TERMINATOR REBOOT?! AKA 'Terminator Genisys'

http://screencrush.com/terminator-5-june-2015/



‘Terminator 5′ Will Start a New Trilogy of Termination on June 26, 2015
by Damon Houx June 27, 2013 8:01 PM


Paramount has officially dated ‘Terminator 5‘ and announced that it’s the start of a new trilogy of ‘Terminator‘ films. Though no casting besides Arnold Schwarzenegger has been made official, the sequel is set to start shooting in January, with plans to hit screens June 26, 2015.

2015 is already getting crowded, as ‘T5′ will come out a week before ‘Independence Day 2‘ and two weeks before ‘Pirates of the Caribbean 5.’ Though ‘Star Wars – Episode 7‘ is still without a release date, it’s likely to come out in May, which means summer 2015 will be packed with blockbusters, as it also will have ‘The Avengers 2‘ (which is scheduled to hit screens May 1) and it’s possible that we’ll get ‘Man of Steel 2‘ as well.
But the big news is that this is the start of a rebooted stand-alone trilogy, which the makers hope to finish off before the rights revert back to James Cameron in 2019. It used to be that big blockbusters would try to make trilogies, and they’re attempting that here, but they’re also hoping to get to the seventh film in the franchise. That’s a sequel number that used to be associated primarily with horror films.
As for the reboot factor, and how much cannon will be respected or ignored is unknown, though it seems likely that they’ll mostly just ignore the last two sequels, and that the official title will be something like ‘Terminator: The Dawn of Termination.’
Here’s the press release in full:

HOLLYWOOD, CA (June 27, 2013) – Skydance Productions, Annapurna Pictures and Paramount Pictures have jointly announced they will partner on a rebooted “TERMINATOR” movie, to be released by Paramount Pictures on June 26, 2015.
The first in a stand-alone trilogy, “TERMINATOR” will be produced by Megan Ellison of Annapurna and David Ellison of Skydance. Dana Goldberg and Paul Schwake of Skydance will serve as executive producers. Laeta Kalorgridis (“Avatar,” “Shutter Island”) and Patrick Lussier (“Drive Angry”) are attached to write the screenplay.
Launched in 1984 with star Arnold Schwarzenegger as the title character, “TERMINATOR” spanned 3 subsequent films, which have earned over $1 billion at the worldwide box office.
David Ellison most recently executive produced, along with his partners at Paramount, “World War Z,” “Star Trek Into Darkness,” “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” and “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol”.  A 5^th installment of in the “Mission: Impossible” franchise is in active development, along with a 3rd film in the “G.I. Joe” franchise, among other films.
Megan Ellison most recently produced the Academy Award-nominated “Zero Dark Thirty,” “The Master” and executive produced “Spring Breakers” via her Annapurna Pictures banner and has David O. Russell’s “American Hustle,” Spike Jonze’s “Her,” and Bennett Miller’s “Foxcatcher” set for release later this year.

 

 I don't get it. Even if they ignore the events of the 3rd & 4th films, how then is it gonna be a 'proper' reboot when Ahnuld is set to be the star? That would be like if we got MAN OF STEEL for our Superman reboot but then went & hired Christopher Reeve if he were alive & in good health & had had no accident. How could it be a true Superman reboot, right? Same deal here. If we're gonna have a new Terminator trilogy that also happens to be a reboot, shouldn't it at least be on the order of JJ Abrams 1st Star Trek film? Have an alternate timeline at the bare minimum? But Ahnuld is no longer young so what angle they're gonna play I don't know. At least the Conan film that he has signed on to play deals with the age issue but it's supposed to since it's considered a direct sequel to Conan The Barbarian. But the Terminator should not appear old so I dunno.

You also don't want this reboot to be a 'vague sequel' if you get my drift? Gee, does anyone here remember a film that chose to homage the events of the 1st 2 films while completely ignoring 3 & 4? Nah, I didn't think so.

Ugh, fuck this franchise. It should have just ended after T2. I'm not crazy about SALVATION, but at least that TRIED to push the series in a new direction. Even though I'm not a fan of T3, I always felt THAT should have been Arnold's last hurrah as an action star. It should have signaled the end of an era for him, as he got into politics right after. Seeing him trying to make a comeback as an action star is just kind of sad. His career already suffered enough during the late 90s, he should have just quit while he was ahead and let T3 not only be his last film but his last legitimate summer hit.

