Aged Terminator a fact?! More inconsistencies!?

Be prepared... this is a LONG read!

So. A lot of on-set photographs popped-up that feature almost the entire Terminator: Genesis cast, apparently rehearsing and shooting one Terminator Genesis scene. And the first thing fans notice is the older, greyish Arnold. Does this mean an aged Terminator is a fact? And what about the second thing fans notice? Why are there differently aged characters all in one scene?!

Actually... the first thing I personally wondered about was; What is the dead teddy bear doing on the floor? One of our forum-members was quick to react and said it might have been an 'Impromptu Silencer.' ;).

And so the debating on T5 continues, now fuelled by these on-set images. Why is there an older CSM-101 Arnold model in this scene? Why is Sarah Connor younger than John Connor? Why does she have black/brown hair, when she clearly was a blonder woman in the first The Terminator movie?!

Some fans extrapolate the images like crazy, whilst others couldn't care less... and just want to wait and see what the movie itself will bring us.

Maybe the Arnold in this image is NOT a Terminator and just another character? And Sarah Connor not having the right hair color? I myself didn't notice it that much, until one fan brought it up.

Hot in latest Terminator news?!

It started with UK based The Daily Mail, launching its article and a few set images, telling us that "They can travel through time, but can't turn back the years. Schwarzenegger, 66, reveals his Terminator will be covered in 'aged' human skin in sci-fi series' new film".

Schwarzenegger is seen in jeans with a khaki jacket, and of course, some grey hair... which by the way doesn't look far from his haircut as seen in T2: Judgment Day or T3: Rise of the Machines.

If he IS playing a Terminator in this scene, it can only mean one thing: Terminators age! Fans have talked about this themselves over the years, and even some (un)official sources -last I checked- confirmed that the skin and hair on a Terminator is able to age. Just as it is able to heal, as quoted by Arnold's T-800 character in Terminator 2: Judgment Day's garage scene.

Schwarzenegger himself has revealed how the writers have come up with a plot that involves cyborgs ageing ...as it was the only way they could explain why his T-800 looks older with grey hair.

From an interview with MTV:

"Terminator deals a lot with time travel, so there will be a younger T-800, and then what that model does later on when it gets reprogrammed, and who gets a hold of him. So it will be all kinds of interesting twists in the movie, but I feel so good."

"The way that the character is written, it's a machine underneath. It's this metal skeleton. But above that is human flesh. And the Terminator's flesh ages, just like any other human being's flesh. Maybe not as fast. But it definitely ages."

The Daily Mail article tells us that Arnold was acting out a scene alongside Emilia Clarke, 27, who in Game of Thrones had blond hair, but now is a brunette for her role as Sarah Connor.

Seems logic, until one fan on our forum realised that in T1, she actually was a blond, right?!

The article also states they are shooting 'in New Orleans on Wednesday'. So this must be last Wednesday, right? Which would make it May 28th? Or maybe the Wednesday before that, May 21st?

Why even wonder? Coming to that bit in a sec.

John Connor, played by Jason Clarke, 44, is also in the same scene. Mmm. This means an older John, (in a suit, I might add?!) talking to a younger Sarah Connor... and, oh wait... who is that standing next to her... eeuhm a buffed-up Jai Courtney, 28, who of course plays Kyle Reese.

This clearly IS a time-travel movie!

<rant>
A time-travel movie which has a lot of different characters from different time-frames all in one scene... where one character has grey hair (which is explained)... yet three other characters have totally different appearances then could be seen in any of the previous movies?! Aargh!!!
</rant>

Of course, the studios can always say... "Its a reboot!"

More exclusive goodies online!

A few hours later, an undisclosed blogger sent us some exclusive images, which (on a side-note, as we found out ourselves through some creative Google image searching) also appeared in an article on JustJared.

Though heavily mixed, with a lot of duplicates and some zoomed in images (clearly visible by the grain), the images give us a nice view of the entire scene... and the dead teddy bear.

We have included them here... and will also feature them in our soon to be relaunched T5: Genesis section, featuring the latest and greatest Terminator: Genesis info.

EXIF data doesn't lie!

As reported through a teaser image on TerminatorFiles' Facebook, Twitter and (its lesser used) Google+ accounts... the EXIF data within the posted photographs does not lie (except if altered, which is somewhat work intensive to say the least).

We always proclaim 'We have detailed files!' Not being satisfied with the cluttered images on our hard-drive, we deleted all double and zoomed images... and checked if the images had any additional information available in their EXIF data (Google it, its very useful!).

Enter the next inconsistency... that most of the sourced articles got wrong, or were (deliberately) misinformed about?! Most articles proclaimed that the images were shot during a scene that took place on a Wednesday. Last Wednesday, May 28th? Or maybe a week ago, May 21st? Or even the week before that, May 14th?

Its none-of-the-above!

Checking the EXIF data on some of the images tells us that the photos were shot by artist 'AKED JAXN' with a 'Canon EOS 5D Mark III' for 'AKM Images / GSI Media'.

