James Cameron will send the Terminator into the final battle.

While everyone is waiting for the premiere of the blockbuster "Terminator: Genisys", we reviewed the first two parts and all their versions and decided which of them is better.

Terminator Genisys, the fifth feature film in one of the greatest sci-fi film franchises of all time, will be released on July 2. In the original, however, there is not so much genesis (Terminator Genisys - something either about genetics, or about genius, and also about computer systems), but oh well. The most important and wonderful thing is that in this regard, in a number of countries around the world, the original film by James Cameron, from which the entire franchise began, will be re-screened. For example, in St. Petersburg at the Aurora cinema on June 25 and 26 you can see restored versions of the films “Terminator” and “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” in the original with Russian subtitles. We sincerely advise you not to miss such an opportunity.

True Terminator fans do not like the third and fourth films, considering the two films that Cameron personally directed to be canonical. Quoting the original, of course, pleases, but only at first - after all, it was not the quotes from the first film that made the second film strong, although there were plenty of quotes there. In the fifth, judging by the video, a special emphasis is placed on quotes:

The dreams of the appearance of “Terminator 3” were once so strong that I myself am surprised with what sincere joy I perceived back in 2003 all the nonsense that its generally good screenwriters Ferris and Brancato (Fincher’s “Game”) made for a long time inscribed themselves in the hall of fame). There were a lot of good things about Terminator 4 - e.g. cast— but the authors’ imagination went nowhere here, too. In general, neither T3 nor T4 became cultural milestones, and the series “The Sarah Connor Chronicles,” which was very high-quality in content but unimportant in terms of special effects, unfortunately lasted only two seasons. The creators of Terminator 5, judging by the trailers, set out to shake up the original, and James Cameron himself approved of this. This is interesting - many have wondered why Skynet didn't send the T-1000 to 1984, or even earlier - and that's exactly what seems to happen in the new film.

But instead of guessing whether the T5 will shoot or fail, in connection with the release of “Terminator 1” on the big screen, I still want to speculate about it and its great sequel (AFI included “Terminator 2” in the top ten greatest science fiction films along with “ A space odyssey", "Star Wars" and "Blade Runner").

The official legend is that Cameron saw the image of a robot chasing him from liquid metal in a nightmare when he fell ill during post-production of his directorial false start, Piranha 2. The level of development of special effects in the early eighties did not allow such an idea to be realized, so the T-1000 had to wait a few more years, and Cameron came up with another iconic image, turning the “grim reaper” (a skeleton with a scythe) known since the 15th century into a combination of hydraulics, a microprocessor and night vision device. He added a laser gun here and there and hired the services of the great Stan Winston to realize the concept with the help of makeup, animatronics and puppet animation. Computers were just coming into use at that time. everyday life, and the film, which combined fantasy and horror in its plot, played perfectly on the inevitable mass fears in such cases - the literal embodiment of the word “death machine” looked convincing. And when for “The Abyss” the ILM studio developed a morphing effect and tested it on a creature created from water, the time came to implement the original image that we all know from “Terminator 2”.

There is every reason to believe that Cameron had a duology in mind from the very beginning. A scene cut from Terminator 1 has been preserved, in which specialists from the factory where the decisive battle with the Terminator took place find his processor, which plays important role in the second picture. Half-dead Sarah is loaded into an ambulance, the camera rises, and a sign is visible on the factory building: Cyberdyne Systems. This is the name of the company that will later create a military computer that will destroy humanity.

Cameron cut this scene from the first film, and did absolutely the right thing. Firstly, it was not very successful acting: what a fake movement the guy had who was hiding the processor from a passing cop! And in general, the entire dialogue is too deliberately addressed to the viewer, as if it were an advertisement, and not a conversation between two engineers. Secondly, the ideological moment. It seems to be spectacular - look, the villainous fate has led the heroes to inevitability, but on the other hand, the picture is not fundamentally horror, evil should not triumph here, and Kyle did not die in the name of dramatic irony. And it is wrong to specify the source of evil. Clouds on the horizon are a much larger image of the coming war than a sign on a house. Thirdly, the scene somewhat disrupts the harmonious rhythm and brevity of the ending. In the same way, for the sake of rhythm, Cameron got rid of, for example, the shot where the Terminator, having killed the “wrong” Sarah Connor, gets into the car. In the final edit, the shooting immediately cuts to the cafe where the “real” Sarah works, but here’s what was filmed initially:

Fourthly - perhaps the director did not count on this, but it just so happened - the appearance of a hand and a dilapidated chip in Terminator 2 became, thanks to the cuts in the first film, a complete surprise, while the logic not only did not suffer, but also became even clearer. For example, the processor in the above scene seems to be intact, while in T2 they show that only a large fragment remains of it - and this is correct: the Terminator’s head in the finale of T1 was flattened with special gusto, the processor certainly had to be damaged. By the way, for this shot the head was made from the most ordinary foil, and the smoke actually came from a cigarette.

