Terminator 6 (film) - The coolest/best thing I've ever heard Schwarzenegger say

[JDP]

Hopefully it will never happen (either a remake of the first one or any other new sequel/prequel.) Everything after T2 = pure nonsense intended to milk the Terminator cow, to the very last drop.

[Neil]

Hopefully it will never happen (either a remake of the first one or any other new sequel/prequel.) Everything after T2 = pure nonsense intended to milk the Terminator cow, to the very last drop. You and your milking cows to the last drop fetish Can you imagine what a remake of the original Terminator flick would be like? As good as the Total Recall remake maybe?

[JDP]

You and your milking cows to the last drop fetish Can you imagine what a remake of the original Terminator flick would be like? As good as the Total Recall remake maybe? The first Terminator movie is one of those quintessential films that should NEVER be fucked with, under no pretext. It's like trying to remake John Carpenter's The Thing. "No", just... "NO!" "N" and "O", spells "NO". For fuck's sake, "NO!" means "NO!"

[bassman]

I certainly agree with you. Most movie fans would. But, it’s the entertainment BUSINESS. For the very same reasons we saw four lower-quality sequels after T2, it’s inevitable that a remake WILL happen at some point. To be fair, Carpenter’s The Thing is a remake itself. Much like Cronenberg’s The Fly, it’s a rare example of an amazing remake. The most we can do is hope that when Terminator is remade, it’s someone with a good vision. But if you’re expecting it to never happen, you’re only fooling yourself, ya know?

[beat_truck]

But.... But....They remade Carpenter's The Fog and that was.... never mind.

[MinionZombie]

Can you imagine what a remake of the original Terminator flick would be like? An orgy of iffy CGI, relentless editing and shaky cam, blunt force on-the-nose dialogue obsessed with identity politics over complex characterisation mistaking "strong" for "brilliant at everything", crowbarred-in 'humour' where people state what has literally just happened (or is going to happen) with an ounce of incredulity, copying all of the key scenes we remember but doing them worse and replacing effective practical effects with shite CGI copies (a la ANOES 2010), and cap it all off with the themetune remixed by fucking Fall Out Boy? The first Terminator movie is one of those quintessential films that should NEVER be fucked with, under no pretext. It's like trying to remake John Carpenter's The Thing. "No", just... "NO!" "N" and "O", spells "NO". For fuck's sake, "NO!" means "NO!" So in other words you're open to the possibility? I certainly agree with you. Most movie fans would. But, it’s the entertainment BUSINESS. For the very same reasons we saw four lower-quality sequels after T2, it’s inevitable that a remake WILL happen at some point. To be fair, Carpenter’s The Thing is a remake itself. Much like Cronenberg’s The Fly, it’s a rare example of an amazing remake. The most we can do is hope that when Terminator is remade, it’s someone with a good vision. But if you’re expecting it to never happen, you’re only fooling yourself, ya know? I'd argue that JC's The Thing is as much a re-telling of the source book as it is a remake of The Thing From Another World. It's a combination of both, but I've never considered The Thing 1982 to be a 'remake' per se. However, yes, not all remakes are bad - but at the same time, not all films (very few, in fact) need to be remade. If you can really bring something new to it, with a talented writer and director team in charge (e.g. The Fly 1986, as you say), then there can be something to get out of it. Sometimes a 're-quel' may be in order. As for Terminator - you could maybe do a 'Rogue One' by making future war movie that tells the story of the resistance (lead by JOHN CONNOR, alright, none of this "Legion" bullshit) smashing Skynet's defence grid and making their way to the Time Displacement machine in order to send Kyle Reese back in time and then that links up with T1. Or, make a future war movie (or movie series, if the first proves good enough) that is set elsewhere in the Terminator world with totally different characters. Surely Skynet has a stranglehold over the entire globe, not just Los Angeles/the USA. You could tell parallel stories in 2 or 3 locations around the world as a coordinated effort to bring down Skynet unfolds. In fact, you could tie that in to the smashing of Skynet's defence grid, that that is what it was leading towards. You'd start the movie small and then keep expanding outwards to reveal a much bigger globally coordinated action to take down Skynet. Tell a story or stories within the established world (i.e. Legion etc can fuck right off) with the established T-800s and T-1000s (and T-600s, HKs etc) but with new characters ... and get rid of the 'super Terminator' bullshit, too. But.... But....They remade Carpenter's The Fog and that was.... never mind. I saw a couple of clips of that one time ... woof ... what a turd.

[JDP]

I'd argue that JC's The Thing is as much a re-telling of the source book as it is a remake of The Thing From Another World. It's a combination of both, but I've never considered The Thing 1982 to be a 'remake' per se. Yes, John Carpenter's movie is not really a "remake" of the 1950s movie. His film is actually closer to the original source material. And just like The Terminator, it should NOT be fucked with, EVER! The chances of a remake surpassing or even just matching the original are very slim. Very few of them have managed to do that. The mentioned 1986 The Fly remake and the 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers being examples of those rare instances. And also notice that the few examples that can be found were made in past decades as well, like the 1970s and 80s. I can't recall any more modern remakes that have managed to pull the "matching/surpassing the original" act. Most of the time they do in fact stink to high heaven.