^ The problem with that is that it ends his legacy on a note where he wears pink sunglasses and says "talk to the hand".

thecolorsblend wrote:^ The problem with that is that it ends his legacy on a note where he wears pink sunglasses and says "talk to the hand".

Shit, you got a point. I haven't watched that since it came out on DVD.

Still not sure what to think of the prospect of a reboot. Arnold said he wouldn't bother with it unless the script was where it needed to be. And he has good instincts for that kind of thing. On the other hand... that didn't help us very much with T3, now did it? And let us not forget that he's attempting to restart his film career. He may be in a mood to gather the low-hanging fruit and the safe choices. It could go a few ways.

In some respects, part of me questions whether they should've even made sequels. Yeah, T2 is awesome, it had cutting edge effects that the industry still benefits from, Robert Patrick's T-1000 is iconic and you can't say it didn't drastically progress Sarah... but at the same time, the original Terminator was in effect a closed loop. When the T-800 killed the other Sarah Connors, he checked the body for a scar and a pin. You kind of see that with Linda Hamilton's Sarah's roommate. When he wouldn't find those things, he'd reason he'd killed the wrong person and move on. However, Sarah's leg doesn't get fucked up until the end of the movie. The scar the T-800 was looking for didn't exist at that point and only existed because of him. The plant where the big showdown happens was either owned by Cyberdyne or by the company that would later become Cyberdyne (I forget). Obviously there's the issue of Reese coming back in time and fathering John... which wouldn't have happened had the machines not sent the T-800 back to kill Sarah. On and on and on. It's a closed loop and it looks almost airtight.

For as awesome as T2 is... it's not really a closed loop. You could argue that Sarah's efforts foil the creation of Skynet in order to prevent Judgment Day vis a vis trying to shoot Dyson into spaghetti effectively created a new timeline. That new variable resulted in the very future that would permit the machines to send the T-1000, etc. So it's like the first film, but in reverse. That's all logical enough but the problem is that no outside influence steers Sarah toward breaking away from her "fate". By all rights, she should be stuck to that original post-T1/pre-T2/resistance defeats machines timeline whether she wants to be or not.

And no, I don't buy that "no fate but what we make" shit; as far as I can tell, Reese never says anything like that in the first Terminator. Basically it felt like Cameron changed the rules part way through the game. And you could even argue he had to or else the movie itself couldn't exist. Fine. But none of that mitigates the point that the first Terminator film is a pitch-perfect example of how a time travel story ought to be done and the sequels only really serve to complicate something that, let's face it, was already kind of complicated to begin with.

Anyway. So a reboot? Seems like it's being envisioned as a trilogy from the get-go rather than an ongoing franchise that people have to continually come up with new BS in order to continue milking. My hope then is that the writers aim for the same objectives of internal story logic that Cameron and Wisher set up in the original film. There are tons of "mindless action movies" that come along. Terminator was always a "franchise" that had a promise to it that everything should mostly fit together... even though the promise was frequently broken.

Anyway, hope this all makes sense and none of your eyes crossed.

the colorsblend wrote:

And no, I don't buy that "no fate but what we make" shit; as far as I can tell, Reese never says anything like that in the first Terminator.

Right now I'm tired from work & may have to really think more about this post when I'm fresher but will respond to this now. I've wondered about that statement myself, like, when did John Conner make Reese learn that in the future? But I think what it is, without first looking it up on Youtube, is a fancy way of saying what Reese quoted to Sarah when they were on the run, that night they spent under that bridge. He tells Sarah some boring sounding crap that's not really even that memorable but I think it amounts to the same thing. So I guess in T2 they 'polished' it up to sound better.

Well I guess The Terminator reboot really is a reboot after all:

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/180609-terminator-reboot-narrows-search-for-sarah-connor-down-to-two

Terminator Reboot Narrows Search for Sarah Connor Down to Two

by Spencer Perry
December 04, 2013

Following a story from last month, Deadline is now reporting that the search for Sarah Connor in the upcoming Terminator reboot is down to just two names including "Game of Thrones" star Emilia Clarke and 21 Jump Street's Brie Larson. The site reports that Clarke may be the frontrunner for the role due to having worked previously with director Alan Taylor on many episodes of the hit HBO series.
Casting is still coming together for the film which is said to also be looking for a new John Connor and Kyle Reese. It's reported that the production is concentrating on casting Sarah before any of the other roles.
The first in a stand-alone trilogy, Terminator will be produced by Megan Ellison of Annapurna and David Ellison of Skydance. Dana Goldberg and Paul Schwake of Skydance will serve as executive producers. Laeta Kalorgridis (Avatar, Shutter Island) and Patrick Lussier (Drive Angry) are attached to write the screenplay.

