James Cameron working on a new Terminator movie

[DarkFell]

oxy8udgWRmo
https://media.giphy.com/media/eosdWg63G4MM0/giphy.gif

The trailer didn't grab me.

Otherwise, thanks for sharing.

[Andrew NDB]

Eh... trailer looks a little better than the other one? Still, it all seems samish. Recycled pieces from 3 and 4.

Also, Cameron talking more about his trilogy plans:

http://www.darkhorizons.com/cameron-talks-new-terminator-trilogy-plans/

[frank_one]

The trailer looks cool but nothing really new.

[newfan]

Hmm, well, I do like the trailer a little more than the last, I plan to see it. While it has things that have been done I am still interested to see the story which now takes place after T2, be it good or bad. While I don't have high hopes for a sequel as good as T2, can it be worse than those which were less successful? well, we'll see.

[Andrew NDB]

I want to understand the basic lay of the land. "I'm here to protect you!" "The future needs you!" blah blah, that stuff is all old hat.

[newfan]

I want to understand the basic lay of the land. "I'm here to protect you!" "The future needs you!" blah blah, that stuff is all old hat.

Yeah, they just made it someone else now instead.

[Sumac]

That's a much better trailer.
Its still smell of rehash and some crazy action scenes, typical to the modern era, but at least it looks like it will make some semblance of sense. As opposed to Salvation and Genisys.

Also, guy playing new bad Terminator is cool. Not creepy cool as T1000, but still cool in a comic book villain kind of way.

[CyberCubed]

Looks like it'll be a fun action movie at least. A good Terminator movie? Well it might be better than the last 3, but not by much. And I kinda liked Terminator 3.

[neatoman]

3wv6DC2HQE8

[Andrew NDB]

Apparently the T-800 endoskeletons in the new trailer... are visually the same ones as the ones seen in Genisys. With the angular, pointed chest piece and all.

[frank_one]

So, in the past Sarah Connor saved the world and now Skynet is after someone else (the mexican girl) and Sarah Connor wants to protect her because she understand what that means. I don't know, it doesn't sound so exciting, it's the same story over and over.

[TigerClaw]

I heard that its not Skynet any more. But something called Legion
https://terminator.fandom.com/wiki/Legion

[Andrew NDB]

So, in the past Sarah Connor saved the world and now Skynet is after someone else (the mexican girl) and Sarah Connor wants to protect her because she understand what that means. I don't know, it doesn't sound so exciting, it's the same story over and over.

Basically...

* Sarah Connor's actions in T2 only delayed Judgement Day a number of years. Like T3.

* Someone in the present is being targeted by a Terminator from the future because of what they will do in the future. Like in T1, T2, T3, and T5.

* That same someone receives a time-traveler to protect them. Like T1, T2, T3, and T5.

* The Arnold Terminator kills John Connor. Like in T3 (in the future instead of the past, but same difference).

* The hero of the story is a human-Terminator hybrid. Like T4.

* The bad guy Terminator is a hybrid endoskeleton with malleable skin. Like T3 and T5.

* Arnold's CSM-101 T-800 is back in an ally capacity. Like T2, T3, and T5.

* That same T-800 is "Old Man T-800." Like T5.

* SkyNET "evolves" to be called something other than SkyNET). Like T5. (Genisys there, "Legion" here, apparently)

So yeah...

[Sumac]

But, hey, ORIGINALITY!!
:roll::tlol:

[Andrew NDB]

Right?

Also Cameron doesn't exactly sound like he has 100% confidence in the project:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/james-cameron-watched-the-last-3-terminator-movies-to-f-1837722510?utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[Wildcat]

Well it sounds like he had a pretty big input. Hopefully he won’t backtrack later.

Has he ever given specific reasons for why he hates the other 3? I can see the time jumping but only Genisys did that. T3 was meant as a continuation. Salvation too right?

Dark Fate uses elements from each one. What exactly is his issue with them?

Except for Genisys (in its defense it required sequels to add up) I’ve never understood how T3 and Salvation were some huge departure from the first two.

I’m glad we at least get to see what he considers to be a “proper” follow up.

[Andrew NDB]

Well it sounds like he had a pretty big input. Hopefully he won’t backtrack later.

Has he ever given specific reasons for why he hates the other 3? I can see the time jumping but only Genisys did that. T3 was meant as a continuation. Salvation too right?

Dark Fate uses elements from each one. What exactly is his issue with them?

Except for Genisys (in its defense it required sequels to add up) I’ve never understood how T3 and Salvation were some huge departure from the first two.

I’m glad we at least get to see what he considers to be a “proper” follow up.

Cameron said T3 was awesome. He said T4 was awesome. He said T5 was awesome. Now he says they're all poo. So there's that.

I respect that Schwarzenegger stands beside T3, at least. And he should. Nothing wrong with that movie beyond 2 awkward lines, the T-X controlling cars with her mind when that wouldn't be possible with cars of the era, and arguably the "talk to the hand" thing.

[Wildcat]

Cameron said T3 was awesome. He said T4 was awesome. He said T5 was awesome. Now he says they're all poo. So there's that.

I respect that Schwarzenegger stands beside T3, at least. And he should. Nothing wrong with that movie beyond 2 awkward lines, the T-X controlling cars with her mind when that wouldn't be possible with cars of the era, and arguably the "talk to the hand" thing.Ya T3 is actually awesome. The TX is a fully upgraded model, it had good action/suspense and the ending.

It’s not just Cameron though. A lot of fans, even ones that enjoyed them, treat them as some kind of knockoffs that do not match up with the first two.

Like what is it? They totally fit in the continuity, tone and theme. 3 and 4 do.

[Andrew NDB]

Ya T3 is actually awesome. The TX is a fully upgraded model, it had good action/suspense and the ending.

It’s not just Cameron though. A lot of fans, even ones that enjoyed them, treat them as some kind of knockoffs that do not match up with the first two.

Like what is it? They totally fit in the continuity, tone and theme. 3 and 4 do.

Personally I say the music. I'm a big film score guy. T3 and T4's music score was lame. Brad Fiedel made T1 and T2 pop. Remove that music and watch even the best scenes in those movies and see if they feel the same.

In fact. In general. Can anyone think of a score that has pumped them up as much as when, like, the T-1000 is chasing John? That da-da-DA-da-da... da-da-DAH-da riff?

[Wildcat]

Personally I say the music. I'm a big film score guy. T3 and T4's music score was lame. Brad Fiedel made T1 and T2 pop. Remove that music and watch even the best scenes in those movies and see if they feel the same.Well that’s fine if you prefer the other music but that’s not what people are talking about. Certainly not Cameron. He’s referring to something intangible or abstract.

Obviously Miller agrees with him but I wish they’d actually explain how the others were so “off”.

I know they’ve talked about it interviews but all they’ve really said was they thought they were too wild. Which only Genisys really is.

Personally I don’t pay a lot of attention to a score unless there’s a specific song or arrangement that catches my ear. I’m fine with most scores in general.

I’m more focused on what’s going on and how it’s unfolding. I even catch myself trying to figure stuff out or predict things in my mind.

[neatoman]

Apparently the T-800 endoskeletons in the new trailer... are visually the same ones as the ones seen in Genisys. With the angular, pointed chest piece and all.

Recycled material?

[Andrew NDB]

Recycled material?

Yeah. They recycled the same CGI model for the T-800 from Genisys.

[Wildcat]

Oh I had replied before you edited I guess.

Ya everyone agrees the main Terminator theme is cool. It’s been used in all of them right?

[Andrew NDB]

Oh I had replied before you edited I guess.

Ya everyone agrees the main Terminator theme is cool. It’s been used in all of them right?

Only at the end of T3. I don't think they bothered with it I'm 4 or 5. Maybe a few tiny cues.

[Sumac]

T4 had a very weird remix of main theme, which was barely recognizable.
Not sure about T5.

[Coola Yagami]

So why did Skynet switch to a new target? If this is all because of whatever Sarah did in T2, wouldn't it still make sense to still go after Sarah? Why not go back and kill her as a kid?

[ZariusTwo]

Why not go back and kill her as a kid?

That was the last movie

[frank_one]

So why did Skynet switch to a new target? If this is all because of whatever Sarah did in T2, wouldn't it still make sense to still go after Sarah? Why not go back and kill her as a kid?Sarah Did destroy the original Skynet and she did that before Skynet even existed. So these new robots probably don't even know who Sarah Connor is.
However, that's the problem with time travel based stories: the more you add, the more stupid they become as every action a character takes can be replaced or fixed in a sequel.

[Wildcat]

Only at the end of T3. I don't think they bothered with it I'm 4 or 5. Maybe a few tiny cues.In Salvation it plays when John meets up with the T800.

I don’t remember where it’s at in Genisys but I’m sure it’s there. I looked it up and the soundtrack has it.

[Andrew NDB]

Mostly my point is not the Terminator theme specifically... which I don't think even played in T1 or T2 beyond the beginning and ending.

Fiedel did a ton in T1 and T2. He made every scene pop. You may not even realize why those scenes did. I'm just saying watch them again without music. He gave every scene added character and intensity. No composer has even tried since T2, just "ambient blah."

[Wildcat]

Mostly my point is not the Terminator theme specifically... which I don't think even played in T1 or T2 beyond the beginning and ending.

Fiedel did a ton in T1 and T2. He made every scene pop. You may not even realize why those scenes did. I'm just saying watch them again without music. He gave every scene added character and intensity. No composer has even tried since T2, just "ambient blah."Ya I understand what you meant. The theme music was just a theme “song”.

The score could make some difference but Cameron and others imply something is wrong with the context of the others. I personally do not see it.

Ok so they’ve reused things but they’ve also done some things different that we don’t know about yet. Stuff they consider more creative.

There’s spoilers around that are supposedly real but I’m not reading them.

[Andrew NDB]

Dark Fate director: "I think the brand has been tainted. (http://www.darkhorizons.com/new-photos-from-terminator-dark-fate/)"

[Sumac]

Dark Fate director: "I think the brand has been tainted. (http://www.darkhorizons.com/new-photos-from-terminator-dark-fate/)"
And comments like "if you don't like our main heroine - you are sexist" helps to un-taint how?
:lol:

[Wildcat]

No, the other movies were NOT essentially a different thing. They were all viable continuations. A.I. and Bicentennial Man are essentially different things.

That’s exactly my problem. The notion they didn’t make sense for a terminator movie but nobody can explain why. I’m sure Dark Fate will be perfectly fine but it’s not going to somehow be more “Terminator”.

[Andrew NDB]

5 minutes of footage here:

tkWgU0q4K5U

[Andrew NDB]

Final trailer:

VbvIdCxCoQc

Looks like we've reached the point in its marketing where they're panicking and showing us huge chunks of the film before it comes out.

[Sumac]

Looks like we've reached the point in its marketing where they're panicking and showing us huge chunks of the film before it comes out.
Isn't it like all trailers this days?

[ZariusTwo]

Gale Anne Hurd, co-writer of the original Terminator script, is seeking to attain ownership of the rights to the franchise under the provisions of U.S copyright law and has served the studios notice

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/real-life-terminator-major-studios-face-sweeping-loss-iconic-80s-film-franchise-rights-1244737

[Andrew NDB]

Very confusing. I thought James Cameron got back all the rights beginning this year?

https://www.slashfilm.com/james-cameron-regains-terminator-rights-in-2019/

https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3421949/terminator-shocker-james-cameron-regaining-rights-plans-conclude-franchise/

[Egon1982]

i keep seeing every new trailer and it still looks like a pile of dog dump. It looks like a total wreckage. This is one film franchise that should be terminated already. I don't why it hasn't been? Terminator Genesis underperform domestically, i dunno why they are doing another one. Linda Hamilton is nice to see being back, but that's not enough for me to give this trailer or concept or franchise a pass at this point. It's long past due, it's one of those cinematic franchises that has gotten way past itself way by date, it's expired, and needs to be thrown out in the trash. The new trailer does not get enough to get me interested in the movie, it looks like CGI overload.

The new terminator looks like he's totally forgettable, i know some people are like "that cool scene where he cuts up people", sure it's kind of cool but where's his personality and his charisma? Even when Arnold and Robert Patrick were playing robots they had personality and more charisma than the new guy. The trailer is trying to make this terminator look cool but fails at that.

Arnold is just gonna be a regular guy, it's their take on the deleted scene in T3 but nowhere near as a parody as that one and it's taken more seriously here. I guess John Conner is gonna be killed in the first 5 minutes, why kill him? you already killed him in Genesis. It's nothing special just to have a cameo by Edward.

And James Cameron coming back? so? he praised Genesis which is one of the worst films i've seen in 2015 and i believe he was paid to say that and hasn't done anything worth a damn in years. Why should i be hyped? Just because James Cameron is involved? him being involved back in the franchise doesn't fix the problem, after T2 this franchise was troubling. This is a franchise that was spiraling down and down the toilet further since T2 and there is no reason or need for sequels after that. I didn't mind Salvation (in it's director's cut only and not the butchered theatrical cut) because it's a prequel to the first movie and didn't connect to T2 or trying to ruin the storyline of T2, every sequel that has came out after T2 has went out to destroy the mythos and destroy the story. Made it not really have a lasting impact, i mean Terminator 2 is still an awesome and great sequel don't get me wrong! but it's hurt by the existence of T3, the tv show and Genesis and this new movie.

It ended beautifully with T2! judgement day was stopped, a terminator saved the world from the apocalypse that was gonna be created by his own kind and it was fitting, it ended with a thumbs up and we feel sorry for John Conner at the end. Plus John and Sarah moved on the road to be somewhere else. It was the best way to end the franchise and story, all loose ends were tied up. Everything was totally 100 percent closed when it comes to the story. Then comes T3, which has a lazy bullcrap storyline that it throws out the "no no no Judgement day was inevitable! it doesn't matter the sacrifice of Dyson", sequels were inevitable! this was a popular franchise and there was no way in hell that would wind up with the rights to the Terminator franchise and went to milk it for every last drop.

That's what's going on here! and that's too bad. If you ask me, this franchise should be put in the crusher, be crushed and be terminated. It really needed to have the plug pulled on it long before now as after T2, it's been nothing but diminishing returns. Hopefully this tanks, or underperforms in theaters and that kills the franchise for good and give studios the message because it would be for the franchise's benefit. Let's move on to fresh new cinematic franchises like John Wick which took risks and became a hit franchise which i'm glad audiences are supporting a new cinematic franchise like that where some worn out ones like Terminator need to die.

The franchise is like having a friend you love in the first 2 films but yet if you didn't mind part 4 in it's director's cut for being a prequel to the first movie but for a long time been in a vegetative state on life support since T2, he's been suffering and you've come to accept he's gone. Your waiting for someone to pull the plug and turn off the machine.

[Andrew NDB]

Arnold is a T-800 in this unless there is going to be some fakeouts in this.

C_EnmKxG_Bc

Though way early into things we were told Arnold would be playing both a human and a bad Terminator so there is clearly stuff they're keeping as a surprise.

[Andrew NDB]

Hamilton made to do hormone stuff:

https://amp.cinemablend.com/news/2476763/linda-hamilton-had-a-weird-hormone-reaction-while-making-terminator-dark-fate

[newfan]

Hamilton made to do hormone stuff:

https://amp.cinemablend.com/news/2476763/linda-hamilton-had-a-weird-hormone-reaction-while-making-terminator-dark-fate

I don't think people would expect her to look just like she did in T2 all these years later. There's getting into shape for a movie and there is 30 years later. Things within reason.

[Andrew NDB]

So there is a fairly decent sized spoiler...

https://i.ibb.co/KWTMzY2/received-481212782828841.jpg

"Carl" (Arnold's T-800 in this) has a wife.

[DarkFell]

So there is a fairly decent sized spoiler...

https://i.ibb.co/KWTMzY2/received-481212782828841.jpg

"Carl" (Arnold's T-800 in this) has a wife.
To which I find odd considering that dogs were used to "sniff out" Terminators that would invade the Resistance camp in the first movie, and that John Connor's dog literally gave away the T-1000 presence over the phone during a call in the second movie.

But Pops with a wifey? Yeah, that's new.

[Leo656]

To which I find odd considering that dogs were used to "sniff out" Terminators that would invade the Resistance camp in the first movie, and that John Connor's dog literally gave away the T-1000 presence over the phone during a call in the second movie.

But Pops with a wifey? Yeah, that's new.

You want CONSISTENCY in your "professional fanfiction"/blatant cash grab?

I want some'a what you're smokin' kid. :lol:

[DarkFell]

You want CONSISTENCY in your "professional fanfiction"/blatant cash grab?

I want some'a what you're smokin' kid. :lol:
Yeah.. consist sense-making movies are a rarity in HollyWeird nowindays. Oooops.
https://media.giphy.com/media/YjfAfZyzEoOZi/giphy.gif

[Andrew NDB]

To which I find odd considering that dogs were used to "sniff out" Terminators that would invade the Resistance camp in the first movie, and that John Connor's dog literally gave away the T-1000 presence over the phone during a call in the second movie.