A small note: the arm and processor of the first Terminator were destroyed in the second film, then the Terminator dealt with its processor. Where did the hand go that the Terminator tore off himself when it was caught in a gear? :) It is believed that this is a blunder of the second film. However, the counterargument is simple: you can’t recreate Skynet by looking at it – the processor is more important.

There were other scenes in the first film that did not make it into the final cut. For example, like this:

Here you can see the beginnings of the future No Fate, which will appear in the second film. Michael Biehn gave a strong performance. On the other hand, according to the logic of the plot, it is too early for Sarah to take on such an active role, otherwise her transformation into a cool heroine preparing for war in the epilogue (“There is a storm coming - I know”) will not be so dramatic and strong. And Kyle's suffering over the lost nature weakens the dramatic effect of the famous scene in the future - the one where the children look at the fire in the empty TV case. In general, Cameron cut it all correctly. It seems a pity, it seems interesting to watch these scenes, and the film is only better without them.

The second film exists in three versions, and more is known about its abbreviations and additions. There are the original theatrical, "director's cut" and "extended" versions. I would call the director's most inventive in terms of special effects - from the theatrical version, for example, this scene was removed: the Terminator allows himself to open his skull in order to switch the processor to training mode. From the point of view of performance, everything is fine here: without any graphics, everything is done by Linda Hamilton, her twin sister, Eddie Furlong's stunt double, a Schwarzenegger doll from the back and the real Schwarzenegger in the “mirror” (there is actually a decoration there, not a reflection).

But is this scene necessary for the film? Yes, in it, John convinces Sarah, who is trying to destroy the processor, that they need the Terminator, but this already follows from the scene in the psychiatric hospital, where the Terminator saved Sarah, and from the subsequent dialogue in the car, gracefully interrupted by Sarah’s question “So what"s your story ? Yes, they switch the processor to learning mode, but the Terminator is capable of learning even without this procedure. In the first film, for example, he learned to say “fuck you, asshole” without any processor switches - at first this is what the punks from whom he takes away tell him clothes, then he himself responds with this remark to the cleaner who smelled an unpleasant odor from his hotel room.

By the way, in the version of the film for Spanish-speaking countries, instead of the famous Hasta la vista, John taught the Terminator to say Sayonara :)

In addition to the craniotomy, the theatrical version does not include the scene where John teaches the Terminator to smile at a gas station. No doubt, Schwarzenegger gave a Jim Carrey-level grimace there (judging by the T5 trailer, we will have to see this again), but this skill was of no use to him. The smile he uses later, when he picks up a machine gun, is different, and no explanation is required for it.

Cameron got rid of another dream where Kyle appears to Sarah right in her cell, as well as from being beaten by orderlies (in order for Sarah to hit the most vile of them with a stick in the theatrical version, it is enough that he licked her cheek). A two-minute scene was removed where the T-1000 walks through the house of John's guardians, examines his personal belongings and, having killed the dog, finds out that he was deceived during a phone call: the dog's name is Max, not Wolfie. This did not harm the logic of the plot in any way, but the picture became shorter and more dynamic. In addition, the T-1000 moves there completely unnaturally and even somehow comically.

An absolutely unnecessary scene where Miles Dyson works from home, but after a conversation with his wife begins to play with the children, went to the trash - Dyson’s line works much more effectively in the theatrical version, where Sarah tries to kill him, but realizes that he is good family man together with the viewer, and not after.

And finally, the main advantage of the theatrical version in relation to the “director’s” and “extended” versions is the climax. In the "director's" cut, the T-1000 has deteriorated slightly after being frozen: its limbs begin to take on the color and shape of whatever it touches. The hand is painted in fencing stripes, the feet stick to the floor.

From 1:52 to 2:18

There is nothing like this in the theatrical version, and this is dramaturgically correct: the Terminator is limping by the end, left without an arm, running on a spare battery - the invulnerable villain T-1000 looks scarier against his background than with the breakdowns that have appeared.