So a new Sarah Conner means a new everyone else, even Ahnuld. Don't know what to think of this. The first 2 films are untouchable in my opinion so what's the point? Better CGI?

Maybe it's just my taste in women but I never thought Linda Hamilton was all that attractive. What made her work for the part was that she was fairly homely as far as Los Angeles casting directors are concerned but she had believable strength. You buy the moment where she finally cowboys up in the first movie and she doesn't look out of place handling those mega-cannons in T2.

The chicks from that pic you posted look like yet more Hollywood starlets. I'm sure they're talented, blah blah fucking blah, but Sarah Connor is supposed to more John Blaze than those chicks. They're too pretty and cutesy for my taste. Of course the pic from that web page is such shit quality that who can tell? And I'm way too lazy to Google her.

Anyway. Whatever. I think the first movie is a classic, the second is great if you don't think about what it implies for the first and the third is a mostly noble effort to redeem what went wrong in the second. And if you must have some kind of bullshit closure to it all, there's always Salvation. But does anybody really want a reboot? Especially if Cameron isn't involved?

For whatever reasons, remakes/reboots of Total Recall and Robocop don't faze me that much but, man, rebooting Terminator... it's hard not to take that personally.

You're preaching to the choir here dude. And let's face it, one thing that made those first 2 films work, besides Cameron of course, was the 'magic' they had.

Consider this. The first film was made on a 6 million budget by a director who probably was still 'finding his way'. The star of the film was a famous bodybuilder but relatively new actor in Ahnuld. Linda Hamilton & company were also pretty much nobody's. So what made it work? Was it just the FX of Stan Winston? I'd say that helped but was not a 'be all end all' situation. So what made it work? No doubt the 'magic' or 'chemistry' between the stars. The entire interaction between Sarah & Kyle Reese was totally believable! You felt for what was going on. And even though Arnie was a newbie he came off as a cold, calculating killer. Like the T-1000 in T2 he spoke very little but was just as believable as the T-1000. The film was also set in 1984 & was so obviously 80's.

I know you question the second film but I love it. To me the 2 films are practically a tie. Can't watch one without the other! But T2 obviously worked for similar reasons as T1. That 'magic' was there again. Bigger budget of course but they didn't 'sell out' for the sake of sequel-itis.

My fear for this reboot is that it does not have that magic! Big budget, hot chicks, yada yada yada. But is it gonna have the chemistry of the first 2 films which is no doubt what made them work in the first place? I'll no doubt see the film but I don't trust them any farther than I can throw them so to speak.

non_amos wrote:You're preaching to the choir here dude. And let's face it, one thing that made those first 2 films work, besides Cameron of course, was the 'magic' they had.

Consider this. The first film was made on a 6 million budget by a director who probably was still 'finding his way'. The star of the film was a famous bodybuilder but relatively new actor in Ahnuld. Linda Hamilton & company were also pretty much nobody's. So what made it work? Was it just the FX of Stan Winston? I'd say that helped but was not a 'be all end all' situation. So what made it work? No doubt the 'magic' or 'chemistry' between the stars. The entire interaction between Sarah & Kyle Reese was totally believable! You felt for what was going on. And even though Arnie was a newbie he came off as a cold, calculating killer. Like the T-1000 in T2 he spoke very little but was just as believable as the T-1000. The film was also set in 1984 & was so obviously 80's.

I know you question the second film but I love it. To me the 2 films are practically a tie. Can't watch one without the other! But T2 obviously worked for similar reasons as T1. That 'magic' was there again. Bigger budget of course but they didn't 'sell out' for the sake of sequel-itis.

My fear for this reboot is that it does not have that magic! Big budget, hot chicks, yada yada yada. But is it gonna have the chemistry of the first 2 films which is no doubt what made them work in the first place? I'll no doubt see the film but I don't trust them any farther than I can throw them so to speak.