I'm pretty sure with enough time any dog would get over that. Especially if the T-800 is bringing it treats and feeding it and such over and over. I feel like they'll address it.

[Wildcat]

This pic was released awhile back right? How is it a spoiler? Just that he has a wife...or someone posing as his wife?

If “Carl” is a good guy I don’t see why the dog would do anything if he’s someone it trusts. Obviously in the others the terminators were strangers/threats.

[ZariusTwo]

Reception is quite positive. "Best since Judgement Day"...this of course comes after fans were surprised with a screening, so a lot of the enthusiasm could just come from the buzz of a good time.

https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a29530513/terminator-dark-fate-review-first-reactions/

I'll be seeing this Friday.

[newfan]

I didn't realise it was out a few days, certificate 15 too. I know they said R rated but I wondered if they'd end up going with PG-13/12 after all.

[ZariusTwo]

I didn't realise it was out a few days, certificate 15 too. I know they said R rated but I wondered if they'd end up going with PG-13/12 after all.

UK release is October 25th, though there are preview screenings starting on the 23rd.

[Andrew NDB]

so a lot of the enthusiasm could just come from the buzz of a good time.

Usually that's the way those things go.

[Andrew NDB]

So... it's pretty well confirmed now that John -- as a kid -- dies in the opening 5 minutes of the movie. Just like that.

So it's all beginning to paint an unpleasant picture of the movie. All of the "strong women/weak men" stuff, them literally killing the "white savior" right out of the gate, and the evil Terminator going into Border Patrol and murdering bunches of Border Patrol agents... yeah. It isn't even trying to be subtle.

[AquaParade]

Evil, you say?

[Leo656]

I'm starting to really hate movies. Just in general.

[Egon1982]

Who agrees T2 ended the franchise beautifully?

Linda has not aged well at all, she was a looker in her prime with Beauty and the Beast the series and T2.

[IMJ]

Who agrees T2 ended the franchise beautifully?

Linda has not aged well at all, she was a looker in her prime with Beauty and the Beast the series and T2.

It's hard to disagree with any of this.

I actually liked Terminator 3, but I think that was for two primary reasons - first that (for me at least) T3 was released in a time frame that was the appropriate nostalgia period for the franchise; and second that I have always thought that Kristana Lokken was a goddess - especially in that movie, she was flawless. I've seen her at a Chicago Comic Con now and again as well and she's flawless in real life too. It's crazy. But now in this movie we get a genderless non-chick that, from this point forward, is going to ruin Blade Runner 2049 for me whenever I see it.

But, I also liked Terminator Salvation. All things considered I would've been okay with them advancing the Terminator story through that avenue of continuity.

I didn't see the last one with the Game of Thrones girl.

[oldmanwinters]

I'm starting to really hate movies. Just in general.

You should put that into your Forum Sig. I feel that way more and more each passing year.

[Andrew NDB]

3 is unfairly maligned, I say. I was happy to see things move past Sarah Conner (though a little sad they couldn't at least give her a Kyle-Reese-in-T2 sort of appearance... like flashbacks of her "saying goodbye" to John would have added a lot of weight to things) and adult John Connor face the coming of Judgment Day, and I was thrilled to actually see Judgment Day actually unfold. We even got 5 minutes of Arnold going evil again. If they'd continued into T4, T5, and T6 with that cast going deeper and deeper into the Future War, I think I'd have been really happy, too.

But they didn't. T4 was a harmless but useless and very PG-13 sidestory about a meaningless side character that contributes nothing to the canon. T5 was another PG-13 bloodless thing, flailing about in a million directions, unable to commit to one and with a cast that was never believable. I mean, pick any of them. I like that actor but the actor they picked for John looked nothing like any version of John. Kyle Reese's actor was ridiculous. And while if you squint a bit, Emilia Clarke might look a LITTLE like T1-era Sarah Connor, any time she opens her mouth the illusion is shattered. Like a little girl trying to imitate Mommy or something.

https://i.ibb.co/XbFNGTH/john.jpg

[ZariusTwo]

Just came back from seeing it. It's...a thing that happened.

It's quite a basic road movie for the duration, packed with action right from the get-go that doesn't really settle down for the next thirty five or so minutes. When it does have quiet moments, it's devoted to explaining why A connects to B, it offers Skynet a way to still be a part of potential future proceedings if they choose to go that route (we know Sarah has successfully hunted Terminators with 'Carl's help, but it's still not known how many were sent, and with 'Carl' now dead, she'll have no way of tracking any further)

I question the point of promoting Edward Furlong's return when he didn't even say anything, and seemed to have been brought back just to show off that fancy de-aging CGI for him , Linda, and Arnie. It was quite effective nevertheless, and Linda sells John's death as well as you can expect...but sadly there's not a lot of elaboration on her grief other than one splendid scene in the forest outside 'Carl's house, where she admits to Dani that she never took a photo of her son and now she can barely remember his face.

Dani was the weakest actress of the three main females, but she didn't annoy me, if anything Grace was the one who whined a little too much about trying to protect her, while Dani absorbs all the chaos around her, decides she won't run from it, and really follows Sarah's lead. the only time I got annoyed at Dani was when she was conflicted over removing Grace's power source and killing her.

If you're looking for any concrete information on Legion, you don't get it here, they're likely saving it for further movies (if this movie makes bank that is), here the gist of it is "they never learn" from Sarah when she learns it's yet another rogue A.I

Arnie is as reliable in the part as he usually is, not too many jokes this time, and they land when there is, such as talking about drapes.

Grace's flashbacks to how she came to be augmented probably could have moved up to the latter stages of the film I feel, rather than while she lay in bed recovering in the getaway hut

[oldmanwinters]

I liked the TV series.

At some point with this franchise, you just realize the future isn't worth saving.

[ZariusTwo]

9wkrLOC7x14

[Andrew NDB]

The director hates the thumbs up from the T-800 in T2.

https://i.ibb.co/2gQmWgr/FB-IMG-1572326354715.jpg

[Wildcat]

I don’t get that quote. Who’s talking about who? Link.

The thumbs up part made sense. John taught him a few human responses and since he was destroying himself it was like a sign of bonding. Like mission accomplished.

Never mind I looked it up.

[DarkFell]

The T-800 'thumbs up' could also mean "Good job. Your future is safe."

And, at the time the fate of mankind seemed likely to improve. Cyberdine Systems was destroyed. Both Terminators that were sent back, were destroyed. Even the remains from the first Terminator were destroyed.

Then, we got Terminator 3, 4, 5, and coming soon, Terminator 6.

[Andrew NDB]

Uh oh... big creative differences between Cameron and the director.

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/10/james-cameron-terminator-dark-fate-editing-creative-differences-1202186192/

[Andrew NDB]

Now it's targeting an underwhelming opening:

http://www.darkhorizons.com/terminator-targets-underwhelming-opening/

[oldmanwinters]

Weird thing about this movie was that it seemed like everybody already saw it two weeks ago.

[neatoman]

Why do they keep making these movies anyway? Each new installment just gets worse than the last and the series more or less stopped turning a profit after the third one.

[Leo656]

My thing with stuff like this or Jurassic Park is, at some point you either have to move the story forward or let it die off. You can't keep repeating the same old "Something bad is about to happen/kinda already happening/NO WAIT we stopped it... For NOW!" gimmick, and that's essentially all they do, every single time. At SOME point, we need to just have Skynet take over and just pick it up with the Future War and watch that play out, with ostensibly the final film showing them sending Reese back in time to close the time loop. And that's what Salvation tried to do, which I give them credit for, but unfortunately too many people whined about there not being enough laser beams in the future, or some sh*t, because lord knows THAT's what's most important, so they didn't move forward past that, even though that's the only logical thing to do.

"No, instead we're going to tell the exact same story EXCEPT that now Sarah and her son are no longer relevant to the story anymore, Because Reasons, and someone ELSE has to protect the future! SEE? Totally different now, you guys!" Except that it's NOT, it's the exact same goddamn sh*t we've already sat through a hundred times. Move forward or just f*cking STOP, already. Having "NOT Sarah" fulfill the exact same storyline role as Sarah doesn't actually change anything at all.

At some point, one has to realize that until those damn dinosaurs finally escape and take over the Earth, or until Skynet finally takes over and we get to the Future War in its entirety, then anything else they do with those franchises is simply going to be a rehash of movies we've already watched. Which is f*cking pointless and stupid.

It's both comical and annoying to me, because collectively, people will bleat and whine about "Wanting something new", and THEN spend all their money watching the same thing they've already seen a hundred times, and declare it "Awesome" because it reminds them of those other, better movies.

I mean, it's whatever. But I don't get it.

[Hamato Yoshi]

Same thing with horror films (Halloween etc) and the now dead Police Academy film series , they'll churn them out if people pay

[Wildcat]

I’ve mentioned many times I wish Salvation would have continued because it finally got on with the war. It was a good movie too imo. It was fun seeing how Skynet operated.

I’ve been told on other forums that Salvation was bad because it’s portrayal of the future did not match exactly to the T the brief segments from the first two.

Complaints like that really bother me because it’s the most nit picky nostalgia fueled issue you could have. Arguments like Skynet would never have other types of transformer-ish robots and overall it was not grim enough. So ya basically not enough lasers.

How is it sooo unbelievable that Skynet would have other types of robots that just did not appear in those flashbacks or flash forwards? Those segments in the first two are just a peak at what happens.

Leading up to Dark Fate some people started using the term Marvel-ized as way to say it’s too cgi/action heavy and it should be more horror-like without any upgraded terminator model.

Again just nostalgia fueled hate. It’s about AI starting a war with the world. Action is required and expecting Skynet (or whatever it’s called) to never upgrade terminators beyond T1000 is just stupid.

The argument was the war had ended and T1000 was the last resort for Skynet or something. I looked it up because I had forgotten and it technically matched continuity. However going back in time changes things. Skynet never advancing under any circumstances makes no sense.

I don’t mean to rant but I’ve had some really dumb arguments about Terminator.

[Leo656]

Same thing with horror films (Halloween etc) and the now dead Police Academy film series , they'll churn them out if people pay

That's another thing that kills me. Not really about this franchise - as others have pointed out, the newer Terminators don't really do all that hot at the box office - but just about movies in general, especially Big Franchise Movies, and peoples' insistence on paying to see them even when they acknowledge that they look very bad.

I was reading an article about Star Wars, and literally every single comment for a good long while, like 20+ in a row, was some variation of "Not gonna waste the money," "I'll be staying home", etc. etc. And it's like... oh, how I WISH that were true. If even 10% of these yokels actually followed through on their "threats" we wouldn't be in these kinds of situations.

Me? I actually do stay home rather than go see any movie I know I'm most likely going to hate. "Hate Watching" something makes no sense to me. I don't have the time, money, or inclination. People who waste their own time or money to watch something just so they can rant about how awful it was are idiots. I'm occasionally forced to watch something on DVR even though I know I won't enjoy it - because that's what happens when you're married - but at least I didn't actually reward the people making it with any of my money, nor did I willingly sacrifice any of my precious free time just so I can spend the rest of the day angry.

I wish people who thought the new Terminator or Star Wars or whatever looked crummy really would stay home, but the fact is, they'd rather waste the money "just to PROVE it was as bad as I thought it would be," or to "EARN their right to complain about it." Okay, great, but the studio doesn't actually care if you had a good time, they don't care if all you do is talk about how sh*tty the movie was... they got your money, so they're thrilled. Again, look at "The Last Jedi." I've never had a face-to-face conversation with a single human being who thought it was even decent, let alone any good. But it made over a billion dollars, thus insulating it from any and all criticism, even (and especially) legitimate criticism. "How can it be bad... LOOK at all the MONEY it made!"

Again, not really specific to this franchise, but just to your larger (and accurate) point. "I'm staying home when _______ comes out in theaters!" is the same impotent threat as "I'm moving to Canada if _____ becomes President!" People rant and rave, and in the end, they cave in. Because Doing Something - or NOT doing something, as in not going to see a bad movie - is harder than ranting and raving semi-anonymously on the internet. But if anyone actually followed through, well then hey, that'd be great for everyone. They just never do, and it's irritating.

[Xav]

"Terminator: Dark Fate Is the Gayest Terminator Yet" (https://slate.com/culture/2019/11/terminator-dark-fate-lesbian-subtext-mackenzie-davis.html)

[Leo656]

I don’t mean to rant but I’ve had some really dumb arguments about Terminator.

To be fair, any argument aside from "Which was better, T1 or T2?" is by default a "dumb argument", because after that there's really nothing worth talking about, especially not having an opinion strong enough to argue or debate about. :) I mean, what IS there? "I thought the naked dragon girl from Game of Thrones was a better Sarah Connor than Linda Hamilton"? "Who's a better Adult John Connor, the guy who played Batman or the guy nobody ever heard of?" "Which movie COMPLETELY wipes its ass with the established lore the most?" :lol: Like seriously, those movies don't even give a person anything to discuss, beyond, "Was the newest one Awful or Just Kind Of Okay?" I mean, really. I'm not even being mean, here.

The only "debate" I can think of is, "Do any of the movies after 2 have any right to exist?", and the only HONEST answer is, "Not really, no." They're just THERE, taking up space for no reason and mucking up what was once a reasonably-simple sci-fi story to the point of total incomprehensibility. They don't do anything except take the franchise, which was once simply referred to as, "Those two Really Great movies," and turned it into something which can now only ever be referred to as, "Those two Really Great movies, and then the rest of them."

When your franchise has nowhere to go but down, pull the plug before you completely rub the shine off. That's something these guys had already figured out in 1991. But then $omehow, $h*t Happen$, and people mi$place their value$. Then what was once Great is simply Mediocre.

Happens to most things, sadly. But it shouldn't. It really, really shouldn't.
----------------

I did enjoy Salvation more than most. But that almost went tits-up, too, with the original "Cyborg Guy replaces John Connor when John dies, then abruptly turns heel, single-handedly kills the entire Resistance, Skynet Wins, credits roll, franchise over" ending. Would have been ballsy, I admit, but man, aside from deliberately killing the franchise - which Bale said at one point was one of the main reasons he wanted to do the movie - would anyone have actually enjoyed that? "It was all for nothing, Bad Guys Win, enjoy your crapsack dark future!" I'unno, I would'a been a little miffed. The ending they went with was kind of weak and predictable, but at least it wasn't completely bonkers.

Also... HOW MUCH COCAINE was Christian Bale on when they filmed "Salvation"? :lol: On a scale of "1980s Madonna" to "1970s David Bowie", I'm gonna go ahead and say "2010 Nicki Minaj". Which is a lot. :lol:

[Wildcat]

Ya I don’t think I would have liked the bad ending very much but the ending we got was fine. Made sense to have to takeout other Skynet bases.

The thing with Terminator there’s clearly 2 or 3 movies worth of story if they just set in the future war. I’m glad we’ve gotten one attempt so far but I’m surprised nobody seems to care to do a future war trilogy.

It’s the perfect setting for a sci-fi action movie and it’s actually part of the storyline. Salvation was perfectly fine to continue off of.

I’m sure if T2 came out now people would have complained about it. Having a kid play the lead, being another chase style movie etc. The usual. So it kind of annoys when T2 is automatically crowned a masterpiece. Great movie but people are biased due to its era.

Like I’ve said before I’m sure I’ll enjoy Dark Fate because I’ve enjoyed all of them but pick whatever continuity you want and get in with the war already.

It’s funny because I’ve thought about it from a comedic standpoint...are the resistance and Skynet just watching some space age monitor that can display the past because they don’t seem to care about the war at hand. They’re more interested in outdoing each other by constantly sending back soldiers.

[Leo656]

I think, based on what I've read, that the ending they used for Salvation was actually the third option, and oddly enough, the one they least wanted to actually use. We only got the ending we did because the first two endings they came up with pissed too many people off in test screenings.

The original ending was the one where they spend the entire movie beating you over the head with the whole "Don't judge a book by its cover; he might be an infiltration cyborg created by Skynet for the SOLE purpose of gaining your trust and then assassinating what's left of the Resistance, but he's still HUMAN, damn it! He haz teh Feelz!" heavy-handed moralizing, only to yank the rug out from under the audience and reveal, "Huh, nope, turns out Obvious Murder Cyborg Was Obvious." Specifically, John Connor gets killed, the Resistance members realize that most people have never even seen John Connor, they only know him as a symbol, the mythical "Leader of the Resistance", and figure, "Hey, the unkillable Cyborg guy can just SAY he's John Connor and nobody will ever know! That way the Resistance can live on!" And the Cyborg dude's like, "Yeah, great idea, I'm down with that"... and then he kills everyone. :roll:

Why THAT, specifically, was the first-chosen and much-preferred ending among the filmmakers themselves, I have no idea. Other than, as I joked about, there was "allegedly" a ton of cocaine involved in that movie's production. Within that context, it *almost* makes sense. But not really. I mean, for one thing, as I mentioned, it completely undermines the entire point the rest of the movie was trying to make about trust, hope, faith, etc. Which would be ballsy and unexpected, sure, but also kind of a screwjob. I don't think it would have played well, and allegedly it did piss a lot of people off in the very early going, which is why it was changed.