However, one small and unexplained, but visually and rhythmically effective detail of this cut line remained in the theatrical version, but few people realize that it is from the “director’s cut.” When the T-1000 pushes the Terminator's hand into a huge gear and turns towards the camera, either a wave or interference runs through it. In the theatrical version this happens only once, but in the “director’s cut” there is another such shot a little earlier - just after it they show that the T-1000’s legs involuntarily stick to the floor. Later in the director's cut, John uses these legs to distinguish the T-1000, pretending to be Sarah, from the real Sarah. In the rental version, the future leader of humanity is much smarter and recognizes his real mother almost instantly without any extra explanation.

From 6:30 to 6:43

The extended version is famous for its long and tedious epilogue, where an elderly Sarah Connor sees an adult John playing with children on the very playground where the film begins and where her nightmare takes place. The scene was deleted after negative reviews audience at the test screening. There is no doubt that the reason for this is, firstly, not very convincing makeup, and secondly, its heaviness. Sarah's final monologue, shortened almost to "If a machine, a Terminator, can learn the value of human life, maybe we can too", only with a night highway instead of a playground - a simple and very elegant move. On the other hand, this deleted scene completely eliminates the plot points of Terminator 3 and 4: the extended ending of T2, as originally intended by Cameron, denies any alternative branches of time, Sarah's "death" shortly before the events of Terminator 3 (Hamilton simply refused filmed, and the authors couldn’t come up with anything better than sending the heroine to the next world with the help of a fatal disease), and also cancels Judgment Day and, accordingly, the events of “Terminator 4”. Unsurprisingly, James Cameron is quite dismissive of the third and fourth films, but approves of the upcoming fan fiction set in 1984, but "differently."

For me, it is the “rental” version of “Terminator 2” that is ideal and canonical. "Blade Runner" is a different matter: the theatrical version failed, the director's version had big success. In the case of Terminator 2, the film was a great success at the box office, and the deleted scenes were more a means of attracting fans than something important to the plot.

In general, “Terminator 1” and “Terminator 2”, regardless of the presence or absence of a scene with an elderly Sarah Connor, are completely hermetic and do not imply the possibility of sequels like those that were implemented in T3 and T4: some kind of plot could have place during a war with machines, but certainly without hybrids like Marcus Wright. In Cameron's dilogy there are many references to the Gospel: the initials of John Connor - the savior of mankind - JC - are identical to Jesus Christ, played out virgin birth, self-sacrifice of a superman, resurrection and much more. If you develop Christian theory Terminator, the first film is Christmas, the second is Crucifixion and Easter. This is two key points in the biography of Christ. As long as the Gospel ends with the Ascension, and T2 ends with the Terminator's descent into molten metal, no other archetypes can be found for the plot of T1-T2, so any sequels will be nothing more than apocrypha and fan fiction, like this, only more expensive:

Which does not mean that they cannot be made with talent - but Cameron has already said the main thing.

P.S. It is necessary to add a few words about the terminology used in the article - “director’s”, “extended” and “distribution” versions. I used names characteristic of Runet. They came from Russian re-releases of "Terminator" on various media, following the examples of such films as "Blade Runner" and others, and have exclusively marketing meaning, but do not entirely correspond to reality: Cameron himself, with his director's versions of "Terminator" and "Terminator" 2" considers what was in wide release (unlike, by the way, from "Aliens"). The fact is that T1 and T2 are independent films, and Aliens was Cameron's first studio film, and 20th Century Fox, of course, cut the film a little differently than the director saw. It seems to me, however, that the introduction of Newt in the director's cut near the beginning of the film is not as dramatically strong as in the theatrical release, where Ripley finds her. But that's for another article :)

So, the correct nomenclature for T2 editions is:
- Theatrical Edition (film version - this is the Director's Cut)
— Special Edition(special edition)
- Special Extended Edition (special extended edition - with a search of John’s room and alternative ending— was released on discs only as an “Easter egg”)

Sensational news spread around Hollywood this morning. According to the publication Deadline, creator of "Terminator" James Cameron ready to take part in the final chapter of the saga of the battle between humans and machines.

Seven years later James presented to the public the second part of the film series, which managed to set new standards for the quality of filming Hollywood blockbusters. Making the sequel cost $102 million, which allowed it to become the most expensive film in history at that time. " Judgment Day» earned $519 million, and also won four awards " Oscar».

