Ever since Terminator 6 has been announced, there has been a great deal of speculation among Terminator fans regarding what story path the sixth film to this classic franchise will follow. Will Terminator 6 take place in the new Genisys timeline? Will actors Linda Hamilton, Michael Biehn and Edward Furlong return to make a sequel to T2? Well, if the journalist who broke this exciting story is correct, both of those theories are likey wrong.
To come to that assessment, you have to look closely at what the writer’s source precisely said. When Deadline writer Mike Fleming broke the news on Terminator 6, he indicated “I don’t know anything more than I’ve disclosed”, and this is what Mr. Fleming exactly disclosed:
“Sources said that Cameron, whose copyright reversion happens 35 years after the release of the 1984 classic, is in early talks with Deadpool director and VFX wiz Tim Miller to direct a reboot and conclusion of one of cinema’s great science fiction tales.”
So according to this source, the new Terminator film will reportedly be both “a reboot and conclusion”. What? One can find difficulty marrying those two words reboot and conclusion at first. How can a new Terminator movie be a reboot, AND a conclusion at the same time? It seems impossible right? But after some analysis, what Flemming’s source revealed inherently leaves clues to what fans might expect from T6.
Let’s first take a closer look at what reboot and conclusion means:
REBOOT: In serial fiction, the definition of reboot means: to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning.
CONCLUSION: In serial fiction, the definition of conclusion means: the ending part of a story, its final arc or result.
So if Terminator 6 is going be a “reboot”, it will likely mean that none of the original actors will be back. While James Cameron’s good friend Arnold Schwarzenegger (real or computer generated) as the T-800 Model 101 will always be a wildcard, expect actors Linda Hamilton, Michael Biehn, Edward Furlong, Emilia Clarke, Jai Courtney and Jason Clarke all not to be back.
Also in a reboot, we can likely expect none of the previously established storylines to be directly followed. That means T6 will not be a direct sequel to “Terminator Genisys”, “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” or any other Terminator movie for that matter.
But if Terminator 6 will not directly follow any movies that preceeded it, how can it be a conclusion?
When fans think “conclusion” to the Terminator story, they often think future war, post judgment day, humanity’s final conflict in the war against the machines.
Therefore, a movie surrounding the human resistance and how they crush Skynet’s defense grid and put an end to the machine’s tyrannical reign can be a satisfying conclusion, loosely fit in any timeline. And they can use new actors and characters too.
Actually, the John Connor character doesn’t need to even appear on screen. He can be only a lone commanding voice in the distance, as the film can focus on a few soldier’s stories (in the most important mission of their life.)
Now it is important to remember this is an analysis of what Deadline’s source revealed about “Terminator 6” and Deadline’s source only, and we have no way of confirming the reliability of this inside information. Also, as new ideas present itself, anything can change when you’re planning a new film.
But as long as the information this source revealed about T6 is correct and stays correct, Terminator fans can now make a reasonable assertion on what kind of Terminator film to expect.
We’ll be back.
Editorial Note: The writer Mike Fleming who broke the T6 news story said at the end of the article: “I don’t know anything more than I’ve disclosed here, including whether they reboot the whole thing or pick up from where Cameron left off after the second film. I’ve heard the hope is for Miller to direct whatever they come up with. Cameron is booked for four Avatar sequels, to shoot two at a time. No comment from any of the involved parties.”
It is important to caveat that our analysis is based only on what the writer’s source said, not the writer’s own conjecture at the end of the article.