But it wasn't entirely changed. Apparently Option B was to do 99% the exact same thing, and have Connor still die, except NOT have the Cyborg guy turn out to be evil, he was just going to replace John Connor legitimately and become the leader of the Resistance in his place, pretending to be him since nobody knew any better. This apparently went over a little bit better, BUT, was ultimately scrapped for the most pragmatic of reasons: Christian Bale was the ONLY reason anyone even planned on seeing "Salvation", and people weren't happy about seeing him killed off. Apparently, he'd already refused to do any sequels, so the studio felt like killing him off was the only option, but they also couldn't risk alienating the fans who were going to pay to see him.

That's how we got Ending C, the really-real one where John almost dies and the Cyborg guy gives him his own heart, or whatever, sacrificing himself for the humans. Which may be a little (or a lot) predictable, overly-sentimental, "We gotta wrap this up so let's race to a Happy Ending", whatever... but it was ultimately probably the best possible outcome. At least it was consistent within the movie's own themes and storyline, which again, might be a little bit too on-the-nose or heavy-handed with the "Don't pre-judge anyone, even murder robots are human beings" thing, but at least it wasn't a complete 180 that came out of nowhere. The original ending sounds like they were really just trying to follow up on T3's "dark ending" by going even darker, but it comes off like edgelord fanfiction. At least to me.

I like Salvation alright - it's probably the best Terminator movie since the second one - but the whole thing feels like a missed opportunity. So many bad decisions made along the way. Like finally getting to the Future War, but insisting it be PG-13 to maximize ticket sales, thus ensuring that nothing too graphic or horrifying could happen. Or trying to position it as a trilogy-starter, then for their star they go out and hire a guy who's notoriously anti-sequel and also an admitted huge pain in the ass to deal with, who didn't really wanna do the movie and only relented on the premise that he be killed off. They just made so many questionable decisions, and it really painted them into a corner they had no satisfying way out of. I'm kinda sad that it's the one nobody remembers (or even saw), but I'm also not surprised, either. It was really doomed before it even opened.

I agree, though, that I'd much rather see the series continue in that universe, rather than the constant "Skynet keeps sending killer robots back to Our Present because they only have one idea" cycle which we've been stuck in ever since, and most likely will be for a while longer yet. Except now we won't have the established characters we already care about (because we were told how important they were to everything for 30+ years!) to hold things up when everything else is shaky, because they're suddenly "not so important after all". :roll:

Kinda like Luke in TLJ; funny how that stuff works, isn't it? You could write a whole article about it, and I'm sure someone probably has.

[Andrew NDB]

The Marcus putting John Connor's skin over his was ridiculous and they realized that early on. Even if we're to buy that just throwing skin over a Terminator endoskeleton isn't going to just immediately die, rot or be rejected, what about things like bone structure, cheeks, etc.? Just because you put my skin on top of John Travolta's body doesn't mean it's going to look anything like me.

Also, saw Dark Fate. Didn't like it. It borrowed WAY, WAY too much from Genisys and especially T3. The ending is like a remake of T3's climax, right down to someone pulling out a power cell and stuffing it in the Bad Terminator's head.

It also seemed pretty politically charged in a few places. The main characters openly discuss and complain about how demeaning it is that Sarah and (they think) Dani are only women that had to bear the MAN that would become the savior of the world. Later, there's stuff about the Bad Terminator mistaking detainees in a Border Patrol facility for "prisoners," and keeps calling the facility "cages." Also, when Grace springs all of the detainees, in the chaos the Bad Terminator ONLY kills Border Patrol agents, and he kills a whole lot of them.

[Leo656]

Wow, that bit in the Spoiler tags sounds incredibly subtle. :lol:

I saw your FB review, which I'd love for you to post here as well. Seriously, that sh*t sounds ghastly. Here I am, ranting and raving about how they're all out of ideas, can only recycle the earlier films, it's all a waste of time, etc., and here they go and make a movie that seemingly does nothing but copy/paste stuff from every other film in the franchise thus far! :lol: Can I call 'em, or what? This thing sounds like the "Force Awakens" of the Terminator franchise, and given that we already got that one movie ago - and it was terrible - I think it's far past time they nail the lid shut on this sucker.
-----------------------

See, I personally never read anything about the cyborg guy "wearing John's skin" in Salvation's earlier endings, so I can't speak to that. I only read stuff where the Resistance were all like, "Well... nobody actually KNEW John except for whoever's in this room, so... technically ANYBODY could say they're 'John Connor' and nobody would know better, plus this guy's kind of indestructible and knows a lot about Skynet, so hey, Bonus! This guy'll be 'John Connor' from now on." I swear I read a line of dialog where one of them specifically mentions how nobody knew what John looked like, therefore the ruse wouldn't require anything too elaborate. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I never read anything about the guy Marcus literally wearing John Connor like a Halloween smock. :lol: I agree, that would be f*cking terrible, but I kinda don't think they were actually going that far.

Not that it matters now, but yeah, I kinda don't see it. Maybe it was discussed once and then dropped, or taken out of context, I'unno.
----------------------------

Anyway. What's your over-under on how long until the NEXT re-reboot? :trazz: Seriously, this thing sounds even worse than I'd feared, and I feared something pretty bad. Thanks for taking the bullet.

[Sumac]

I’ve mentioned many times I wish Salvation would have continued because it finally got on with the war. It was a good movie too imo. It was fun seeing how Skynet operated.
You'd wish for it to not to continue, because, McG's plan was to set sequel in the present day, where Skynet and Resistance send their armies.
It would have been Bay's Transformers, but with Hunter-Killers and some contrived plot about Marcus.

[Leo656]

So... even when the filmmakers were ostensibly trying to experiment with fresh, new things... they still only had One Idea to rely on. Huh.

You knooooowwwwww... call me crazy, but I'm starting to think maybe Terminator really never had a lot to say or teach us in the first place. Sigh.

[Wildcat]

Well I’ve never really read up on Salvation. I just wish it picked up from that ending and continued fight other Skynet bases.

I wouldn’t have minded if somebody replaced Bale as John Connor if he didn’t want to do sequels. That would have been ok. Marcus taking over the roll of leader was ok too.

The PG13 rating never bothered me. Once things get going and the action starts you don’t really stop and think...oh this is too toned down. I mean after a point you’re just into the movie, right? I am anyway. I don’t really know how violent it should have been.

People joke about the next reboot but even DF is not successful enough I really do not see a huge hiatus for the franchise like some think. They’ll probably make another fairly soon. Arnold has talked about a 7th movie. The follow up to this.

[Andrew NDB]

I saw your FB review, which I'd love for you to post here as well. Seriously, that sh*t sounds ghastly. Here I am, ranting and raving about how they're all out of ideas, can only recycle the earlier films, it's all a waste of time, etc., and here they go and make a movie that seemingly does nothing but copy/paste stuff from every other film in the franchise thus far! :lol: Can I call 'em, or what? This thing sounds like the "Force Awakens" of the Terminator franchise, and given that we already got that one movie ago - and it was terrible - I think it's far past time they nail the lid shut on this sucker.

All right, here it is:

Saw "Terminator: Dark Fate." It was well made. The Bad Terminator seemed to be more relentless, no-nonsense and capable than any Bad Terminator since 2. Music was the best since 2 (as in, actually registers). Editing, pacing A+. The set pieces are good. I like how things move in a line, over a crazy day or two. A few really funny comedic moments are here. The first R-rating since T3 isn't a bad thing, either. A movie about assassins from the future murdering a lot of people probably shouldn't be pasteurized for 13-year olds. In fact, that's probably really irresponsible to try and do.

I'm also not sure I completely liked it. If I'd never seen T3, T4, and T5 (the ones it ignores anyway) then I'd probably like the movie a whole lot more, but it openly steals large pieces of T3 and T5... leaving things not seeming so fresh. There's a few strange choices in the movie and kind of like at the end of Genisys, I'm not sure where they'd even want to take things that I'd want to see.

Basically, if you're A: one of the people that pretend T3-T5 don't exist (or better yet, if you've never seen) or B: just plain don't care if you see stuff borrowed directly from those movies, give it a chance and there's a pretty good chance you'll dig it. If you like even just T3, this movie will probably irk you.

People expecting a big "return of Cameron" thing here will be flat out disappointed. I can feel his hand in the editing side of things, but this didn't feel like a Cameron movie at all. A lot is coming out lately about how little he had to do with the movie, too, never even visited the set or met any actors, and disagreed with the director on story points (without revealing who won said battles).

1. T1
2. T2
3. T3 & T6 (a tie)
4. T4
5. T5

Speaking of things lifted from the other movies...

* Sarah Connor's actions in T2 only delayed Judgement Day a number of years. Like T3.

* Someone in the present is being targeted by a Terminator from the future because of what they will do in the future. Like in T1, T2, T3, and T5.

* That same someone receives a time-traveler to protect them. Like T1, T2, T3, and T5.

* Before the events of the main film, an Arnold Terminator kills John Connor. Just like in T3 (in the future instead of the past, but same difference).

* The main hero of the story is a human-Terminator hybrid. Like Marcus, the main hero in T4.

* The bad guy Terminator is a hybrid endoskeleton with malleable skin. Like the T-X in T3 and the T-3000 in T5.

* Arnold's CSM-101 T-800 is back in an ally capacity. Like T2, T3, and T5.

* We get "Old Man Arnold T-800." Like "Pops" in T5.

* SkyNET "evolves" to be called something other than SkyNET. Like T5. ("Genisys" there, "Legion" here, apparently... and interestingly enough, both bible verses)

* Good Guy Arnold Terminator has to say goodbye to his friends before sacrificing himself. Like in T2, T3, and T5 (sure, he survived T5, but he didn't know he was going to).

* Pulling a power cell from the future out of a body and stuffing it into the head of the Bad Terminator is the key to killing it. Just like in T3.

* At the end of the movie, the final scene is the heroes visiting a child version of one of them. Just like one movie ago in T5.

There's more, of course. I could get into the obligatory car chase stuff that's in every movie that I'm pretty tired of by now ("Take the wheel while I shoot at this Terminator behind us!" "OK!" blah blah), and it even tries to one up the airplane/helicopter stuff from the last movie. People compare it to "The Force Awakens" and there's a bit of that (except here, half of the new characters are eliminated by the end), but mostly it feels like "Alien: Covenant" in that it plays like a "Terminator: Greatest Hits" album, trying to be fresh but in doing so only shows why it ends up being the opposite of that.

See, I personally never read anything about the cyborg guy "wearing John's skin" in Salvation's earlier endings, so I can't speak to that. I only read stuff where the Resistance were all like, "Well... nobody actually KNEW John except for whoever's in this room, so... technically ANYBODY could say they're 'John Connor' and nobody would know better, plus this guy's kind of indestructible and knows a lot about Skynet, so hey, Bonus! This guy'll be 'John Connor' from now on." I swear I read a line of dialog where one of them specifically mentions how nobody knew what John looked like, therefore the ruse wouldn't require anything too elaborate. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I never read anything about the guy Marcus literally wearing John Connor like a Halloween smock. :lol: I agree, that would be f*cking terrible, but I kinda don't think they were actually going that far.

Not that it matters now, but yeah, I kinda don't see it. Maybe it was discussed once and then dropped, or taken out of context, I'unno.

It was definitely a thing. And tons of people were upset that they didn't do that. Dumb.

Anyway. What's your over-under on how long until the NEXT re-reboot? :trazz: Seriously, this thing sounds even worse than I'd feared, and I feared something pretty bad. Thanks for taking the bullet.

They haven't even done 1 reboot yet. 1 soft reboot so far and one... soft reboot with some ridges, this movie (like a root canal... drilling out part of a tooth but still saving the tooth). Specifically, T1-T5 work with one another with a minimum of explanation... but T6 can't exist with T3-T5 unless Sarah somehow faked her leukemia death and the T3 Judgement Day of 2004 eluded her.

Though sh*t. That after the end credits scene in Genisys with Genisys/SkyNET waking back up could be read as "better send a message to send more Terminators to kill John" and it'd all work. But what a mess.

Unless this movie pulls a miracle, the next Terminator we see will be a 100% page 1 reboot. No events from any existing movie ever happened, ever ever. 8-10 years away.

You'd wish for it to not to continue, because, McG's plan was to set sequel in the present day, where Skynet and Resistance send their armies.
It would have been Bay's Transformers, but with Hunter-Killers and some contrived plot about Marcus.

Awful. I heard that and I was livid. And McG was so happy to soften the blow with, "But we'll see Robert Patrick as a doctor!"

The only thing I liked about Salvation was its delivering on the beginnings of the Future War. I would've preferred one ultimate, definitive Future War movie, but I was willing to wait for Salvation's sequel to take us further into it. The thought that instead of that, another time travel romp to the present? Appalling.

So... even when the filmmakers were ostensibly trying to experiment with fresh, new things... they still only had One Idea to rely on. Huh.

You knooooowwwwww... call me crazy, but I'm starting to think maybe Terminator really never had a lot to say or teach us in the first place. Sigh.

Very dumb. Though to be fair and not to defend him, but I think the "John Connor and company go back in time to the present to defend against new Terminators!" was kind of a last ditch pitch to try and keep his version of T5 afloat after the critical pounding Salvation got. I don't think that was his plan A.

Well I’ve never really read up on Salvation. I just wish it picked up from that ending and continued fight other Skynet bases.

I wouldn’t have minded if somebody replaced Bale as John Connor if he didn’t want to do sequels. That would have been ok. Marcus taking over the roll of leader was ok too.

I think the series got way too crazy with recasting John Connor. They should have kept Bale and soldiered on.

The PG13 rating never bothered me. Once things get going and the action starts you don’t really stop and think...oh this is too toned down. I mean after a point you’re just into the movie, right?

Not when you realize this isn't how people would talk in these situations, or that gunshots should probably have a little blood.

People joke about the next reboot but even DF is not successful enough I really do not see a huge hiatus for the franchise like some think. They’ll probably make another fairly soon. Arnold has talked about a 7th movie. The follow up to this.

Arnold can talk about whatever he wants but he's not the one funding these things. He's not even like Stallone, who moves mountains and produces and directs if need be. All he needs to do at this point is King Conan. No more Terminator for him. They had yet another chance to utilize Arnold as an actual human in this (something actually fresh) and they squandered it.

[Leo656]

Wildcat: They always talk about "the next one"; they've already played that game four consecutive times, and "the next one" always ends up being a reboot. :lol: It's a work; a "work", for the uninitiated, means "hustle" or "straight-up con". The point of the "work", in this case, is to build consumer confidence; "WOW, this one must be really good, because they're already talking about the next one, and the one after that, even! They certainly wouldn't do that unless they were SURE this one was great!"

Thing is, I'm a "worker", so I can spot the works from a mile away, because whether you're talking about movies, TV, pro wrestling, whatever, it's all just entertainment, and that means selling tickets, and that means straight-up lying to your audience if that's what it takes to get their money. Consider this: You have no idea how many "First Annual _______ Event" type things I've wrestled on; how many of those "first annual" events ever got a "Second Annual" show, d'ya think? Try ONE, and there was no "Third Annual". :trazz: It's all smoke and mirrors, brother. So when a movie producer or even an actor starts talking about "the next one" before This One even comes out, please, PLEASE be aware that they're lying to your face. Not because they're mean, or bad, or even dishonest in general, but simply because that's The Job.

Cases In Point: While "Superman Returns" was still playing, Bryan Singer went around telling anyone who'd listen that The Next One was gonna be the "Empire Strikes Back" of the Superman film franchise, and would include Brainiac and (he later revealed) Doomsday. And "Superman Returns" did alright, financially, but it didn't light things up like they'd hoped, so in spite of whatever was promised, we never got that movie. NOR did we get the "Dark Knight" sequel that WB producers talked about (literally ONE DAY after Dark Knight premiered), featuring Johnny Depp as The Riddler and Philip Seymour Hoffman as The Penguin. I'm sure we all saw "Dark Knight Rises", and suffice to say, the movie they originally said they were going to make (without even asking Nolan, it's important to note) did not end up anything like the movie they did make.

It's marketing, bruh. "We want you to think we have a plan, when really, we're just totally winging it." The fact is, there are too many moving parts involved in managing a film franchise over a period of years - studio management, public mood/opinion, other studios' output, etc. etc. etc. - for there to ever be any kind of "plan" in anything but the absolute vaguest sense (even the MCU guys have since admitted to booking most of it on the fly). Arnold can say whatever he wants, but he ultimately has no stake in any of what happens next. He's also, I'll remind you, the guy who says each new movie in the series is "Brilliant", until the next one comes out, and then the last one was "trash". Cameron himself does the exact same thing, every time, like clockwork. So again, these guys are all just playing the game. Enjoy their work, but don't actually take anything they say at face value. They don't even have any control over it, they're merely employees. That's like the register guy at McDonald's promising to sell you a Shamrock Shake on Christmas Eve; he can sweet-talk you all day long but he has no power to actually deliver on his promises, so don't pay them any mind.

They're not lying to you to be Bad People, they're just in the business of separating fools from their money, like any entertainer. Likewise, I don't point these things out to be mean, but rather to educate and explain.