They were ALL shot on May 16th, 2014. Thats a Friday, folks! From the few images we have, they are shot between (hh:mm:ss) '09:07:48' (image 001 above) and '10:47:48' (image 028 above). I'm not quite sure if this is AM or PM. Ooh well.

Some other interesting EXIF data tells us that the flash did not fired (which is somewhat handy in a covert operation, if that is even the case), 'they' used a focal length of 800mm (nice lens!) and the original images had a resolution of 5184-3456 pixels.

Unless the cameras date and time indicator is faulty, or the camera man set it incorrectly, which does not seem plausible for a professional.

Maybe, some day, we'll be presented with the high-resolution versions of these 'inconsistency provoking' images ;). Or at least some less grainy zoomed in versions.

Inconsistency provoking? Fans unite! Or rather... divide?

While I personally was only wondering about the dead teddy bear... lots of other Terminator fans posted their own thoughts online, on sources like Facebook, Twitter... or our very extensive T5 status / info forum topic.

I could write my own review of what is being said, but quoting some of the fans posts might give you an idea how these images unite or divide fans. I did shorten some of their posts, or improved their readability.

Want to read them in full? Check their original form within the T5 status / info topic. The link skips to page 71, of 1.071 posts, somewhere around said set images ;).

RossBondReturns

The most interesting thing for me in the pictures is that the man in the suit is Jason Clarke... aka John Connor all grown up. So the question must be asked: 'What happened in the future that made John Connor come back through time?'

Also Arnie seems to be in 'deadly serious mode', which is great! And the look on Emelia's face as she aims her gun at John Connor is also an interesting one to speculate on. Something tells me there will be things explained during this scene.

Man each new bit of news gets me further hyped for the film!

blakebonnie

I've seen a photo and I'm unsatisfied. The only thing I did like on that photo was Arnold's serious killer look, that's it. And that's saying a lot!

craigterminator

I'm not impressed by the pics at ALL! I hate the fact that John is going back! Sarahs hair is not the right colour as in T1, one thing I hated about the TV series's Sarah... and if they've gone through the effort of recreating 1984, why not bleach her fucking hair to match!

And Kyle... Well, he looks in no way like Kyle Reese. That Boyde Holbrook guy looked better! This shit looks like a feature version of concepts and tacky shite of the TV series!

ggctuk

You haven't seen the movie. You've seen a single picture. A single picture is not nearly enough to base an opinion off of. If I'd been put off by a single picture, there's a whole bunch of movies that I love right now that I'd have never seen.

This is what I find wrong, I think: before you've even seen any of it, before you actually know for certain what the story's about, you've rejected it. You want a future war film? Fine. You want to see a film where The Terminator bounces through a field full of fluffy bunnies while flute music plays in the background? That's great. But dismissing this film because it's not what you want, based on one picture and what at this point aside from the casting is a bunch of conjecture (and we don't even know for certain what everybody's playing, I might add) is wrong in my book.

The only thing I can say for certain is that this film is on course to be as divisive as Star Trek was.

PaynetotheMax

I'm doubting the theory that Future War John Connor tags along with Reese to go into the past. What we're seeing in the set photos is probably an alternate future that has been created as a result of events in 1984.

TheLaw128

But I don't get how John Connor can exist in this 'alternate future' if he was never conceived to start with. I mean, if Kyle and Sarah jump forward in time during the events of 1984, then how was John born in 1985?

Are we to assume that Sarah will give birth at some point in the film, drop John off with Todd and Janelle, then go on a super fun time adventure to the future? This smells like a circus...

saddestmoon

I'm liking what I'm seeing - in fact, I'm extremely excited about Genesis :). I also believe it's waaaaaay too early to be writing this movie off, based on the few images seen thus far.

It seems like some peeps round these parts are absolutely 'champing-at-the-bit' to dismiss this movie, based on very little, and using a lot of hyperbole in their negativity (which all seems extremely presumptuous and premature, IMO).

Uncanny Antman

Long-time fans have been burnt twice now, so I kind of get the knee-jerk reaction to go negative on this one. I remain cautiously optimistic for now. Because I always look forward to the possibility of another good Terminator film. Will this be one? Only time will tell.

Although I'm not sold on the Kyle or John casting yet. :)

T-8bit

I'm very sceptical of this movie as I have been for the past two, but regardless of that I still remain hopeful as I did back then. I want this movie to be good, and I think it has the possibility to, though maybe not the probability.

I will walk into the theatre with an open mind. Dismissing a movie based on scant information and a few photos just smacks of Chicken Little.

T900 102

Jason Clarke has no scar in those pics, so this definitely is NOT the John Connor we know from the future. Either this is John Connor from an alternate future where Judgment Day hasn't happened, or even more crazy, this is the John Connor whose father is not Kyle Reese.

Any ideas, thoughts, opinions?

What are your own thoughts on the matter? Enter our DISQUS comments below, or join in on the fun over at our own TerminatorFiles forums. We 'only' got 979 members, who've entered 84.238 posts in 3.900 topics ;). Enter you?

comments powered by Disqus