In my time Cameron planned to buy the rights to the franchise from a bankrupt studio Carolco Pictures, but its founders Mario Cassar and Andrew J. Vaina managed to get ahead of him. Eventually James preferred to engage in the implementation of other projects, and all attempts to make films about Terminator without his participation, they began to end in failure.

IN beginning of XXI century Kassar And Vaina organized a new film company called C2 Pictures. In 2003, the film “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” came out from under its wing, but a couple of years later the studio was forced to cease to exist. The rights to the film series were transferred to The Halcyon Company, which launched the film “Terminator: May the Savior Come.” The post-apocalyptic action movie was supposed to launch a new trilogy, but a year after its release, the owners of the franchise declared bankruptcy. Now " Terminator» owned by the company Skydance Productions, which has already managed to make one film about the battle for the future.

Insiders are still finding it difficult to say whether he will perform James only as the author of the idea and consultant of the project, or he will independently write the film script. There is a possibility that Skydance would prefer to film a continuation of the original duology Cameron, which will not take into account the events of the last three films. It is curious that more recently the owners of the Alien franchise could have used the same approach. In early 2015, director Neill Blomkamp made it clear that a direct sequel to Aliens Cameron, however, for now they preferred to put his project on the shelf.

According to insiders, Cameron does not apply for the director's chair of the new " Terminator", since in the next few years he will be busy filming four parts of the Avatar film series. In this regard, the main candidate for the position of director of the final film about the confrontation between people and Skynet is considered

The fate of the Terminator franchise is surprising and unique - after the two brilliant first films made by the direct inventor, inspirer and enthusiast of the series James Cameron, they tried to restore the robot from the future three times, and all three times without success. The game was not worth the candle either in the case of a female terminator, or in attempts to rewrite the canons, or in the launch alternate universe- every New film pompously announced grandiose plans for sequels, but failed miserably, receiving heels and pokes from fans and critics. And so, when, it would seem, there was only one road left - to scrap, the Terminator again showed signs of life. And this time the public is in a favorable mood, of course - the story returns to its roots. But is this good? Will it work? We have analyzed everything that this moment known about the upcoming film, and came to disappointing conclusions.

Let's take a look first known facts. Today the franchise consists of five feature films, a TV series, a line of video games and a number of books and comics that are related to each other the most difficult relationships, multiplying essence beyond measure. The first two films are considered canonical, the rest is perceived even by fans with skepticism - some do not perceive the grown-up John Connor, some are not ready to come to terms with the changed Sarah Connor, for some there is no “Terminator” without Arnold Schwarzenegger. For simplicity, let's discard everything that goes beyond big screen, and let's see what the sixth film has to offer that makes future potential viewers so excited.

So, Top news: James Cameron regains the rights to the franchise characters and undertakes to write the script for a new film. The famous director chose the ending of “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” as the starting point for the upcoming film, that is, in fact, the story will return to the canon, brush aside all unsuccessful attempts at sequels and reboots and continue a single end-to-end plot. The return to roots has already been supported not only by Schwarzenegger, who is ready to work with Cameron on any terms, but also by Linda Hamilton, whose invitation to the new film was recently announced by the studio - Sarah Connor will be added to the Terminator. The sixth film in the series is intended as a launching pad for a “reassembly” with an eye to a new trilogy, and the director of “Deadpool” Tim Miller is currently listed as the director. That, in fact, is all the news in summary. Oh yes - the new appearance of the Terminator on screens is scheduled for 2020.

Edward Furlong, Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Cameron on the set of Terminator 2: Judgment Day

At first glance, the announcement is truly inspiring - the “old guard” is gathering, putting the “young and daring” behind the wheel, brushing off the dust from the yellowed pages and preparing to bring the Truth to the world. But this is only the first impression, just think about the above facts, and the sad truth will be revealed: the new Terminator risks turning out to be an even more disastrous adventure than its predecessors, and what looks winning now may turn out to be weights that will drag the franchise to the bottom forever, because After the recognized authority and creator of the universe, there are hardly anyone willing to restore what was lost.