Agreed. Those first two movies especially had some special something about them. And even for the time, the Terminator was a pretty low budget thing and it shows. You ever watch the movie with the mono sound going? It sounds just cheap... but somehow that adds to the charm.

But rebooting this sum bitch with a lot of CW-friendly poster kids, over-the-top CGI, a Hans Zimmer score and all that other bullshit... Look, maybe I'm just getting old and cranky. Totally possible. I just would really appreciate it if Hollywood would leave my favorites alone. There was a time when Hollywood had a boner for formulaic action movies. Then it became sequels to those movies. Now we're to the point where we're remaking this shit. It's officially a trend now.

I mean, FUCK!

Thankfully the general public is REJECTING remakes outright now. 'Friday The 13th' flopped. 'Nightmare on Elm Street' flopped. 'Total Recall' flopped. 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' flopped. 'Carrie' flopped. 'Robocrap' is DEFINITELY flopping.

Doesn't bode well for a 'Terminator' remake, does it?

You know, I'm *GLAD* about that. I don't think those movies qualify as "classics" in the grand sense of the term but ten years ago if you'd said you wanted to make or watch a Carrie remake, people would've said you were out of your fucking mind. Ditto any of the other movies you mention. Not "classics" but at the same they were respected enough to where conventional wisdom said you should leave 'em alone.

I mean, what the hell happened?!?!

thecolorsblend wrote:You know, I'm *GLAD* about that. I don't think those movies qualify as "classics" in the grand sense of the term but ten years ago if you'd said you wanted to make or watch a Carrie remake, people would've said you were out of your fucking mind. Ditto any of the other movies you mention. Not "classics" but at the same they were respected enough to where conventional wisdom said you should leave 'em alone.

I mean, what the hell happened?!?!

HollyWeird lost it's balls.

Literally.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Thankfully the general public is REJECTING remakes outright now. 'Friday The 13th' flopped. 'Nightmare on Elm Street' flopped. 'Total Recall' flopped. 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' flopped. 'Carrie' flopped. 'Robocrap' is DEFINITELY flopping.

Doesn't bode well for a 'Terminator' remake, does it?

 
Jared Padalecki was the best thing about the Friday the 13th remake. And even though I saw that in the theater, I had to wonder. The previous film was Freddy vs. Jason & was actually a hit at the box office especially in comparison to it's budget! Yet a short time later they decide to reboot. Why?! Freddy obviously wasn't done for at the end of that film as his beheaded head 'winks' so why didn't they expand upon that? Instead they made a film that was, well, Jared Padalecki was the best thing about it.

They rebooted Freddy too, with 'Rorshach'. Jackie Earle Haley was awesome in that role but as Freddy? Robert Englund he ain't! And why was there another Texas Chainsaw remake? Didn't they do that like 10 years ago with Jessica Biel?! So what's the point again?

I also have a concern about where the Terminator story may be heading. I don't think anything is actually confirmed yet but early 'rumors' had the Terminator going back to the 1940's, during WWII, to kill Sarah Connor's grandparents or something, so she's never born. But what that sounds like to me is that they may be considering an alternate timeline like JJ Abrams did so well with STAR TREK. Well, that worked with Trek but with Terminator? Not so sure about that one. There actually was an alternate time on the Terminator TV show but it wasn't apparent until the 2nd & final season. But I don't think I want that in a Terminator reboot. And the reboot is supposedly going to star Ahnuld. What?! It is a reboot right? Unless he really is gonna be 'Ahnuld Prime'?! Whatever they do though, please keep the theme music! One of my favorite themes!

If that's the angle they take... well, I'm still not crazy about it but that's not too bad. My view is that each successive Terminator film comes from an altered future. The first Terminator is a pretty much complete time-travel story unto itself... but T2 depicts a future which, however similar to the first it may seem, isn't the same one we saw in Terminator. The events of the first film altered the future subtly so that the big picture of it still happened but some fine details changed in T2. T3 is a different future yet from either of the two that came before. Again, same in the big picture but different in terms of fine detail. So by my count, we're already in our third timeline when Salvation kicks off (ie, that's the future T3 built to).

The idea of a half-ass "reboot" that explicitly sets up a new timeline (which none of the other films ever copped to but that's the only way I can make sense of them) works well on that basis. It's still a reboot, of course, I just don't mind their means of getting there.