IF this one does poorly, then we can expect another long hiatus, and possibly another rights-turnover as well. I'm not up to speed on the ins and outs of who owns what regarding the Terminator franchise, but I'm aware that the rights to the brand have changed hands several times between T2 and now... usually because the latest "trilogy starter" imploded on the launch pad. But I have no idea what the current status is; regardless, if it doesn't make a lot of money, they're not going to rush right into making another expensive sequel; they'll have some hard questions to ask themselves about what comes next.

I don't think it'll do too badly, though. I honestly expect it to do pretty well simply because Linda Hamilton is in it. I've spoken with several people who swear to me that they don't even care if the movie is bad, they just want to see Sarah Conner again. I have to believe that type of person actually adds up to a whole lot of people willing to pay to see this for just that reason, and based on that, it should do alright, whether it deserves to or not. I think their logic is flawed - "Looks kinda bad, but I like One Person in it and I haven't seen them in a while so that's worth a $40+ night out!" - and I wish people wouldn't be that way, but it's entirely their prerogative. I think her name alone will sell a lot of tickets, but we'll obviously have to wait and see if the movie does really well or Just Okay.
----------------------------

I get what they were maybe trying to do by making "John Connor" more of a symbol than a person with their early ideas for "Salvation", and assuming someone else could simply assume his "role", but I still don't like it. I even get the irony of a Skynet-created cyborg leading the Resistance that eventually destroys Skynet itself, but it still seems kind of an ass-pull. Part of what's annoying me about the new one is the whole, "So John and Sarah Connor actually aren't THAT important; they can apparently just be easily replaced, mere cogs in the Time Travel Loop story" thing. These characters ARE important and we've been told/shown that for several decades, so it feels disingenuous to just shrug and say, "Yeah, someone else gets to save the future now, deal with it." That's NOT how these things work. So while Marcus as "John Connor" would have been kind of interesting, I don't like it and I don't think most people would have accepted it either. If humanity can't even save itself from Skynet, and humans have to rely on a malfunctioning murder-bot in order to "win", then that kind of implies that they don't even deserve to. I'unno.

I agree 100% with Andrew that they should have just tossed a sack of cash at Bale and told him to tough it out. We've had so many "John Connors" already that it's a gag. Some consistency, please.
---------------------------

Side Rant: Movie ratings are bullsh*t, full-stop. Because Real Life is rated Hard R, and for that reason there shouldn't even be any ratings system at all. I've never understood why it's preferable to have movies and TV shows where people get shot but don't bleed, or get thrown out of a moving car at 75 mph and just get up and dust themselves off, or people don't swear in situations that obviously warrant it, or people have sex under a blanket. It's such f*cking nonsense. I'm not saying every single thing needs to be 100% gratuitous, with over the top gore and tits everywhere; obviously it needs to be placed in an appropriate context. But what I'm saying is, movie ratings are bullsh*t because they present a completely nonsensical facsimile of the reality that every human being deals with every day. When people get shot, they bleed, and just about every child has already heard every possible swear word by Age 5 unless their parents and everyone else they know are Mormons; most of them have even seen boobs. So it's laughable that there exists an arbitrary system of censorship which claims to "protect" younger people from things that they're already well aware of. I mean, I get it; ratings exist so that someone can't make something that looks like a Disney cartoon that's actually a softcore porno, because God forbid kids see nipples. I get why they exist in theory, but in practice they're absolute bullsh*t and they really do nothing except handcuff filmmakers and keep them from doing their best work, solely in the name of still selling sex and violence to kids so long as it's "safe" sex and violence, which is totally disingenuous and frankly, a little gross. I'm with Frank Zappa and John Denver; art doesn't need labels to "protect" people from things they see and hear every single day. It's stupid.

ANY movie that is predominantly about war needs to be not just rated R, but HARD R, or it's bullsh*t. Furthermore, I'd expect a war between human beings and a merciless AI with an army of amoral killer robots with no conscience or restraint at their disposal to be especially violent and horrifying. If you're not going to "go there" then there isn't any point to making that movie whatsoever. If all the Terminators are gonna do is stand there looking sinister, well... that's dumb, and it's a waste of some terrific potential.

....I typed that whole thing and then saw Andrew say the exact same thing in two sentences. :lol: What a pair, eh? :trazz:

[Andrew NDB]

Wildcat: They always talk about "the next one"; they've already played that game four consecutive times, and "the next one" always ends up being a reboot. :lol:

:lol:

Cases In Point: While "Superman Returns" was still playing, Bryan Singer went around telling anyone who'd listen that The Next One was gonna be the "Empire Strikes Back" of the Superman film franchise, and would include Brainiac and (he later revealed) Doomsday. And "Superman Returns" did alright, financially, but it didn't light things up like they'd hoped, so in spite of whatever was promised, we never got that movie. NOR did we get the "Dark Knight" sequel that WB producers talked about (literally ONE DAY after Dark Knight premiered), featuring Johnny Depp as The Riddler and Philip Seymour Hoffman as The Penguin. I'm sure we all saw "Dark Knight Rises", and suffice to say, the movie they originally said they were going to make (without even asking Nolan, it's important to note) did not end up anything like the movie they did make.

I question some of those things "promised" about TDK, but idk. Might have been fake. But then again through the whole Batman trilogy it seemed like Nolan just continually deferring to Goyer on "what are we doing next?"

I absolutely remember about the TESB stuff about MoS 2.

It's marketing, bruh. "We want you to think we have a plan, when really, we're just totally winging it." The fact is, there are too many moving parts involved in managing a film franchise over a period of years - studio management, public mood/opinion, other studios' output, etc. etc. etc. - for there to ever be any kind of "plan" in anything but the absolute vaguest sense (even the MCU guys have since admitted to booking most of it on the fly). Arnold can say whatever he wants, but he ultimately has no stake in any of what happens next. He's also, I'll remind you, the guy who says each new movie in the series is "Brilliant", until the next one comes out, and then the last one was "trash". Cameron himself does the exact same thing, every time, like clockwork. So again, these guys are all just playing the game. Enjoy their work, but don't actually take anything they say at face value. They don't even have any control over it, they're merely employees. That's like the register guy at McDonald's promising to sell you a Shamrock Shake on Christmas Eve; he can sweet-talk you all day long but he has no power to actually deliver on his promises, so don't pay them any mind.

Cameron cares even less. This movie is like a distraction for him. He's on set with like 30 Avatar movies back to back. You want to make this movie some kind of angry statement about illegal immigrants? I'll fight you, but only a little bit. I'm good either way.

They're not lying to you to be Bad People, they're just in the business of separating fools from their money, like any entertainer. Likewise, I don't point these things out to be mean, but rather to educate and explain.

IF this one does poorly, then we can expect another long hiatus, and possibly another rights-turnover as well. I'm not up to speed on the ins and outs of who owns what regarding the Terminator franchise, but I'm aware that the rights to the brand have changed hands several times between T2 and now... usually because the latest "trilogy starter" imploded on the launch pad. But I have no idea what the current status is; regardless, if it doesn't make a lot of money, they're not going to rush right into making another expensive sequel; they'll have some hard questions to ask themselves about what comes next.

The rights issue is apparently very complicated. More complicated than I imagined. Something like... most of the rights were always going to revert to Cameron in 2019 (which is how this movie got made) but very recent changes to copyright law like within this past week or two give the power back to Gale or something somesuch? It's very strange.

I don't think it'll do too badly, though. I honestly expect it to do pretty well simply because Linda Hamilton is in it. I've spoken with several people who swear to me that they don't even care if the movie is bad, they just want to see Sarah Conner again. I have to believe that type of person actually adds up to a whole lot of people willing to pay to see this for just that reason, and based on that, it should do alright, whether it deserves to or not. I think their logic is flawed - "Looks kinda bad, but I like One Person in it and I haven't seen them in a while so that's worth a $40+ night out!" - and I wish people wouldn't be that way, but it's entirely their prerogative.

I think we'll know the box office power of Linda Hamilton in 2019 by Monday.

Honestly though, as much as I don't like much of this movie... is it weird that I don't want it to fail? Have I succumbed (finally) to battered wife syndrome? Because I know this series won't get a fourth chance, certainly not without a clean slate reboot.

I get what they were maybe trying to do by making "John Connor" more of a symbol than a person with their early ideas for "Salvation", and assuming someone else could simply assume his "role", but I still don't like it. I even get the irony of a Skynet-created cyborg leading the Resistance that eventually destroys Skynet itself, but it still seems kind of an ass-pull. Part of what's annoying me about the new one is the whole, "So John and Sarah Connor actually aren't THAT important; they can apparently just be easily replaced, mere cogs in the Time Travel Loop story" thing. These characters ARE important and we've been told/shown that for several decades, so it feels disingenuous to just shrug and say, "Yeah, someone else gets to save the future now, deal with it." That's NOT how these things work. So while Marcus as "John Connor" would have been kind of interesting, I don't like it and I don't think most people would have accepted it either. If humanity can't even save itself from Skynet, and humans have to rely on a malfunctioning murder-bot in order to "win", then that kind of implies that they don't even deserve to. I'unno.

What I got out of the movie was the filmmakers being ashamed of the whole white male savior thing and this being both the apology and the cure... not making him a symbol. I'd be surprised if he even gets a mention if a T7 gets made.

Side Rant: Movie ratings are bullsh*t, full-stop. Because Real Life is rated Hard R, and for that reason there shouldn't even be any ratings system at all. I've never understood why it's preferable to have movies and TV shows where people get shot but don't bleed, or get thrown out of a moving car at 75 mph and just get up and dust themselves off, or people don't swear in situations that obviously warrant it, or people have sex under a blanket. It's such f*cking nonsense. I'm not saying every single thing needs to be 100% gratuitous, with over the top gore and tits everywhere; obviously it needs to be placed in an appropriate context. But what I'm saying is, movie ratings are bullsh*t because they present a completely nonsensical facsimile of the reality that every human being deals with every day. When people get shot, they bleed, and just about every child has already heard every possible swear word by Age 5 unless their parents and everyone else they know are Mormons; most of them have even seen boobs. So it's laughable that there exists an arbitrary system of censorship which claims to "protect" younger people from things that they're already well aware of. I mean, I get it; ratings exist so that someone can't make something that looks like a Disney cartoon that's actually a softcore porno, because God forbid kids see nipples. I get why they exist in theory, but in practice they're absolute bullsh*t and they really do nothing except handcuff filmmakers and keep them from doing their best work, solely in the name of still selling sex and violence to kids so long as it's "safe" sex and violence, which is totally disingenuous and frankly, a little gross. I'm with Frank Zappa and John Denver; art doesn't need labels to "protect" people from things they see and hear every single day. It's stupid.

ANY movie that is predominantly about war needs to be not just rated R, but HARD R, or it's bullsh*t. Furthermore, I'd expect a war between human beings and a merciless AI with an army of amoral killer robots with no conscience or restraint at their disposal to be especially violent and horrifying. If you're not going to "go there" then there isn't any point to making that movie whatsoever. If all the Terminators are gonna do is stand there looking sinister, well... that's dumb, and it's a waste of some terrific potential.

Preaching to the choir on all of this. :)

Sidenote: how sad is it that the one thing that brought the extended cut of T4 from PG-13 to R on blu-ray is one shot of a screwdriver ambiguously being shoved into a chest? And with no blood?

I was mortified. Finally! Future War! Yay! McG... eh, well, he seemed hyped up at San Diego ComiCon with the T-600 next to him. And then... boom! It's gonna be PG-13.

[Wildcat]

I know Arnold has no control. He’s quoted in an interview that Cameron will write the 7th movie. Which I know that does not mean it’s 100% confirmed. I’m just saying I do believe there will another whether it’s a follow up to DF or not because there has not been a super long hiatus since T2-T3.

Sure a lot plans go unfinished and something else happens. Cameron probably wants too but he can’t guarantee it right now.

As for the rating. I agree that Salvation taking place during the war the violence could be upped but I don’t really know where there should be more blood.

The fight scenes are against robots and the human deaths are not really on-screen. Which I guess they could have been on screen but I did not feel like it was necessarily censored...just the focus was on the robots and the cast fighting their way into Skynet.

Again maybe it’s just me but once the movie gets going you just start focusing on what’s happening but ya they could have made it more violent if they wanted to.

[Leo656]

:lol:
I question some of those things "promised" about TDK, but idk. Might have been fake. But then again through the whole Batman trilogy it seemed like Nolan just continually deferring to Goyer on "what are we doing next?"

I absolutely remember about the TESB stuff about MoS 2.



Cameron cares even less. This movie is like a distraction for him. He's on set with like 30 Avatar movies back to back. You want to make this movie some kind of angry statement about illegal immigrants? I'll fight you, but only a little bit. I'm good either way.



The rights issue is apparently very complicated. More complicated than I imagined. Something like... most of the rights were always going to revert to Cameron in 2019 (which is how this movie got made) but very recent changes to copyright law like within this past week or two give the power back to Gale or something somesuch? It's very strange.



I think we'll know the box office power of Linda Hamilton in 2019 by Monday.

Honestly though, as much as I don't like much of this movie... is it weird that I don't want it to fail? Have I succumbed (finally) to battered wife syndrome? Because I know this series won't get a fourth chance, certainly not without a clean slate reboot.



What I got out of the movie was the filmmakers being ashamed of the whole white male savior thing and this being both the apology and the cure... not making him a symbol. I'd be surprised if he even gets a mention if a T7 gets made.



Preaching to the choir on all of this. :)

Sidenote: how sad is it that the one thing that brought the extended cut of T4 from PG-13 to R on blu-ray is one shot of a screwdriver ambiguously being shoved into a chest? And with no blood?

I was mortified. Finally! Future War! Yay! McG... eh, well, he seemed hyped up at San Diego ComiCon with the T-600 next to him. And then... boom! It's gonna be PG-13.

- Nobody "promised" anything; just coked-up Red Carpet talk by some of the producers who talked to Page Six or whoever at the Dark Knight premiere. Everyone was raving about the film while wondering aloud how anyone could top Ledger's performance in a sequel, and one of the producers made an off-the-cuff remark about Depp and Hoffman, citing who they'd play. He made it sound like it was already a done deal, and all the newspapers were talking about it for a few days, until everyone calmed down. Both guys said they'd never even talked to anyone at WB about it, and by the end of the week it all fizzled. My point remains, though: These people say lots of stuff, but it's mostly lies, and even if they're not lying, they're almost certainly drunk and/or coked up, so c'mon. :trazz:

I was told on my first day "In The Biz" to believe exactly half of what I see and none of what I hear. It's genuinely terrific advice, because most people are amazingly full of sh*t! :)

- I think you mean "Superman Returns 2" (which ironically enough would have been called "Man of Steel" if they'd made it). :) And even on that, Singer went back and forth on a few things. Like at one point it was gonna be Zod, but then it was Brainiac, but then maybe both? The one constant was that Clark's son was going to get infected with some kind of alien virus and morph into Doomsday, thus leading to Superman actually having to kill his own son in the third act to save the world. Yeeesh, and people think Snyder was too into forced angst and melodrama? :lol: I used to be mad they never made a sequel to Returns, but now that I know what it was gonna be like I'm pretty glad it didn't happen.

In Bryan Singer's "defense", he's well-known to be a super-heavy abuser of crystal meth and cocaine. :lol: Not even gonna get into the other stuff about him, but yeah, it explains some of his more... "colorful" ideas.

- Christ, Cameron and his "Avatar" sequels. Jesus, who even remembers that movie? I remember blue cat-people hair-f*cking and something with Sigourney Weaver, but absolutely nothing else. For a movie that made a bazillion dollars, it left all the cultural imprint of a gentle breeze.

- I haven't seen the film, but I'd wager anything that your "White Savior" theory is dead-on. Just like Rey is better than Luke because she's female, Dani is better-equipped to save humanity than John Connor, because John Connor is a Straight White Male but Dani is an Hispanic (I think?) Female who exhibits sexual tension with her female co-stars. "Progressive!"

- I was only referring to John Connor being a "symbol" within the original planned ending for "Salvation", when the Resistance was going to have a Fake Shemp fill in for him after his death. Just to clarify. It seems pretty clear that, as far as the new storyline goes, John's usefulness is completely at an end.

- We all should've known the deal with "Salvation" when we heard "McG". :lol: To be fair, though, it's probably his best movie. Although... what does that even say? :lol:

[Leo656]

I know Arnold has no control. He’s quoted in an interview that Cameron will write the 7th movie. Which I know that does not mean it’s 100% confirmed. I’m just saying I do believe there will another whether it’s a follow up to DF or not because there has not been a super long hiatus since T2-T3.

Sure a lot plans go unfinished and something else happens. Cameron probably wants too but he can’t guarantee it right now.

As for the rating. I agree that Salvation taking place during the war the violence could be upped but I don’t really know where there should be more blood.

The fight scenes are against robots and the human deaths are not really on-screen. Which I guess they could have been on screen but I did not feel like it was necessarily censored...just the focus was on the robots and the cast fighting their way into Skynet.

