Pop culture obsessives writing for the pop culture obsessed.

Jason Clarke sad he didn't get to be in more lousy Terminator sequels

Photo: Albert L. Ortega (Getty Images)

[This article discusses plot details from Terminator Genisys, in case avoiding plot spoilers for Terminator Genisys was a big part of your life.]

2015's Terminator Genisys committed any number of minor cinematic crimes, not least of which its offenses against the concept of spelling. Perhaps the most bizarre of these transgressions, though, was the decision—which felt, even at the time, like a very blatant case of “plot twist just for the heck of it”—to reveal halfway through the movie that the unstoppable CGI baddie at its core was Jason Clarke’s John Connor, as in the John Connor that everyone had spent the last four movies trying to protect and/or conceive so that he could save the world.


Now, this isn’t Clarke’s fault—you shoot the script you’re given, after all, and he made the best of turning one of the franchise’s iconic heroes into a largely personality-free killing machine—but it was still baffling enough that we’re not exactly sad that the upcoming Tim Miller-directed, James Cameron-approved Terminator: Dark Fate won’t be continuing this particular plot thread. But you know who is sad? Jason Clarke, who dipped into Genisys tyalk during a recent THR interview about his soon-to-be released Pet Sematary remake.

Clarke’s comments on the topic of time traveling murder machines were a mixture of wistful “It was going to get good!” and “Why didn’t daddy love us more?”, noting that “I wish [Cameron] had been more involved as he is now,” and that “Everyone wanted that Terminator to work. The stories that came afterwards were really exciting.” Of course, being a veteran professional, Clarke’s also pretty clear-eyed about why it didn’t, expressing a wish that the film’s marketing had kept things a little closer to its chest, and adding, “There’s no point in hanging on to the what-ifs. That’s part of acting; it’s moment-to-moment. You can’t be dwelling on what happened because you’re not going to get it in the present.” Even, presumably, with a “present” as convoluted as the one on display in this particular franchise.

Share This Story

Get our newsletter