What is most disturbing about the news about the so-called “Terminator 6”? It's hard to choose - under a skeptical lens, every news from the camp of a new project makes you despondent. Let's take Cameron's participation in the creation of the film. Great news, but pay attention to the fact that the master keeps some distance from “T6” - he is in currently is not listed as a director, not a producer, not even a screenwriter, he is still just the author of the idea, which in the finale may well turn into a line in the credits “Based on the characters of James Cameron.” This distancing can be explained by the fact that Cameron is busy with film set sequels to "Avatar", but this is little consolation - if a new flight to Pandora for the author has higher value, which means that the Terminator will receive attention on a residual basis. But that’s not all - did you know that Cameron rarely takes on sequels at all, his only return to previous heroes was “Terminator”, but then, according to the director himself, he told everything he had in two films about this theme. What other continuation could there be? But what about “Avatar 2”, you may object. But no way. So far, the sequels to the highest-grossing film in history look grandiose scam, it is as difficult to believe in their reality as in “Bad Boys 3” or “Indiana Jones 5” - there are a lot of words, but zero action.

Next, let’s “rejoice” for Tim Miller. But here’s the thing, “Deadpool” is so far the only movie that we can focus on, and it doesn’t shine at all in terms of action. Yes, yes, remember what's good about Deadpool. Dirty jokes, black humor, verbal sparring with the main characters, visuals where attention needs to be paid to details. But the two main fight scenes in the film are no good - the fight in the laboratory and the destruction at the landfill were not at all impressive. But the Terminator will always require tension in the action. Is Miller capable of the level of adrenaline that still surges to this day when watching the final battle at the factory in the first part or the escape from the T-100 in the sequel? Doubtful. At least, nothing guarantees success yet.

Another important victory for Cameron is the involvement of two main stars in the project. original painting- Arnold Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton. But, let's be honest, the return to the screens of stars whose shine faded three decades ago is only a so-so achievement. Canon is canon, but Hamilton, for example, is not able to bring additional viewers to cinemas from the word “completely”. Such an actress simply does not exist in the reality of the modern “movie-era”; the authors are not counting on forty-year-old “veterans” - especially since you can’t drag them into the cinema. To be fair, we do not know today how many roles will be written for the stars of the first film. It is quite possible that Arnie will again “play” the robot’s computer-generated face, and Linda will appear in a flashback for half a minute. But if Cameron and Miller believe that two old horses will not spoil the furrow, then this is a mistake; the continuation of this proverb was not invented by the people in vain.

Just as we don’t know the details of what Hamilton and Schwarzenegger will do on set, the plot of the new film is also shrouded in secrecy. So far, at the level of rumors, only what is known about what awaits the audience in the upcoming production new character, resisting the uprising of the machines, and this is attention! - there will be a woman. What can I say to this? On the one hand, “Terminator” has always been a franchise with a serious admixture of feminism in the plot, perhaps only McG in his “Let the Savior Come” pushed women further into the background. Do the authors want to follow traditions or is this a simple attempt to be in the trend set by the new “Star Wars”, the return of “Lara Croft” and the popularity of “Mad Max” and “Atomic Blonde”? Another thread connects the hypothetical T6 with The Force Awakens - Cameron said that after all the “garbage” that has come out since 1991, the franchise needs a “rethink.” They also talked about rethinking at the launch of the new trilogy “ Star Wars“, but the result was a female “New Hope” - and in the new “Terminator” there is no need to invent anything.

Let us correct ourselves once again that there is still too little information about the project, but from the bits that were conveyed to the audience, we should not rush to draw optimistic conclusions. Cameron doesn't seem to be involved in the process, Miller doesn't look like an ideal candidate for the role of director, Schwarzenegger and Hamilton don't seem like the kind of people who would launch a movie into space orbit with their mere presence, and the plot hints involving the construction of the T-800 sound unconvincing. But, as in the three previous iterations with sequels, a move towards a trilogy, a restart and a new concept have already been announced. It's all sad.

It is clear that Cameron reluctantly continues to speculate on a well-worn topic. It is clear that the former governor of California wants to eat. It is clear that the name “Terminator” continues to sound loudly even after repeated punctures. But isn’t it better to give up on the old heroes and do something new, not inferior to the science fiction hits of the end of the last century? Is there an interesting concept that plays into time travel? Write original script, stop creaking with old iron. Do you want to photograph the graying Schwartz? So come up with a worthy role for him, and don’t force him to feign tears over his family who died in a plane crash. Do you have a goal to become famous? Take on the new and unknown, stop reanimating corpses. Otherwise, Skynet’s first task in the future will not be to search for Sarah Connor in the past, but to destroy all the Terminator sequels, starting with the third part. Even if the name of the founding father appears in the credits.