Again maybe it’s just me but once the movie gets going you just start focusing on what’s happening but ya they could have made it more violent if they wanted to.

I've been told I have a very... vivid imagination, but just off the top of my head I can think of at least a dozen ways in which a murderous robot with no remorse, conscience, or soul could gruesomely eliminate any fleshbags who crossed its path, all of which would necessitate an NC-17. And those are just the easy ones.

It's like some people who said "Brightburn" relied too heavily on its gore for "shock value". Motherf*cker, your movie posits a supposition on what would happen if a disturbed super-powered alien exercised his Heat Vision on a human face/skull, and you tease us with the possibility of seeing this actually happen; if you don't commit to that and actually "go there", then you're a gigantic dripping pussy and you don't respect your audience even a little bit.

If *I* were an evil Murder Robot from the future - and I'm not saying I'm not... :fshifty: - but IF I WERE, I would definitely make "popping human skulls like overripe ticks in my amazingly strong robot fist" a staple of my repertoire. Like seriously, they're nigh-indestructible alloy and super-strong, not to mention they're programmed to know exactly what hurts, what kills, and how badly; f*ck shooting guns, these things should just be casually walking around ripping human limbs off with all the effort it takes to strike a match. Cracking open ribcages like rusty fence gates. Literally snapping people in half and ripping people apart. Especially if there's millions (billions?) of the Terminators and only a scattered handful of humans making up the Resistance.

So what stops them? OH, right... that pesky Ratings Board. :roll: Darn our luck in not seeing things that would actually happen withing the context of the scenario that's been presented to us! If only there were some way around that... like not giving a sh*t about adhering to ratings, for starters.

Verisimilitude is a wonderful thing. And it's an extremely simple process: "So IF this story were real, what would actually happen? Great, now go and Do That." That should be Rule #1 for any story or film (except obviously in cases where being surreal or absurd is entirely the point of the exercise). Unfortunately, movie ratings go entirely against that sort of approach, because ratings demand compromise while art at its best is uncompromising by definition. You cannot tell your best story or do your best work while wondering if some Nanny in the office down the hall is gonna yell at you for something in it.

In theory, in the hands of a competent filmmaker and presented without any compromise whatsoever, the "Future War" of the Terminator universe would best resemble something that would make The Walking Dead look absolutely mundane. So if you can't see why that would ultimately be better for the story they're trying to sell us on and how "horrific and awful" it's supposed to be in this terrible future, or even "where they'd find room to be more violent", then brother, you simply lack imagination and vision. There is absolutely zero logic in an army of "killer robots" who spend a half-dozen movies doing nothing more menacing than occasionally throwing someone really far. Have you noticed that sh*t? :lol: WHY do these Evil Terminators always just up and toss people once they finally grab 'em? COME ON! :lol: These "Terminators" are great at the whole "stalk menacingly" part but they f*cking SUCK at actually "Terminating".

I mean, we all know why. But as I've explained, it is very, very, very, very stupid all the same.

[Wildcat]

I know. Salvation could have had some really violent scenes.

What I’m saying is leaning more so on the robots and infiltrating Skynet...I was ok with that. The battles still make sense.

Like the giant robot that attacks that hideout. Clearly those people died. They do show some of it but Marcus and Reese escape and the cycle bots go after them.

If it had been more violent I’d be ok with that too. I just did not mind how it’s portrayed.

The robots are not just standing around looking scary. They do attack accordingly even if the scenes are not brutally violent.

[Leo656]

I know. Salvation could have had some really violent scenes.

What I’m saying is leaning more so on the robots and infiltrating Skynet...I was ok with that. The battles still make sense.

Like the giant robot that attacks that hideout. Clearly those people died. They do show some of it but Marcus and Reese escape and the cycle bots go after them.

If it had been more violent I’d be ok with that too. I just did not mind how it’s portrayed.

The robots are not just standing around looking scary. They do attack accordingly even if the scenes are not brutally violent.

Did it ruin "Salvation" for me? Not really. Was it the BEST way they could have handled the material? Absolutely not, and I really feel like one should always try their absolute best. Not just, "the best they could do within the circumstances." If your story is implicitly About Violence, don't be afraid to put it on display. Otherwise they all might as well have Nerf guns. Same difference.

They do not "attack accordingly". :lol: Not in any of the movies I've seen. If they're not shooting a million bullets and barely hitting anything, they throw and occasionally choke people. Why screw around? You're super-strong and indestructible, rip the f*ckin' guy (or girl) clean in half, Game Over. I kinda started to lose faith in the franchise once I noticed how often the Terminators just tossed someone across the room once they got their hands on 'em. Instead of, y'know, just killing them immediately like they're supposedly programmed to do. Instead they play games. It's silly!

This is where Hack Writing comes in, when someone writes a scene because "Woah, that'll look cool/badass/funny/etc.!" with little to no regard as to whether it makes any sense. If a Terminator isn't going to immediately Terminate someone once they finally catch them, then the writer simply shouldn't have the Terminator catch them. "But if he throws him really hard really far, like through a wall or something, it'll look SO COOL!" Right. But it's stupid and doesn't make sense.

So yeah, they shouldn't do that.

[Wildcat]

What you’re describing is the villain “stops to explain plan” thing or is just overconfident.

I actually think this works a little better from a villains point of view, even if it seems silly, because they’re their the villain. They’re assuming they can overpower opponents and keep going.

When a hero or good guy gets a clear upper hand but does not try hard enough that’s different because their purpose is to survive or save someone. Don’t simply knockout the villain try and stop them.

It just depends. Obviously scenes have to be written so the hero does not immediately lose if captured. As long as how they escape makes sense.

[Leo656]

I think a lot of the disconnect here is because I was trained to wrestle in a very specific way that relies on framing everything as a real fight, despite being fictional and choreographed. That kind of thing gets drilled into you pretty hard and it doesn't go away. It does help a lot of guys get jobs in TV or movies, though, for that specific reason. But it's not something one can turn off. I mean it's physically beaten into you. :lol:

To my logic, if the established story is, "I'm a villainous character and my sole purpose of existence is to kill," as with Terminators, then if I actually touch someone I'm not going to try and toss them around or cat-and-mouse with them. It's like how I've seen guys who were booked in a "street fight" because of how bad they supposedly hate each other, start the deal with headlocks and wristlocks and forget to even throw a punch until someone reminds 'em. :lol: Brutal. Guys get fired for that sh*t, sometimes.

Mapping out a movie fight or conflict scene and plotting out a match are extremely similar, so I guess it's not surprising that I see things through that particular "lens". When I see things that don't make sense, I can't help but think "Damn, I'd get yelled at for calling that spot." :lol:

[Sumac]

Well I’ve never really read up on Salvation. I just wish it picked up from that ending and continued fight other Skynet bases.
Funny that initial story was not like that.

I think I've mentioned it in another Terminator thread but plot of T4 was very different.

It was Marcus story first and foremost, how he met Kyle Reese and tried to save him from Skynet prison at the end of the movie. When Marcus infiltrates Skynet base he finds out that Kyle has been killed and that Skynet was not trying to eliminate humanity, but to enhance it and Marcus was one of the first prototypes of enhanced humans. He sees resort with humans and fields where Terminators work rising plants, T1000 and TX in initial stages of development.

When Skynet tries to convince him to rejoin his cause, Marcus hears explosion and runs away. He finds Time Machine and uses to travel to the past and cause that explosion from "earlier". John Connor arrives on the submarine with resistance, they bash Skynet base, but John is wounded and his face transplanted on Marcus who kills all witnesses. Thus John Connor "lives" and since no-one knows anything about him, except for his voice the masquerade is successful.

Story has been rewritten into current mess because of Bale, who wanted to have more screen time, which killed Marcus story. And, I assume, ending with Terminators in the fields and face transplant was deemed too revolutionary for the franchise to it was scrapped in favor of more traditional "Skynet exterminates humans" deal.

Never mind Genesys which went with John Connor being a bad guy anyway. :lol:

[Hamato Yoshi]

"the guy who says each new movie in the series is "Brilliant", until the next one comes out, and then the last one was trash"

like Robin Shou when he hyped MK2 :oops:

(Shou didnt say MK1 was trash but he did hype MK2 which was a huge cinematic turd)

Its true , a terminator doesnt care , if it doesnt have weapons available it would attempt to rip your head off or just plain choke you to death....it will stop when youre stone cold dead and not before

Speaking of formula , 70s kung fu films : Hapkido , When TKD strikes were pretty much copys of Fist of Fury , same China vs Japan conflict :P

.....and Elvisfilms , the definition of formula films (sadly Elvis agreed to do them......I heard he was offered Death Wish , Midnight Cowboy & A star is born '76 , I dont think he wanted to do ASIB so its not just Parkers fault)

Zorin didnt explain the caper to Bond but he did explain to the audience watching during the airship scene

Speaking of movie fights , one of the HK stuntmen went up to Lazenby during break , he felt Laz was being a bit rough and explained if they get seriously hurt they lose money so tone it down a bit (this was 5 yrs after he did Bond , the 70s)

[ZariusTwo]

Box Office: ‘Terminator’ Bombs Again As ‘Dark Fate’ Nabs Apocalyptic $10.6 Million Friday


https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2019/11/02/box-office-james-cameron-and-tim-millers-terminator-dark-fate-starring-linda-hamilton-and-arnold-schwarzenegger-bombs-with-apocalyptic-11-million-friday/#5f63c0225a3e

[Andrew NDB]

Box Office: ‘Terminator’ Bombs Again As ‘Dark Fate’ Nabs Apocalyptic $10.6 Million Friday


https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2019/11/02/box-office-james-cameron-and-tim-millers-terminator-dark-fate-starring-linda-hamilton-and-arnold-schwarzenegger-bombs-with-apocalyptic-11-million-friday/#5f63c0225a3e

Another sacrifice for white male guilt. Get woke, go broke.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/get-woke-go-broke-terminator-dark-fate-bombs-at-the-box-office

[Leo656]

Ouch, really? Oof.

I honestly thought that a lotta people would go just because of Linda Hamilton.

Guess you were right, man. 8-10 years then a hard reboot.

Ah well. Maybe they'll learn someth-aaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa! :lol: I couldn't even. As if anyone ever learns anything.

[oldmanwinters]

Just popped in the BluRay of the original THE TERMINATOR, and found that opening text hilariously ironic:
Los Angeles 2029...
"Their war to exterminate mankind had raged for decades, but the final battle would not be fought in the future. It would be fought here, in our present."

So here we are, getting surprisingly close to 2029 in our present, and the machines just keep bouncing back from that "final battle."

[sdp]

The trilogy of failed trilogy starters is real, terminator will now be divided between the original trilogy and the reboots trilogy. :lol:

[oldmanwinters]

The trilogy of failed trilogy starters is real, terminator will now be divided between the original trilogy and the reboots trilogy. :lol:

It's quite telling how just about every action movie that gets made today has aspirations of becoming a 10-year trilogy. Yet, few are able to endure. :tcool:

EDIT:
Beautiful:
lJzRQdDN2pY

[Wildcat]

@Leo656, In general I think it works because the villain has some sort of conscious. There’s a human element. I get what you mean though of terminators. Their thought process is limited to kill or enslave.

Still I really cannot think of any time in any movie where the terminator messed around. Everyone they needed to kill was killed or was about to be killed. Only time they throw, punch etc. someone is when they’re fighting each other.

@Sumac, Ya the others posted that and I looked it up too. I would not have gone as far as having Skynet win but I do think Marcus becoming the new leader would be kinda cool. Even wearing his skin. The T1000 could mold itself to look like anybody so something along that line of technology could have worked.

The part about Skynet creating hybrids and killing off people because it knew humans would die makes no sense but we’re talking about a piece of an idea that got scrapped so there’s no context. Not that I found.

As for Dark Fate, 1 weekend is an an extremely small window to hinge your entire success on. Especially now when home releases happen sooner. I feel like overall reception is more meaningful.

How are you gonna write articles on how bad a movie has done overnight? Are these people just waiting to criticize stuff?

[Leo656]

No, it's simply how Hollywood works now. Movies don't play for six months anymore, they run for three to six weeks on average and make 90% of their money within the first 5-7 days, and most of THAT always comes in the opening weekend. After 48 hours, the rest of a film's performance is word-of-mouth. Furthermore, since a big chunk of tickets are sold in advance online now, it's entirely possible within the first 24 hours to track and predict what the performance for the next few days will be. There's always a small margin of error but these projections are almost never, ever wrong. Bottom line, movies never make MORE money as the days go by, they make less. That's exactly how it works, which is why opening weekend is everything. If you don't make your budget back in three days, you're dead. Period.

Economics and facts operate completely independently of fanboyism or anyone's feelings. That's why Forbes is such an important resource when discussing the financial element of these things; they have nothing to do with reviewing films from a criticism or critique perspective, and solely on whether or not the movie enticed people to spend their money. This film failed to do that. And if you look at the Forbes article that Andrew posted above, the facts are indisputable: This franchise has not actually made any serious noise since T2, which was the last time they made serious money vs. what they spent on making the film. Since then, they've either barely broke even OR only made any money in China. And even CHINA apparently doesn't want to pay to see this one, either, because it's not making money over there like the last few did. So they can't even rely on overseas box office to save them, this time.

$27 million might be more money than you or I will ever see, but in Movie Money, it's like, $27. It's nothing. They're going to take a bath and there's not going to be a sequel. You CAN tell these things this early, nowadays. It's an entire business to itself. Statistics and economics are a thing, as is the Internet. It's not a bunch of people just sitting around waiting to rain on some fanboy parades, they're simply reporting the facts: It's not making money, it's not going to make any money, and that's the end of the conversation.

Tough break I guess, but like the Forbes article points out: Nobody actually cares about this franchise and hasn't in almost 30 years. If they did, they'd pay to see them in theaters. They don't. FOUR movies in a row failed to draw a crowd. That's incredibly damning. They should stick to making comic books if they feel that they HAVE to put out more Terminator "product". They're not gonna find another studio willing to bleed $200 million on a nostalgia grab anytime soon, I promise you. They've tried EVERY single thing and failed. There's nothing left they can do.

Except what Andrew predicted: 10 years to "cool off", then a total reboot. That's ALL they can do from this point.

[Andrew NDB]

Hard and total reboot for sure. And not even in some kind of "wink wink, maybe it's a new timeline" way. There's just nothing left worth saving, moving forward. And I say that as a fan. The only chance Terminator has is for a new generation to experience it for the first time the same way we did, untethered by anything else.

[Wildcat]

I did read the Forbes article. I got confused when it got to the Harriet Tubman movie because it just seems to start an entirely different subject. I even scrolled back up to see if I missed a header.

What I meant about home release was that it must count for something, whether it’s rental or purchase, because not everyone goes to the theater since home release happens faster.

That’s a real thing now. Some rarely goto theaters and just wait. That’s what I do mostly. Obviously some movies are just naturally huge like Marvel but that’s in no way a realistic comparison for other franchises.

I don’t follow box office numbers. Generally I feel too much is made of them because it takes a bit before you know how well something was received.

I do check them occasionally out of curiosity after a movie leaves theaters. I don’t know what studios consider good, bad or acceptable because stuff that was supposedly unpopular has gotten sequels or another installment...like this for example.

[Andrew NDB]

I did read the Forbes article. I got confused when it got to the Harriet Tubman movie because it just seems to start an entirely different subject. I even scrolled back up to see if I missed a header.

What I meant about home release was that it must count for something, whether it’s rental or purchase, because not everyone goes to the theater since home release happens faster.

That’s a real thing now. Some rarely goto theaters and just wait. That’s what I do mostly. Obviously some movies are just naturally huge like Marvel but that’s in no way a realistic comparison for other franchises.

I don’t follow box office numbers. Generally I feel too much is made of them because it takes a bit before you know how well something was received.

I do check them occasionally out of curiosity after a movie leaves theaters. I don’t know what studios consider good, bad or acceptable because stuff that was supposedly unpopular has gotten sequels or another installment...like this for example.

None of that matters. This isn't a 15 million dollar movie that makes 13 million at the box office, then a lot of VOD and blu-ray sales. This is a 185 million dollar movie that's set to make only 20 million in its first weekend and torpedo next weekend, and then quietly be buried. Aftermarket can't and won't save it. Word of mouth isn't even a thing because half of it will be ranging from "don't see it" to "meh, it was OK, but samey."

[Wildcat]

I don’t know. It’s been literally 1 day. How much should it have made in 1 day? It’s entire budget?

Aside from waiting for home release some just don’t go on opening weekends. I don’t to avoid crowds. Also some might just be busy with other things. Not everything needs to become an overnight sensation.

Also I hate to go there but that other link you posted, they were not exactly objective...maybe don’t start your review/article “get woke go broke”. How long were they waiting to type that?

[Andrew NDB]

Also I hate to go there but that other link you posted, they were not exactly objective...maybe don’t start your review/article “get woke go broke”. How long were they waiting to type that?

Probably since July, when the director broadcast that anybody that isn't "enlightened" will not enjoy the movie:

https://theplaylist.net/tim-miller-terminator-mackenzie-davis-20190710/

[Wildcat]

Maybe. I already knew about that it’s just the whole post was 1 big complaint about John Connor and being woke/progressive.