I'm coming back to this. As far as all this remake/reboot shit is concerned, you know what's got to be coming next, right? The National Lampoon Vacation movies.

Anybody care to bet Will Ferrell would play Clark Griswold?

OH!
BOY!!!!!

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/180653-the-upcoming-terminator-reboot-plans-television-series-tie-in





The Upcoming Terminator Reboot Plans Television Series Tie-in

by SuperHeroHype
December 06, 2013
Share this story




The action franchise heading back the big screen in 2015, Skydance Productions and Annapurna Pictures are now looking at bringing Terminator to television as well. The Hollywood Reporter today brings word that a new series is in development that will tie into the Alan Taylor film. Ashley Miller and Zack Stentz, the pair behind X-Men: First Class and Thor, will provide the script for the pilot.
The franchise was previously brought to television as "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" (which also featured script work by Miller and Stentz). The new series is said to split from the timeline of James Cameron's 1984 original in a way that will allow it to connect back to the upcoming big screen reboot.
Megan Ellison of Annapurna and David Ellison of Skydance will produce the series alongside Dana Goldberg and Marcy Ross. Laeta Kalogridis and Patrick Lussier will serve as executive producers.
The new Terminator movie is scheduled for a July 1, 2015 release.

We already had a Terminator TV series. It was called Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles. I personally liked it & so did a lot of other people. Unfortunately it was canceled after 2 seasons. They left it on a cliffhanger that will never see the light of day.

Now they want to reboot the film series but tie-in a new TV series to it as well? And you thought Terminator canon was confusing before?!

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/180679-title-revealed-for-the-terminator-reboot


Title Revealed for the Terminator Reboot?

by Spencer Perry
December 09, 2013
Share this story

As the search continues for the new Sarah Connor for the upcoming Terminator reboot, Production Weekly is reporting that the film may have its title. The site reports that "Terminator: Genesis" is the current name for the project, but keep in mind that this early into pre-production, it could simply be a placeholder or undergo a change as the film gets closer to release.
Casting is still coming together for the film which is said to also be looking for a new John Connor and Kyle Reese. It's reported that the production is concentrating on casting Sarah before any of the other roles with Brie Larson and Emilia Clarke said to be the frontrunners.

The first in a stand-alone trilogy, Terminator will be produced by Megan Ellison of Annapurna and David Ellison of Skydance. Dana Goldberg and Paul Schwake of Skydance will serve as executive producers. Laeta Kalorgridis (Avatar, Shutter Island) and Patrick Lussier (Drive Angry) are attached to write the screenplay.

The Alan Taylor-directed film is slated to hit theaters July 2, 2015.

I want to know when they're gonna focus on who plays the Terminator? Why does that seem to not be a priority? Don't tell me they're just gonna use some bodybuilder & CGI 'young' Ahnuld's likeness onto his body like they did in Terminator: Salvation? Puh-leazzzeee say no!

thecolorsblend wrote:I'm coming back to this. As far as all this remake/reboot shit is concerned, you know what's got to be coming next, right? The National Lampoon Vacation movies.

Anybody care to bet Will Ferrell would play Clark Griswold?

Actually, it was going to be Ed Helms....

http://www.denofgeek.us/movies/national-lampoon/103271/national-lampoons-vacation-rebootremake-stalls

National Lampoon's Vacation reboot/remake stalls

The brakes are applied to the new National Lampoon's Vacation movie, with "creative differences" the problem...

Hollywood's ongoing remakeathon has been showing no shortage of confidence in recent times, and just last week, we reported that work was pressing ahead on a new take on John Hughes' Weird Science. Not long before that, it was the Point Break remake we were talking about. And not too long before that, it was a new attempt to tackle National Lampoon's Vacation.

However, in spite of apparently attracting Chevy Chase back to reprise the role of Griswold Senior, Warner Bros has put the brakes on the project. It doesn't appear that it's been canned, but The Hollywood Reporter is citing "creative differences" as the reason why the pause button has been pressed.

We don't know who the differences are between, but it does seem that the point of disagreement is over whether to go for an R-rated comedy, or a broader PG-13 cut.

The movie was set to go before the cameras in July, with John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein set to direct, having penned the screenplay. Ed Helms remains aboard the project, as is Christina Applegate.

