah Connor mention in the film what year it was when the Guardian saved her life at that lake (like, sometime during the 1970s)? It may be a trivia detail, but it'd still be more precise than just saying, "when she was 9 years old". We may see only little of the Guardian in the lake scene, but from what little we saw, I think his hairstyle even looks vaguely 70s, with his hair combed down (into a short moptop?) rather than brushed up, which differs him from the evil 1984 T-800 (originally with a kind of wavy, fluffy, and slightly parted hair done by special drying in Cameron's original part 1, but I'm not necessarily talking about that part's official poster). Ever since Judgment Day, what Ahnie usually wears as the character is shorter and combed up or spiked-up, as he does in that film's 1991, in Rise of the Machines, and as the Guardian in Genesys as soon as 1984 as well as in 2017. Which, incidentally, makes it seem like the Guardian is the only T-800 model that ever changed its hairstyle during its lifespan, that is between saving 9-year-old Sarah Conner in the 70s and Kyle's arrival in 1984. (I'm not sure whether they got the "fluffy, wavy, parted" hair part right with the evil 1984 T-800 in the early scene in Genisys)

Even though it may border on OR, I think this tells us a little about the fact that they've put some thought into T-800's hairdo ever since the first part and that they've now put some effort into kind of creating a "70s version" of the T-800 (this is even harder OR, but could be each model has very crude and basic modes of "trying to blend in" based on what rudimentary data it has regarding its destination or whereabouts), which points to the fact that they obviously cared about the exact year when the Guardian saved 9-year-old Sarah Connor. And that's another reason why I think if Sarah Connor mentions the exact year in Genisys, it should also be mentioned in the plot section, as are the other years visited in the film. --80.187.113.170 (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terminator_Genisys&oldid=670752618"