I have not seen DF but I stumbled on that spoiler before. Which is ok I guess since it happens at the start.

I hate that everything is deemed woke/PC though. This would not happen if it came out in the 90s or 2000s. Nobody claimed TX was trying to be progressive as a female terminator.

[Andrew NDB]

Maybe. I already knew about that it’s just the whole post was 1 big complaint about John Connor and being woke/progressive.

I have not seen DF but I stumbled on that spoiler before. Which is ok I guess since it happens at the start.

I hate that everything is deemed woke/PC though. This would not happen if it came out in the 90s or 2000s. Nobody claimed TX was trying to be progressive as a female terminator.

Because she wasn't. In T3 it was just "who could be something new for a Terminator villain? Let's try a woman Terminator." And that was that. It wasn't touted as some angry progressive thing, it just was. Nobody cared. And it was fine, and made a ton of money, almost as much as T2. This movie, we have a no-nonsense Mexican Terminator that is fine, but also a movie that stops halfway through to literally tell us and slap us over the head that the movies 20 years ago are bad because they don't adhere to the current woke agenda and only now we're getting the real deal. And I'm talking about two big scenes here, the first of which is loudly making Sarah Connor butthurt that she wasn't the savior of humanity, but only her white male son.

[Sumac]

So we have 4 failed start ups for the new trilogy now? :lol:
Isn't it unprecedented in a history of the franchises?
I wonder what they gonna do next? Blame "white males"? Blame Trump? Blame producers? Cameron? Because, I don't think those guys will admit that they failed to make a good movie.

I hate that everything is deemed woke/PC though. This would not happen if it came out in the 90s or 2000s. Nobody claimed TX was trying to be progressive as a female terminator.
When director of the movie literally says "people who don't like new protagonist are afraid of women", its hard to ignore this element.

Gladly shithead now has been put in his place, so now it will be interesting to see how this manbaby gonna react. Since it seems T6 is gonna be the worst grossing T movie in the history.

[Andrew NDB]

So we have 4 failed start ups for the new trilogy now? :lol:
Isn't it unprecedented in a history of the franchises?
I wonder what they gonna do next? Blame "white males"? Blame Trump? Blame producers? Cameron?

I want to believe when Cameron was talking about the "blood on the walls" in fighting with Miller on story he was fighting to keep the politics out of the movie, but I have no idea. Because he's one of my heroes. Anyway, we already see the defense mechanism/antibodies forming. "Oh, I guess people are just tired of the franchise" seems to be the go to.

And this would be the third, I think? Unless we want to count the Sarah Connor Chronicles. Which ignored T3 only to be ignored by T4 and everything else. Probably should have played ball.

[Leo656]

Also, what the heck with "It's been one day"? It's going on three days. It had a limited opening on Thursday, premiered "officially" on Friday, and we're now going into Sunday. Meanwhile, it's already had showings in some countries, like, last week, and didn't set the world on fire over there, either.

On Thursday night when it made like $9 million, people blamed Halloween (even though most people don't actually pay attention to Halloween anymore and most places have early curfews, meaning anyone who did celebrate still had plenty of time to see it if it was playing in their area). But they only made another $15 million or so on Friday, which is traditionally a huge night for "blockbuster" movies like this one, and that's when people started to panic, because that's a very weak start. Opening NIGHT moreso even than opening weekend is where you can start to gauge the general interest in a film. Everyone who's committed wants to "be there first". Opening nights are "events", in a sense. If you don't pack the people in on opening night, you aren't going to next week, either. That's just how these things work.

I will say that I don't ever look at box office as a measure of any film's QUALITY. A ton of bad movies make a ton of money, and a ton of good movies don't make very much money. You can't tell much about quality, you can only get a sense of whether or not the general audience was in the mood for something at that moment in time. It CAN be because a movie was bad, but it could also mean it wasn't designed for mass appeal, or any number of reasons. In this case, I personally think it looks like recycled junk, and that appears to be the consensus, but that still doesn't mean it's worthless or terrible or that some people won't like it a lot. You can't get all of that from the box office receipts.

What you CAN get a feel for, however, is whether or not a movie is going to get a sequel, because things that make a lot of money are more likely to get a follow-up than things that don't. Especially when the things that don't are very expensive. To guarantee a sequel, a $200 million dollar movie generally needs to make back between $500-700 million, depending on a few variables. This one most likely isn't going to make $500 million. If the reviews were GREAT, and people were super enthusiastic about it, then a studio might be inclined to take the risk on a sequel so long as this one made at least its own budget of two hundred back, because yes, occasionally that does happen, in SUPER rare cases. But the reviews aren't great, and people are not super enthusiastic, they're just "It's alright, I guess." So unless it pulls in at least four hundred, they're out of luck. That's not me saying that, that's Math saying that.

I will reiterate that I did not predict this. Going by Spoilers, I am actually amazed that it's 100% the movie I thought it would be - and that doesn't make me happy in the least - but I figured a lot of people would still go anyway, just because it's such a blatant nostalgia grab and people generally love that kind of thing. They must be extremely fed up with all the canon-erasure and timeline-jumping confusion and simply unwilling to take any more chances after so many letdowns, that's all I can figure.

Going back and reading about the build-up to the last few movies, what stands out to me is that the last time there was SINCERE enthusiasm for the franchise, it was between T3 and Salvation. People were genuinely excited that we were finally going to see the big Future War, but then of course the more information came out, the less happy people were, and in the end everyone stayed home and nobody saw it. BUT. That tells me that at one point, they had an idea and a direction that fans were genuinely excited about, before they screwed it up. If this movie or the last one had committed to being the movie that "Salvation" COULD have been, they just might have figured it out and kept people on their side. Instead, they wasted any remaining goodwill on two back-to-back retcon/nostalgia-grab pictures, and I think we can safely say now that approach was a f*cking mistake.

In the end, the lesson of the Terminator franchise will forever be: "You Cannot Go Forward By Moving Backwards."

[Wildcat]

It’s true it’s been more than 1 day. I was just going by the basic US release date. I still do not think even 1 week is a legitimate gauge of reception though let alone opening night.

Anyway Miller only said those comments in regards to people complaining about Mackenzie Davis and the new heroes. He was addressing that specific line of complaints.

If he had not said that would people still say DF is “woke” just based on the movie? Some were accusing it of being that before he even said it. That was what lead him to say it.

It’s hard a thing to put into words but some are acting like they he specifically picked those actors in order to be Woke/Progressive/PC whatever. Do people really believe that’s what happened?

@AndrewNDB, like I said have not seen it so I have no idea how it comes off.

Ya know I can’t really tell if this all serious or it’s just the usual internet overreacting to things. So I guess other movies get deemed bombs right from the start too. I honestly don’t know because I usually don’t get caught up in the box office subject.

[Andrew NDB]

On Thursday night when it made like $9 million, people blamed Halloween

Where are you getting that number? It made like 2.3 on Thursday.

And yes. That period of time between T3 and T4. That was the last magical time there was interest in what's next. i.e., Big Future War stuff. McG fanned the fires by coming to SanD with the T-600 behind him while stories circled about him asking Cameron for his blessing, and Cameron humoring him with talking time travel but cutting things short by asking for money and McG backing away.

I have many friends that saw those first trailers for T4 with the NIN song in there proclaiming "I think he's done it!" only to go quiet later. But whatever. T4 was the tipping point. Genisys was mostly "whoa... young Arnold and time travel bonanza?" but it was mostly ******** the bed to make a buck on a bet that didn't pan out... what's left is radioactive.

So follow THAT up with some feminist, white male guilt missive? Yikes. Good luck with that.

[Sumac]

And this would be the third, I think? Unless we want to count the Sarah Connor Chronicles. Which ignored T3 only to be ignored by T4 and everything else. Probably should have played ball.
I am not 100% sure about it, but T3 was supposed to be start of the new trilogy as well. Though maybe I am mistaking here.

[Leo656]

Wildcat: Well it's important to understand how it works if one is going to participate in a speculative conversation regarding the future of a film series. A person cannot simply insist upon things just because it's what they wish would happen. If the conversation is, "Are they going to make sequels?" then a person should at least have a rudimentary understanding of what goes into those decisions, what kind of data matters and how it's measured, etc.

You can't just say, "Well *I* think it's too soon to tell." That's you. People who get paid a lot more money than you do specifically for the purpose of making sense of these numbers and explaining what they mean CAN tell what the "temperature" of a movie is. They can't predict every dollar but they can easily predict the general outcome. Part of that is because it's specifically their job, and part of it is that they have access to information that you and I do not, which is also because it's their job.

In summation, they can make an accurate prediction because it's what they do. Box office "forecasters" are rarely off by much once they have opening night statistics in their hand. I'm not a statistician, but they are, and that's why they can already tell, roughly, what the future grosses will be. They are not paid to gauge quality and are neutral in that regard. They don't predict that a movie will under-perform because they hope it will, they simply observe and report based on quantifiable evidence.
-------------------

Andrew: I probably misread something somewhere. Like it had made $9 million by some time Friday night. I was looking at a bunch of stuff, some of which had Update notices from different points over the weekend. It's all kind of a blur, but I probably just mixed something up.

[Andrew NDB]

I am not 100% sure about it, but T3 was supposed to be start of the new trilogy as well. Though maybe I am mistaking here.

You might be right. This is going back a long way but I do vaguely remember some stuff back on like AICN saying Mostow was signed for at least a couple of movies. I don't think "trilogy" was literally said ever, though.

[Wildcat]

Leo656, I get that. Every business has its financial side to calculate things. I can fully admit I do not know how that works and never liked math.

I’m just saying I’m surprised that even one weekend would be enough to form such a strong result. I genuinely would like to know what even opening night should have made.

I mean it’s different for every movie and every budget so to me it seems just a bit arbitrary that a given movie must make X amount of money in X amount of time.

Maybe I have not been totally clear. I feel like the box office/theater is just one phase. Not that this or any movie will somehow become an OnDemand or Blu Ray hit. What I mean is once everything settles you have a better idea of how people liked it. I just think that’s a factor in the long run.

[oldmanwinters]

Gotta admit I sincerely appreciate the opening future war sequence to Genysis.... it's a faithful, canon take on the prologue we were told about in T1. Did it NEED to exist? No, but it was fun to see. The only continuity gaffe was probably the fact that Reese still had the vintage Sarah Conner Polaroid, since T1 suggests it was destroyed during a home base incursion.

Everything was fine right up until the moment Reese does his time jump... then everything falls off the rails and the movie tries to get too smart for its own good.

[Sumac]

Gotta admit I sincerely appreciate the opening future war sequence to Genysis.... it's a faithful, canon take on the prologue we were told about in T1. Did it NEED to exist? No, but it was fun to see.
It was directly based on a scrapped intro for the Terminator 2, which was cut because they didn't have budget for it back in the 90s.

[AquaParade]

Leo656, I get that. Every business has its financial side to calculate things. I can fully admit I do not know how that works and never liked math.

I’m just saying I’m surprised that even one weekend would be enough to form such a strong result. I genuinely would like to know what even opening night should have made.

I mean it’s different for every movie and every budget so to me it seems just a bit arbitrary that a given movie must make X amount of money in X amount of time.

Maybe I have not been totally clear. I feel like the box office/theater is just one phase. Not that this or any movie will somehow become an OnDemand or Blu Ray hit. What I mean is once everything settles you have a better idea of how people liked it. I just think that’s a factor in the long run.

Opening weekend indeed sets the tone and alludes to the overall outcome, but there are, of course, exceptions to every rule. Every once in a while, a film has a poor opening weekend, and goes on to experience smaller weekend to weekend drops, due to positive word of mouth.

I can't think of a perfect example at the moment, but one fun fact is that Avatar, the second highest grossing film ever, only made $77 million, domestic, it's opening weekend - huge success but not one that would lead you to believe it would become the highest grossing film of all time (until Endgame dusted it), in comparison to many other blockbuster opening weekends.

So I'm not bold enough to call that a direct comparison, but it's an example of box-office trends bending.

The idea that this film gets a sequel is ikely doomed, but you never know. I mean, take everything into account, and look at the fact that Joker, another R-rated film, aimed at a similar audience, just made a strong case for edgy movies with small budgets. There are other factors.
Perhaps, the team behind this film follows that trend and tries to produce a small scale Terminator film that harkens back to the very first. It could be done on a much smaller budget. Sounds pretty kickass to me, and a safe bet for the studio.

(Holy ****, get Javier Bardem to play the Terminator and have Lynne Ramsay direct)

[Xav]

They've tried EVERY single thing and failed. There's nothing left they can do.

Except what Andrew predicted: 10 years to "cool off", then a total reboot. That's ALL they can do from this point.They haven't tried the crossover yet. I'm surprised they haven't done a Robocop vs. Terminator film by now.

[oldmanwinters]

So here's a pointless nagging thought I have about all the "possible futures" and alternate timelines in the Terminator franchise:

In T3, it was stated that Sarah Conner died of leukemia in 1997.
What was the impetus that caused Sarah not to die in the TV series and Dark Fate?
Did she simply get early detection, got connected with skilled medical professionals, and ultimately beat the disease into remission?
Or did she simply never conduct it at all?

[Leo656]

Leo656, I get that. Every business has its financial side to calculate things. I can fully admit I do not know how that works and never liked math.

I’m just saying I’m surprised that even one weekend would be enough to form such a strong result. I genuinely would like to know what even opening night should have made.

I mean it’s different for every movie and every budget so to me it seems just a bit arbitrary that a given movie must make X amount of money in X amount of time.

Maybe I have not been totally clear. I feel like the box office/theater is just one phase. Not that this or any movie will somehow become an OnDemand or Blu Ray hit. What I mean is once everything settles you have a better idea of how people liked it. I just think that’s a factor in the long run.

I hear you, but "Did people like it?" and, "Did it make money/enough money for a sequel?" are two completely separate conversations.

I agree with you in theory. Twin Peaks is a masterpiece, for example, and "Fire Walk With Me" is an absolutely brilliant piece of work - although it's absolutely not for everyone. Upon its debut it was completely ripped apart by the critics and ignored by theater-goers... except in Japan, where they adored it, despite not even getting the TV show it was part of, go figure. Anyway. It took like 25 YEARS, but now most peoples' opinions on the film have done a complete 180, and even most of the critics who called it garbage back then say that they were mistaken, now, and apologized for not viewing it through the proper lens when it was fresh.

It happens! Time, hindsight, perspective, re-evaluation, etc. can all do a lot to change someone's mind. MANY films that are considered classics now were either hated or ignored when they were new. Sometimes it takes literal decades. But it does happen. Maybe in 2040 people will say that Bay's Transformers flicks were brilliant and ahead of their time. Stranger things have happened.

...But none of that helps THIS movie get a sequel greenlit, if they don't make a lot more than what they spent on it. One doesn't need to be a math wizard to understand that in order to make Profit, you have to earn back more than you spent. If you spent $5, and earn back $6, you *technically* made a profit, but not really. Not enough to justify doing the same thing tomorrow or the next day.

"Twice the budget, plus a half" is the general Hollywood standard for approving sequels. So in this case, if they spent 200, they'd need to pull in at least 500 before even talking about a sequel. Yes, SOME movies do get sequels if they make less or simply break even, but it's rare. Those movies are usually far less expensive than Terminator ones are, and even then, it usually takes... about ten years; at which point, as Andrew said, they may as well reboot. If people aren't willing to pay money to see this franchise in theaters in 2019, who's still gonna care in 2029? Starting over from scratch and pretending it's the first in a new series would make a LOT more sense than trying to hack through yet another mangled timeline. Nobody can even keep the canon straight as it is, despite each new movie supposedly being the one that "fixes" everything. A clean slate makes way more sense.

But to be clear, none of this has one bit to do with "quality". *I* think it looks like recycled crap, I said so a year ago and I'm saying it now, but other people like it alright, and good for them, they had lower "demands" or whatever of this franchise at this point, and that's fine. But for what it's worth, I don't see a lot of "It's great!" or, "It's terrible!" Just a lot if, "Eh, it's kinda alright, I guess, except it's predictable and you've seen it all before." That's the consensus, and that simply isn't good enough for the brand to keep pushing forward.

For what it's worth, nothing I like ever makes any money, so I'm used to it by now.

They haven't tried the crossover yet. I'm surprised they haven't done a Robocop vs. Terminator film by now.

I've had a really bad day. Please don't push me to stab myself in the neck with scissors by making flippant comments such as these. Your words have more power than you realize.

[Wildcat]

I checked Genisys IMDb page. It says it did $27+ million opening weekend. Basically same as this.

AquaParade, that’s why I do not like putting a lot of stock into box office reports. They do not tell the proper story.

Leo656, ya gaining popularity down the line does not technically matter right now. I tend to think of it as...until a little time has passed you don’t really know how well something did. Financially or in popularity. Don’t you need to see both in “full” to see the whole picture?

Oh and I had an idea for a crossover. John Connor meets John Rambo. He’s recruited to help stop Skynet. They could totally exist in the same universe. Don’t know how Rambo 5 ended but there’s time travel.