How long will the delay be? According to the report, "only a few months" or "later this year". It doesn't sound like the project is going to get shut down, rather that it's going to be retooled a little. More on it as we hear it.

The Hollywood Reporter

Oh boy!

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/180735-jason-clarke-in-talks-to-play-john-connor-in-the-terminator-reboot


Jason Clarke in Talks to Play John Connor in the Terminator Reboot

by Spencer Perry
December 11, 2013
Share this story




Deadline is reporting that Zero Dark Thirty actor Jason Clarke is in early talks to take on the role of John Connor in the upcoming Terminator reboot, which is rumored to be titled "Terminator: Genesis." This announcement comes just one week after "Game of Thrones" star Emilia Clarke emerged as the frontrunner for the Sarah Connor role, with Short Term 12's Brie Larson still in contention as well. 
Casting is still coming together for the project as it is reportedly looking to cast a new Kyle Reese, the father of John Connor, as well.
The first in a stand-alone trilogy, Terminator will be produced by Megan Ellison of Annapurna and David Ellison of Skydance. Dana Goldberg and Paul Schwake of Skydance will serve as executive producers. Laeta Kalorgridis (Avatar, Shutter Island) and Patrick Lussier (Drive Angry) are attached to write the screenplay.
 
The Alan Taylor-directed film is slated to hit theaters on July 2, 2015.

I know zilch about this guy but, excuse me, if this is a reboot with a young Sarah Connor, then shouldn't 1) John Connor not even be born yet or 2) at least be a kid?! This dude looks older than the women reputed to play his mother for crying out loud! Unless they've got him playing John from the future but if you'll remember T2, they had some dude do that at the very beginning for nothing more than a cameo. So were are they going with this? Beats me!

The cameo thing was my guess too. A flash forward like we saw in T2. Jason Clarke seems to be about the right age for that as Wiki shows him to be 44. Yeah, John Connor would be waging war against the machines right around then.

Put it this way, with the proviso that I know exactly jackshit else about the guy apart from that pic up there and his age, he's a lot closer to the mark for John than those CW starlets are for Sarah.

http://www.deadline.com/2013/12/emilia-clarke-terminator-sarah-connor-role/

‘Game Of Thrones’ Emilia Clarke Set For ‘Terminator’ In Sarah Connor Role
By MIKE FLEMING JR | Friday December 13, 2013 @ 3:26pm PST

EXCLUSIVE: It’s official. Emilia Clarke will play Sarah Connor in the Terminator reboot, re-teaming with director Alan Taylor, who has worked with Clarke in the HBO series Game Of Thrones. Clarke joins Jason Clarke, who is in negotiations to play her son John Connor in a storyline I’ve heard involved a trip into the future. Deadline revealed that he was in talks earlier this week. Arnold Schwarzenegger is also back in his signature cyborg role.

This was a hotly contested role and it came down to Clarke and Brie Larson. Both actresses tested for the producers at David Ellison’s Skydance and Megan Ellison’s Annapurna, and Paramount, which will release the film in July 2015. Clarke’s breakout role came in Thrones, where she plays the dragon-commanding heroine Daenerys Targaryen in that massive HBO series, and is probably the most sympathetic of all vying to rule. She started as a shy sister of an annoying king brother, but has demonstrated the mettle to capably play one of the screen’s most formidable heroines as originated by Linda Hamilton in James Cameron’s first two films in the series. She’s repped by CAA and Emptage Hallett in the UK.

I love her on 'GoT', and I think she is just beautiful. So I'd be biased in my opinion of this casting....

Yeah, she is beautiful & all & I've never even seen a single episode of Game Of Thrones. Her acting may be fine too, don't know, but I have to wonder about this casting, mainly for similar concerns like Colors expressed. Like he pointed out, Linda Hamilton wasn't necessarily the most attractive woman there ever was but somehow she nailed the role of Sarah Connor, probably because she wasn't the most attractive, just an average everyday person. Now they come along with 'CW starlets' mentality in their casting decisions. So it just has to make you wonder if this is the direction they should go. Yeah, this girl is hot but..........Sarah Connor was a waitress, not a model. Food for thought?

For whatever reason, part of me is desperate to like the Terminator reboot. So maybe there's potential here that I'm just not seeing.