[shootemindehead]

The first Terminator movie is one of those quintessential films that should NEVER be fucked with, under no pretext. You're too late lad. It's already been destroyed with a load of insipid sequels.

[MinionZombie]

The chances of a remake surpassing or even just matching the original are very slim. Very few of them have managed to do that. The mentioned 1986 The Fly remake and the 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers being examples of those rare instances. And also notice that the few examples that can be found were made in past decades as well, like the 1970s and 80s. I can't recall any more modern remakes that have managed to pull the "matching/surpassing the original" act. Most of the time they do in fact stink to high heaven. The '78 IOTBS is a good one. Matches the 1950s original, but it has its own 70s spin on it while also living up to what the material should be. The '78 version also works as a sort of 'joint project' beside the original, never denigrating it or ignoring it ... you could almost, at a stretch, consider it a sort of 'sequel'/'sidequel' of sorts as Kevin McCarthy turns up at one point wailing panic. There have been some good remakes, although pretty much all the good ones never match let alone surpass the original. I'd argue that "The Crazies" (2010) pretty much sits alongside The Crazies (1973), though. I think each film does certain things better than the other, so they both kind of even out in terms of hits and misses. I'd still take the original over the remake, mind, but the remake worked surprisingly well. I would like to see more films that didn't quite work first time around get remade, films that you could do something cool with - like "Drive-In Massacre", which I've always had an odd fascination with as something I'd like to remake.

[beat_truck]

I am so sick of remakes and reboots that are pure garbage that I just flat out refuse to watch them anymore unless I hear from multiple sources that they are worth watching. I have wasted enough time and money on turds over the years. I surely hope that they don't attempt to remake The Terminator, but I would not be very surprised if they do. God forbid Hollyweird does anything new and original instead of lazy, repetitive cash-ins. I was talking to someone yesterday, and I asked, do they not realize they are making dog shit when they are in the process of filming it? Don't they play these movies before test audiences and realize that they are garbage before they release them, or what? Or is the average person just an idiot and will eat up any crap that the studios pump out? I just don't understand how this many horrid remakes get released into the wild. Just look at The Wicker Man. Did they not realize that they were making a complete joke of a movie, or did they just not care? And yes, the remake of The Fog was a steaming pile of a with a complete WTF of an ending. I am ashamed to say I wasted money on it.

[JDP]

The "remake" bullshit has gotten so bad that even Cabin Fever, which just came out in 2002, was "remade" in 2016!

[shootemindehead]

The '78 IOTBS is a good one. Matches the 1950s original, but it has its own 70s spin on it while also living up to what the material should be. The '78 version also works as a sort of 'joint project' beside the original, never denigrating it or ignoring it ... you could almost, at a stretch, consider it a sort of 'sequel'/'sidequel' of sorts as Kevin McCarthy turns up at one point wailing panic. There have been some good remakes, although pretty much all the good ones never match let alone surpass the original. I'd argue that "The Crazies" (2010) pretty much sits alongside The Crazies (1973), though. I think each film does certain things better than the other, so they both kind of even out in terms of hits and misses. I'd still take the original over the remake, mind, but the remake worked surprisingly well. I would like to see more films that didn't quite work first time around get remade, films that you could do something cool with - like "Drive-In Massacre", which I've always had an odd fascination with as something I'd like to remake. I'd argue that both the 1978 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' and the 2010 'The Crazies' are very much the superiors to their older incarnations. Especially so in the case of the Romero film. And something like 'The Fly' offers up a different take with regards to special effects and a level of disgust that the original wasn't able to reach. But generally, with respect to remakes, I am against them. They rarely, rarely, work in part or in whole. And sure, Hollywood has had a history of remaking movies. But there's a difference to remaking like say, 'Ben-Hur' as a talkie in the 50's and doing it again in the 2010's. The dynamic of remaking a silent film into a colour, talking, picture offers up a brand new experience. But just remaking something that's essentially just separated by a period of time is pointless. I suppose remaking junk like 'The Toolbox Murders' or having another go at mediocre movies doesn't bother me as much as remaking films that were good when they were done before. I reckon Hollywood never understood the concept of if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[EvilNed]

To be fair, Carpenter’s The Thing is a remake itself. Much like Cronenberg’s The Fly, it’s a rare example of an amazing remake. The most we can do is hope that when Terminator is remade, it’s someone with a good vision. But if you’re expecting it to never happen, you’re only fooling yourself, ya know? The source material of The Thing was not the original film, but the novel on which the original film was very losely based. As for remakes, I'm actually starting to get around to the idea of them. Don't like em? Don't watch em. Worst case scenario it brings new attention to the original. Best case - we get a great film. So what's the fuzz?

[JDP]

Imagine someone trying to "rewrite" Homer, or Chaucer, or Shakespeare, or Cervantes, or Victor Hugo, or Jules Verne, or Edgar Alan Poe, etc. "NO!", just "NO!", "N" and "O" and "!" = "NO!"

[beat_truck]

I always though of Shakespeare as ancient gibberish that I resented having been forced down our throats in school, but to each their own.