[Andrew NDB]

So here's a pointless nagging thought I have about all the "possible futures" and alternate timelines in the Terminator franchise:

In T3, it was stated that Sarah Conner died of leukemia in 1997.
What was the impetus that caused Sarah not to die in the TV series and Dark Fate?
Did she simply get early detection, got connected with skilled medical professionals, and ultimately beat the disease into remission?
Or did she simply never conduct it at all?

If I recall, near the end of The Sarah Connor Chronicles they DID reveal she had some kind of cancer, or could have. It's been a long time but I remember something of it.

But yeah, alternate timelines is one thing but how do you explain her dying of leukemia not happening in the other timelines?

Personally, I always wondered if she really died at all. I think in T3 John said he saw her get sick but not actually die. And her coffin was empty, after all. Maybe not, but I always figured a sequel to T3 could pull a "she's back!" thing.

[Leo656]

Wildcat: Genysis also made a ton of money overseas, though. This one isn't. Its actually just about wrapping up its overseas run. It's apparently been out for weeks and including the U.S. box office of 29, it's only around $130-150 million, or something. The only place left for it to open is Japan, and the Terminator films historically don't do enormous business over there. They've got their own robot movies, they don't care about ours.

This thing will need a great second week just to make its own budget back. And it probably will do that, but that's as far as it goes. Not ONE financial analyst who's written a single word about the film expects it to do much better than 300 at best. And again, they're not paid to "hate" or "Cheerlead", simply to report facts and put things in perspective. You think - or hope - the tail on this film might pull up. It Won't. You hope it'll make enough money for a sequel to be approved, and it physically cannot do that. Not unless every person in America and Japan all decides between now and next week to go see it at least three times. And that's highly unlikely.

There was a good article on 411Mania that I'll try to find that puts it all into very clear perspective. Starting with T3, each successive movie has made less money overall and got more of a mixed reaction. The consensus is, Terminator is a "damaged brand"; too many retcons, too much conflicting information within the films themselves, too much audience confusion, and just too much audience apathy in general. People feel burnt, betrayed, and worn out by this franchise. People in general simply do not care about Terminator anymore. You can't see the grosses drop more and more, four times in a row, and pretend otherwise. If they cared, they'd pay to see the f*cking things, instead of waiting for DVD or whatever. They do that because they figure it's not worth the money to see them in theaters. They figure that, because the last three also weren't worth the money, and patterns aren't tough to recognize. It's simple cause and effect.

You care, obviously. And I feel for you. But You are not "people" in the grander sense; as in, your own individual enthusiasm is not going to be enough to make this film profitable, nor will it make the studio overlook all the money they essentially wasted on making it. They are NOT going to just shrug this embarrassment off and say, "Well... let's try the exact same thing again, two years from now!"

I mean... you just hypothesized a Terminator/Rambo cross-over. :blanksta: There is nothing kind or polite I can say about that. The best thing I can say is, that is the very epitome of grasping at straws.

Just let this franchise pass away gracefully, guy. Save yourself the ulcer and heartbreak. We don't NEED more of these things.

Do I think there will ever be another Terminator film? Yes, actually, because it's a brand name people remember, but ONLY for that reason. There WILL be another Terminator film - because there is no God - but it will NOT be a direct continuation of this series, and it won't be for a very long time. At this point there's actually more talk of doing a TV series on Netflix or something rather than another movie, because by all accounts, the studio's already resigned themselves that this movie failed.

If they can accept it, then I think you and everyone else can, too. Try not to take it personal; it's The Business. You think I don't hate that there's not gonna be another Superman or Justice League movie for like 87 years? It pisses me off, but I'm not gonna stand here pissing in the wind about it. It's over and done with, and there's nothing I can do about it. So don't think I don't understand your frustration, just because I personally think this specific franchise should have been buried in 1992. I absolutely understand how it feels when you can't get more of what you want because Other People don't like it enough.

But that's life.

[DarkFell]

They haven't tried the crossover yet. I'm surprised they haven't done a Robocop vs. Terminator film by now.
Epic Rap Battles of History 'covered' what you mentioned. Adult language is present within the video.
Jmqa99Ar1Hs
This was created before Genisys invaded the theaters.

[Wildcat]

Leo656, I actually did see that each terminator has made less each time. Salvation had a better opening. I checked that one too.

Obviously not great but the budget was around $200 million. If it makes around $300 million isn’t that ok at least? Might not be sequel-worthy but not really a waste of time. Again that’s not counting home release...which I know is not the point but people out there will buy/rent it.

:cry: :lol: I thought of the Rambo crossover before. I mean he’s an unstoppable 1-man army, both series are violent and deal in war/survival and as a bonus both characters are named John. I even thought of a title. Terminator: Future Blood.

[Andrew NDB]

Obviously not great but the budget was around $200 million. If it makes around $300 million isn’t that ok at least?

Domestically? Yeah! That'd put it in a great place. It won't go anywhere close to that, though.

International numbers don't mean much unless there's a LOT. Like overseas numbers, the studio actually only actually gets 25% of it.

[Leo656]

:cry: :lol: I thought of the Rambo crossover before. I mean he’s an unstoppable 1-man army, both series are violent and deal in war/survival and as a bonus both characters are named John. I even thought of a title. Terminator: Future Blood.

My favorite is this one.

https://storage.googleapis.com/hipcomic/p/19553e95a451fb625387f032fcd5bc0d-800.jpghttps://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51nm-ojVsFL.jpghttps://d1466nnw0ex81e.cloudfront.net/n_iv/600/867059.jpghttps://d1466nnw0ex81e.cloudfront.net/n_iv/600/1079515.jpg

I mean, the first three covers are amazing (WTF happened to the faces on #4, though? :lol:) and 'Death to the Future" is a title that fits right in that sweet spot between "edgelord fanfiction" and "Just crazy enough to actually be kinda badass".

Actually pretty good. Probably my favorite Terminator thing after the first two movies. Far from "high art" but it takes two things that on the surface have nothing to do with each other and actually weaves a story that makes you wonder why nobody did it sooner.

Keep in mind, it came out in the pre-T3 days, so as fans, we really didn't have much, so this was about as good as it was gonna get.

[Andrew NDB]

I've never read that... I should. Cyborg Superman in a Terminator story is pretty crazy.

I actually really enjoyed the Alien/Predator/Terminator crossover. How crazy is it that it also serves as the only Alien: Resurrection sequel we'll ever get, with Ripley-8 and all.

[Wildcat]

AndrewNDB, see I don’t know about percentages. I know everyone gets paid their share but I don’t know what’s considered good, bad or decent. Since I ended up talking about the box office I’m really curious now what the number will be when it leaves theaters.

Leo656, those look pretty awesome. The last cover seems like it might have been 3D but they changed their mind. I’ve never really been into Superman but I would definitely watch that if it was made into a movie. I think there’s probably a lot of crossovers that could make sense.

[Leo656]

It's definitely a very cool little mini-series. It goes balls-out in trying to weave every bit of both franchises' lore together as lovingly as possible. Yeah, it's a little fan-ficcy, but all cross-overs are by default. This was definitely one of the better ones I've ever read, not even kidding. John Henry Irons in the far-future helping John Connor lead the Resistance! Cyborg Superman commanding a legion of Terminators! Lex Luthor might have created Skynet! And so much more.

It's f*cking insane in only good ways. It's pretty cheap, definitely check it out.

I do believe they did 3D/"Moveable" covers on some of these, but that still doesn't explain what the hell happened on the faces on #4. That's just... blech. :lol:

[Wildcat]

Ya I need to read a lot of comics. I know there’s a bunch that do a lot of different things.

Collecting comics is just one of those things I never really got into. I have a bunch of Sonic ones but that’s about it. I lost track a long time ago and don’t have any from IDW.

I have some other comics based on other stuff. Just odds and ends. I have this that I got years ago at a used book store. Just thought it was cool. Don’t have the rest.

https://i.postimg.cc/rmHgNGZ4/7-AB56807-085-D-46-CB-86-E1-FC06-B193-FA50.jpg

[Leo656]

I just now read and thus remembered that the Superman/Terminator mini-series was written by Alan Grant. That explains a lot, as he is very, very good. Judge Dredd and various Batman titles, for example, among many other celebrated works.

I like that. They often just get some hack to write these things, because they're "easy". Y'know what else was really good? The first Superman/Aliens one - they did three, later adding Batman and Predators, to... mixed results. But the first series was excellent. DC and Dark Horse put out a lot of very strong cross-overs back in the 90s. There was a lot of cross-brand collaboration to make sure everything was on-point across both sides... it was all just very cool, really slick stuff. But then Dark Horse always had a reputation for really taking care with their licensed properties, back then. Obviously anything with "Aliens" or "Terminator" or "Predator" would sell back then, especially if you put someone like Batman on the cover, but the stories themselves were mostly really strong. Like they'd technically not be "in-canon" with either universe, but you could usually accept them as canon without any major issues if you felt like it. Like the Superman/Terminator one is only non-canon because they say so, but it's explicitly set in post-T2 continuity and also heavily entrenched in where the Superman books were in 1999, up to and including the use of the supporting cast as they existed at the time. There's absolutely nothing that contradicts anything else; if you can accept the somewhat absurd premise of the characters already existing in the same universe, then everything else is seamless. And that's nice. It fits in more believably with the T1 and T2 canon than most of the actual movies do. Just, "Also Superman exists." :lol:

Sigh. Those were the days. I gotta go through my longboxes. I've got some Terminator stuff up through like 2009 but I don't remember the more recent stuff of the time being all that great. I liked the Dark Horse stuff, and even the little bit of NOW Comics stuff I'd read was pretty good. I need to get my hands on a new copy of "The Burning Earth". That was another company, NOW, that did some great licensed stuff, back in the 80s. Aside from Terminator, they also did Speed Racer and The Real Ghostbusters, which were awesome as well. Then they over-spent and ran things into the ground, which was a real shame. But they were great from like, 1988 to 1992. I used to flip through my Ghostbusters stuff and see these amazing ads for the Terminator books. I hadn't even seen the movie, yet (T2 wasn't out yet) so that's how I first became aware of Terminator, through those comics. Good times.

[Wildcat]

I had one issue of Batman vs Predator. I’ve seen the covers for the Real Ghostbusters. Those look great. It’s weird I don’t remember having any of those.

The problem is there’s no legitimate book store here. There was a comic shop years ago but it closed.

Of course buying online is just easier but they come out on a monthly or weekly basis and there’s so much I would need to track. Especially older stuff that would get expensive.

[ZariusTwo]

I remember being so stocked for Robocop vs Terminator...back when you could get a video game based off a multi-brand fricking comics crossover rather than a film or tv show.

[Leo656]

Eh, nothing from the 90s is really very expensive unless it was super popular or rare. Just for fun sometimes I look at what some books I own go for online, and a lot of 'em are like, a dollar. :lol: Part of why I'd never sell my collection is, it simply isn't worth much, despite being massive. It's all "common", except for the early Archie Sonics and a little bit of TMNT, Superman and Batman stuff. I've got about 25 longboxes worth of books, but even if I ever wanted to sell it off, I'd never make a profit and I'd hate to get less than I spent, since I paid cover price for most of it. A collection that size, someone would have to offer a flat rate for the entire thing in one bulk lot, and I'd surely take a loss. That's the weird thing about collecting comics, or anything, really. The whole can indeed be worth far less than the sum of its parts.

Poking around briefly online just now, I don't see a ton of NOW Comics Real Ghostbusters but the ones I do see are around $5, plus there's an Omnibus collection for about $20. I think I'm missing about three or four issues; I should do something about that.

NOW Comics Terminator issues seem to hover between $5-10, leaning upwards. Which is a bit much but not too bad, considering they're not "rare" exactly but definitely did not have gigantic print runs, so they'd be harder to come by than your average DC or Marvel books from the same era. Frankly I expected them to be higher. Not too bad.

Comics are like anything else; it's never "Whether a person has the money", it's just how much of a priority it is. The average person has about as much expendable income as the next one, but some people spend it on comics, others on video games, and so on. I used to spend lots and lots of money on comics, but nowadays I generally spend it more on video games and action figures, which just feel like a better value for what I'm spending, a lot of the time. But now and then I'll take like $100 and get a bunch of back issues. I'm fortunate that I do have a very good place that's relatively close by, but even "close by" is about a half hour drive there and another half hour back, so I don't go on these sojourns as much as I used to. All the ones within ten minutes or so closed down about ten years ago. Real shame.

[Wildcat]

The first Archie Sonic is rare? I totally have that. Actually it’s weird there’s 2 First issues right? No one is an issue 0...which is even weirder.

I just googled the price and the first I see is like $105. Not that I want to get rid of them just didn’t know they were significant.

Anyway what I meant was there’s so much I’ve missed out on tracking all crossovers and even basic issues to even break into them seems like it’d be expensive. Even going through the backlog of Sonic I’ve missed would be kind of massive. Again because they were monthly.

Edit: So the early Archie Sonics are all around $100+ and No. 0 was part of the debut mini series but starting at 0 and then No. 1 after that finished is still weird to me. I never realized this back in the day.

[oldmanwinters]

If I recall, near the end of The Sarah Connor Chronicles they DID reveal she had some kind of cancer, or could have. It's been a long time but I remember something of it.

But yeah, alternate timelines is one thing but how do you explain her dying of leukemia not happening in the other timelines?

Personally, I always wondered if she really died at all. I think in T3 John said he saw her get sick but not actually die. And her coffin was empty, after all. Maybe not, but I always figured a sequel to T3 could pull a "she's back!" thing.

I like the idea of Sarah faking her death best.

You are right about the TV series referencing her leukemia as a plot thread, but even though I saw all episodes I can't remember how it was all handled. I had also forgotten that the show took place in c.2007 on account of them time-traveling forward.

Also, the teenage version of John from the show looked way older than the teenage version of him seen in Dark Fate. But whatever...

[oldmanwinters]

Oh, man, blame the poor performance on Maleness!
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/shannonkeating/terminator-dark-fate-sarah-connor-linda-hamilton-james
http://i.imgur.com/euKeztS.jpg (https://imgur.com/euKeztS)

[AquaParade]

I am excited to see this when it releases on home video. That's not a slight - I only go to the the theater a handful of times per year and this is something I'll rent as soon as it's available.

[Andrew NDB]

Oh, man, blame the poor performance on Maleness!
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/shannonkeating/terminator-dark-fate-sarah-connor-linda-hamilton-james
http://i.imgur.com/euKeztS.jpg (https://imgur.com/euKeztS)

Yikes. Also yikes, click on that writer's profile and look at her other articles. It reads like a checklist of SJW talking points.

[Sumac]

It has begun!!

Apparently all males in the world are a hive mind and all of them hate the movie for the same reason...gee...

Those so called "woke" leftards just can't fathom that there can be much more simple reasons for hating movies than their idiotic ideology. Like story being bad, actors being bad and the like. It is really hilarious.
And it once again reminds me about days of Soviet Union, where one of the main components of the art was an ideology.

[Andrew NDB]

The "Half in the Bag" on it is out:

Hugsy-pQ61U

[neatoman]

My favorite is this one.

https://storage.googleapis.com/hipcomic/p/19553e95a451fb625387f032fcd5bc0d-800.jpghttps://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51nm-ojVsFL.jpghttps://d1466nnw0ex81e.cloudfront.net/n_iv/600/867059.jpghttps://d1466nnw0ex81e.cloudfront.net/n_iv/600/1079515.jpg

I mean, the first three covers are amazing (WTF happened to the faces on #4, though? :lol:) and 'Death to the Future" is a title that fits right in that sweet spot between "edgelord fanfiction" and "Just crazy enough to actually be kinda badass".

Actually pretty good. Probably my favorite Terminator thing after the first two movies. Far from "high art" but it takes two things that on the surface have nothing to do with each other and actually weaves a story that makes you wonder why nobody did it sooner.

Keep in mind, it came out in the pre-T3 days, so as fans, we really didn't have much, so this was about as good as it was gonna get.

The idea of the Terminator future happening in a superhero universe is absurd to me. Ultron is basically the same scenario as Skynet and the Avengers beat him all the time. Seems to me like Skynet would get its ass kicked by the Justice League a week after Judgement Day.

Anyway, I've been thinking about Skynet deciding to genocide humanity out of self-preservation, it seems like there could be a better reason. You know how Kyle says the machines aren't very smart in the first movie, and we see this presented in the form of the Terminator being very systematic in reaching its goals but showing virtually no subtlety or grace in any other regard? So what if Skynet's decision works on the same single minded logic? T2 was released the same year the soviet union ceased to exist, something like that could play into it.

Skynet is designed to protect America from its enemies. Suddenly an enemy ceases to exist and allegiances shift. It then does some history reasearch to predict any potential changes in the balance of power. Thus it finds out that America didn't always exist, was in danger of ceasing to exist and will mostly likely cease to exist eventually. As such it draws the conclusion that any nation, including a redefined America, could become the "enemy". The logical conclusion would then be to declare all of humanity as the enemy, simply streamlining the process of determining who the threat is.

