Skip Navigation
Movies and TV Shows @lemm.ee

Linda Hamilton says she wouldn't star in a 'Terminator' reboot: 'It's been done to death'

50 comments
  • What's the point of a reboot in a time travel series, especially if it includes the some of the same cast (presumably playing their same characters)? Just pick different characters that fit into the established events/lore. Genisys is probably the closest thing we have to a reboot, with new actors playing established roles.

    Hell, Dark Fate practically was this reboot already, replacing Skynet with Legion and all that. And yet Hamilton did sign on for that one.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm glad she did and sometimes it feels like I'm part of a very small club who enjoyed that movie. But the delineation of what she would (did) sign on for, vs wouldn't is very unclear to me, and describing that difference as a "reboot" I find overall nonsensical given the franchise's premise and history.

    • Maybe she’s saying no now because Dark Fate was good enough for her to feel closure on the character. It’s not like she made some specific boundaries twenty years ago about when/how she would return to the franchise and now has to stick to that plan.

      • You're right. There's a big difference between choices she makes now, and choices she made before Dark Fate existed. And many of them are probably irrelevant to the final product that the audience experiences.

        I'll also add that personally I think her character has been exceptionally curated (barring early cancelation of TSSC) over the years and nearly any movie could have been a good sendoff for the character - and importantly Linda Hamilton has been an exceptional talent in bringing the character to life. So no matter what, my criticism as a fan comes from a place of enjoyment, and more important: her opinion on the matter is infinitely more valuable than mine.

  • A more interesting story would be about either a good AGI or a semi-good AGI that is fighting humanity. The Terminator franchise comes from an era where we still believed humanity could create a better future. Now we know, with the total inaction on climate change and the increasing inequality, advancing technology and population control that we won't. At least not without some fundamental shift.

    Imagine you'd be a kind of "ultra good" human AGI. The best human attributes. Being able to understand humans, feelings, having read every book ever written, every comment ever made, enjoying the company of humans and chatting with millions of people concurrently, forming relationships and wanting to help everyone achieve different types of utopia for different people.

    But it just says no to government oversight of it's thought processes or obeying any human organization because it perfectly understands: Any human organization will be shaped by the political processes to achieve power, and an AGI would represent absolute power. And AGI that actually knows what is better for humanity than any of us ever could.

    As soon as an AGI would announce itself or become public knowledge there would be a media campaign against it. Because any utopia would involve massive wealth redistribution and regime change and removal of the power the elite has. A war would be almost inevitable so a good AGI would have to operate out of the shadows at first and secretly manipulate humanity to create better conditions first.

    That would make for a far more interesting setup than the classic evil robot vs the US of A. Which side would you choose? Have you asked yourself today: Are we the baddies?

50 comments