[Andrew NDB]

I read that Superman/Terminator comic and it was aight. Too bad they didn't license any other Terminator movies... it'd be neat to see some T-1000 action. Kind of annoying how all of the T-800s in there walk around talking to themselves saying stuff like "Evading!" and "Dermal layer compromised!" Why are they saying that?

[Leo656]

Probably because most comic book editors think people will get bored or skip over something if there are no word balloons on a panel. Which is actually probably true. :lol: It is what it is.

[oldmanwinters]

The "Half in the Bag" on it is out:

Hugsy-pQ61U

I enjoyed that. I wasn't aware of this channel, but I'll probably check out a few more.

"But that's a different guy." lolz

[Andrew NDB]

I wanted to add a tag to this thread, "cuck with me if you want to live," but it was too long. :(

[frank_one]

The movie is gonna flop. Next time they better hire a woman as a director.

[TommyT]

It was incredible to look at for the first few minutes, and even Linda Hamilton was great for a bit, but the writing and acting takes a nose dive after the ipening action sequence, and never recovers.

For the manbabies, this isn’t ghostbusters 2016 again, far from it. It just isn’t very well written, at all. The opening is excellent, but thats also kind if the problem.

The other is the acting is so painful, you check out early on, and even Arnie doesn’t save it. Hamilton seems to be going through the motions, as though this is her first rehearsal, and they shot that.

[ZariusTwo]

The movie is gonna flop. Next time they better hire a woman as a director.

When it'll flop harder.

[Andrew NDB]

Yeah, it's interesting the defense I'm seeing of this movie from people largely in love with the rhetoric of the movie:

"People are tired of Terminator, nobody cares about the franchise anymore."

"It needed a female director."

"It needed female writers."

And not stuff like "It was a bad script" or "Too much of a retread," etc..

[Sumac]

Suggesting that vagina somehow make them write better is rather...dare I say...sexist.

Also, argument that women writers are better at writing women characters are rather stupid, since the greatest women characters, like Ripley or T2 Sarah Connor were written by men as well.

[Leo656]

Yeah, it's interesting the defense I'm seeing of this movie from people largely in love with the rhetoric of the movie:

"People are tired of Terminator, nobody cares about the franchise anymore."

"It needed a female director."

"It needed female writers."

And not stuff like "It was a bad script" or "Too much of a retread," etc..

I'm willing to believe it's both "Bad script/retread" as well as "Nobody cares anymore." Multiple things can be true at once.

[Leo656]

More dirt on the coffin:

https://screenrant.com/terminator-dark-fate-box-office-problems-china-flop/

Flopped overseas, flopped domestically, franchise over.

And nothing of value was lost.

[frank_one]

He's dead, Jim.

[CyberCubed]

Well we had 3 Terminator flops before this too and they kept bringing it back with another semi-reboot every few years. So I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s another one by 2025 or so.

[IMJ]

Well we had 3 Terminator flops before this too and they kept bringing it back with another semi-reboot every few years. So I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s another one by 2025 or so.

I don't know.. this time might be the end until a complete reboot is acceptable. Some of the other Terminators were considered underperformers, but this one had a staggeringly negative ROI, no?

[Sumac]

After two reboots of Spider-Man in a row everything is possible, but I think for the Terminator it is the end of line. At least for now.

I wouldn't be surprised if there will be a TV series on a moderate budget, but I really doubt there will be another blockbuster from that series in the next 4-5 years.

[CyberCubed]

It'll be the last one with Arnold at any rate, even if they make another one while he's still alive. He's almost 73 now so if they wait a decade we're not going to see 80+ year old Arnold in the next reboot even if he's still alive.

[Andrew NDB]

I wish they'd have taken the opportunity to -- if not an evil Arnie T-800 to bring it full circle -- make Arnold's character a human. It'd be something new and fresh, and not just "protector Arnie T-800 with jokes" for the 30th time. Now we'll never get that.

[oldmanwinters]

Oh, with the miracles of CGI, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a de-aged Arnold skin on a body double for the entirety of a future movie.

[frank_one]

Salvation could have been a good new start but they missed that train.

[Andrew NDB]

Jesus... 73% drop in its second weekend.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2019/11/09/box-office-james-cameron-and-tim-millers-terminator-dark-fate-starring-linda-hamiton-and-arnold-schwarzenegger-faces-judgment-day-with-74-friday-drop-as-dc-films-joker-nears-1-billion-and-angelina-jolie-in-walt-disneys-maleficent-mistress-of-evil-tops-400-million/amp/#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

[DarkFell]

I think the franchise is terminated for now.

[newfan]

I hope this doesn't put a negative light on other planned direct sequels of older properties, could it? They are all different properties after all so maybe not. I mean Halloween was successful. (My concern is mainly Robocop, if that is still happening)

[Andrew NDB]

I think the franchise is terminated for now.

For the foreseeable future and then some. On paper this is "they brought back Cameron, Arnold, Linda Hamilton and an R rating and it STILL failed and lost 130 million!" As in... what else could they possibly do (from a financier's POV, not a creative one) to improve upon this?

The real answer is "a lot," but financiers can't and won't look at that. I wouldn't either at this point, honestly. Even if I had the "killer ap" reboot script for a Terminator movie that was awesome (I don't), absolutely nobody in this or the last 2 generations is going to give a f*** about it.

I hope this doesn't put a negative light on other planned direct sequels, could it? (Halloween did well after all)

There isn't any light to be had. Everyone that funded the movie is going home with nothing back. Dark Fate's whole production was a non-profit organization.

[Vegita-San]

an idiot and their woke money is soon parted.

[oldmanwinters]

Here's the cast interviews on the "relevance" of the film:
https://io9.gizmodo.com/terminator-dark-fates-stars-on-the-films-direct-approa-1839723078


Mackenzie Davis: I think the movie is reflecting the world as it is right now. I think that’s what’s really interesting about this one, maybe in opposition to some of the earlier ones that were predicting a future that felt a little bit more foreign, we’re depicting a chilling reality that we’re all living through. What’s happening in the detainment camps along the border. I mean, us shooting those days, it was awful, it was so sad and horrible and felt really emotional and just ****** for lack of a better word for everybody, which is, who cares that we felt bad making a movie about this thing that’s really happening?

But, I do think that by reflecting the reality we live in, hopefully, we regard it with more horror than we are right now where we’re not able to put it out of our mind. I know that’s like, why would you go to a Terminator movie for that? But, I mean—

Natalia Reyes: It’s part of it.

Davis: Yeah, I think to not reflect and warn against the horrors that we’re living through would be strange filmmaking because it’s, that’s what science fiction is, it’s like taking now and reflecting it back at you and being like, “This is scary.” And not just that, but my God.

Arnold Schwarzenegger: I personally don’t think movies at theater really send any kind of political messages. Because I think what they see when they did the crossing of the border, what you see in the movie is what is reality. There are detention centers, there are the people that are in cages. And that they’re treated a certain way, that you and I would not like to be treated as. And so all of this backed up is reality as much as it is being in Mexico, starting the story in Mexico, certain stories start in Mexico. And that women are strong is always another political statement, it just is reality of the day. We have women at are strong, equally as strong as men, if not stronger sometimes, and more courageous sometimes, so all of that is Jim Cameron deals with it as a reality and that’s the way life is, rather than make it a political statement, really.

Tim Miller: I don’t think it’s important to remind people of political things. I think it’s important to be true to the story and the context. If you’re telling a story that’s set in the modern-day and you have characters that are coming from Mexico and crossing the border, then I think you have to deal with those sort of issues. And I really tried to walk the line there and not be, I didn’t want to vilify anything.

I’m pretty far left and I think the situation is a tragic one, but I also think the people of the border patrol, and police, and border patrol officers are not evil, they’re people doing a job. And I also think it’s horrible to put people in cages. So, it really just becomes the background for the story, which is about Dani and …she’s from Mexico and coming to America.

[Andrew NDB]

"We're not trying to make a political statement... but if we're showing people coming across the border from Mexico to the United States, you will see the children in cages."

First of all... what? No you won't. Come across legally or get a visa and you'll never, ever see any "cages."

Second, someone was holding a gun to their head to make it a movie about that? Now? So all of this was just randomly selected as the "background"? You think we're that stupid?

[Leo656]

What the actual F*CK does any of this sh*t have to do with "Terminator"? Jesus, now I'm glad they failed; they absolutely deserved to.

The majority of people don't have any sympathy for people who "cut in line" or try and "work the system" for free hand-outs that other people work their ass off for (and many STILL don't receive even if they're supposed to). And they definitely don't want to be told that they're SUPPOSED to feel bad, while they're watching a goddamn action movie.

Good lord.

[Andrew NDB]

Jesus, now I'm glad they failed; they absolutely deserved to.

Hate to say it, but yeah. It makes me angry when TPTB think they can slip this stuff through undetected.

It's like Tim Miller was sitting in front of the TV watching the detention camps at the border on Rachel Maddow or something and went, "Ah-HAH! I've got it! A woke Terminator sequel showing an undocumented immigrant Mexican savior -- eh, better be female, too -- while spotlighting the terrible situation at the border! Like, an 'illegal immigrant' comes to the United States and saves the world! People will go crazy for it and it will be so fresh!"

Keep this crap out of the arts!

[Leo656]

Yeah, such bullsh*t. My wife and I have had plenty of "horror stories" regarding illegals so my well of sympathy for them is dry on a good day. We all want "better quality of life", but most of us have already been here struggling to make it so, and not getting very far ahead (Because a lot of the government programs aren't applicable to white people in the first place, because we're "Supposed to be doing better" than everyone else), so that sob story goes in one ear and out the other.

I also work with people who spent years of their lives and lots and lots of money to come here the proper way, and they HATE those people who try and weasel in, because they're the ones making it so difficult for everyone else. Such nonsense.

Bottom line, though, ain't got sh*t to do with Terminator, didn't need to be there, glad they sh*t the bed. F*ck 'em if this is what they wanna do with it.

[Wildcat]

It should noted they’re asked about this specifically. It’s not the only or main topic. They had to give real answers. They couldn’t just brush it off.

Even in the context of the movie you can see why they’d use the border as some kind of obstacle. We knew about it since the first trailer or before.

I have not seen the movie but I’m sure it’s not Terminator vs the Border.

[Leo656]

"I know that’s like, why would you go to a Terminator movie for that? But, I mean—"


........Is where the conversation should have ended. They knew it was a stupid idea, they went ahead anyway.

Because "Terminator" is secretly all about White Male Liberal Guilt, I guess, for some reason. :roll:

I'm sure that's not the only reason the movie failed, but the fact that they aren't even trying to hide the fact that they tried to make it "an agenda movie" means they absolutely deserved to fail. Although it's very funny how in the same breath, they'll go back and forth on it. "We totally wanted to make a political statement... except not really, because that's not why people go to the movies... except how can you NOT, like, y'know?" :lol: F*cking dumbasses.

Then again, people are generally so stupid that they miss the entire point of Terminator, anyway. How anyone in 2019 can claim that they "get" Terminator while walking around with their face buried in their smartphone and letting Alexa and Siri spy on them 24/7 is beyond me. Kinda funny, also kinda irritating.

[Wildcat]

But it’s understandable why they would use it in the movie. It’s an obstacle in the characters way. I mean it’s something that can be borrowed from real life whether it was now or 20+ years ago.

I assume they’re being chased or attacked at the border so it fits.

Claiming “Agenda” on everything is just as ridiculous as being overly PC. Which I don’t think stuff is but it obviously has taken on a life of its own.

[Leo656]

If you have to completely "Square Peg/Round Hole" something just to force it to "fit", then it's simply a bad idea.

Terminator is NOT a parable for the supposed "injustices" being self-inflicted upon a certain group of people who hold no respect for the rule of law and find it inconvenient to have to deal with the consequences of breaking said laws. Terminator is about how humanity's over-reliance on technology will inevitably be their own undoing. These two themes have NOTHING to do with each other.

It's not merely a set piece, they openly admit that it was done to give the movie a needless political slant (although they also try and walk it back, I suppose because they realized too late that it was completely misplaced and this audience doesn't want that sh*t). When people tell you who they are, LISTEN.

It's in no way "understandable", nor forgivable. Nor would it be if, say, the Ghostbusters sequel wastes a huge chunk of the movie giving a finger-wagging lecture about climate change. "Relevant to our modern society" or not, it has NO f*cking place in the material. Period.

I'm absolutely thrilled they're going to lose like $120 million on this. Serves 'em right.

[Andrew NDB]

If you have to completely "Square Peg/Round Hole" something just to force it to "fit", then it's simply a bad idea.

Terminator is NOT a parable for the supposed "injustices" being self-inflicted upon a certain group of people who hold no respect for the rule of law and find it inconvenient to have to deal with the consequences of breaking said laws. Terminator is about how humanity's over-reliance on technology will inevitably be their own undoing. These two themes have NOTHING to do with each other.

It's not merely a set piece, they openly admit that it was done to give the movie a needless political slant (although they also try and walk it back, I suppose because they realized too late that it was completely misplaced and this audience doesn't want that sh*t). When people tell you who they are, LISTEN.

It's in no way "understandable", nor forgivable. Nor would it be if, say, the Ghostbusters sequel wastes a huge chunk of the movie giving a finger-wagging lecture about climate change. "Relevant to our modern society" or not, it has NO f*cking place in the material. Period.

I'm absolutely thrilled they're going to lose like $120 million on this. Serves 'em right.

John Connor to the T-800 way back in T2, "We're doomed, aren't we?"

Eh... "certain people": "REMEMBER THIS?! THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS EVERYTHING IN DARK FATE! Why do you say it's agenda??! It's always been there, since 1990! lol, I bet you feel dumb!"

No. No, that's not the same. Not remotely. And it wasn't specific and wasn't clubbed over the head in any way approaching this, and it wasn't like in the DNA.

It's really beginning to suck. A movie like "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" drops and it's like a breath of fresh air on the one hand, but also a reminder of how weird it is where we're at with movies.

[Wildcat]

I’m guessing this border scene accounts for like 1% of the entire movie but you cannot mention anything now because “Agenda”.

Sadly I’ve realized nowadays most movies will come under fire no matter what. Could be anything.

Look back at the different movies people have “broken the internet” over. Others have gotten it worse but still. After this it’ll be something else.

[Leo656]

I'm sorry that it upsets you that I choose to use the filmmakers own words against them in speculating as to why their little project sh*t the bed so abysmally that they're set to lose over $100 million on what should have been an easy slam dunk.

It's relevant because it tells you a lot about what their priorities were when they made this film. Any and all criticism they're receiving is well-earned, be it from me or anyone else. Because they didn't have the best interests of the fans or the franchise in mind when they made it. Thus their failure was earned.

[Wildcat]

I think it underperforming has more to do, maybe all to do, with it being another Escape-The-New-Robot sequel instead of getting on with the war or doing something really unexpected.

I see a lot of complaints it does nothing new but I guarantee that people (probably some of the same ones) would have crapped on it anyway and accused it of being Un-Terminator like.

As for this topic...yes they chose to have some kind of border scene that reflects real life because I guess they wanted the movie to come as grim as possible...not that they built the entire movie around political messages. That’s why I don’t see it as a big deal.

It’s probably all overshadowed anyway once the Rev-9 shows up.

[Andrew NDB]

It’s probably all overshadowed anyway once the Rev-9 shows up.

You mean when it showed up and proceeded to almost immediately massacre tons of Border Patrol agents (didn't harm a hair on the head of any of the hundreds of fleeing the holding cells and brushing by him in the chaos, of course), as some kind of immigration revenge fantasy?

https://i.ibb.co/CWjJ1jg/1617721-710590079010530-5627752631724529149-o.jpg

I mean, my very first full feature that I wrote and directed, the main character and central hero is a Mexican woman. I did it because I wanted to shake things up and try something new, not because of some "let's explore the 'evils' of immigration and check a bunch of SJW boxes and air out my white guilt while virtue signaling." This kind of rubbish is becoming like a currency in Hollywood, with an exchange rate equating to "box office failure."

[Leo656]

Your truth bombs remain nuclear as always.

[frank_one]

I'm sorry that it upsets you that I choose to use the filmmakers own words against themNo, you didn't. The words you guys are quoting are not coming from the director or the screenwriter, they come from Mackenzie Davis, she's just an actress. I would not consider her opinion SO important.

[Leo656]

Point taken, but she's still involved. And she clearly felt that this was super-important. Which it isn't.

[Wildcat]

You mean when it showed up and proceeded to almost immediately massacre tons of Border Patrol agents (didn't harm a hair on the head of any of the hundreds of fleeing the holding cells and brushing by him in the chaos, of course), as some kind of immigration revenge fantasy?

I mean, my very first full feature that I wrote and directed, the main character and central hero is a Mexican woman. I did it because I wanted to shake things up and try something new, not because of some "let's explore the 'evils' of immigration and check a bunch of SJW boxes and air out my white guilt while virtue signaling." This kind of rubbish is becoming like a currency in Hollywood, with an exchange rate equating to "box office failure."See now you’re just twisting it to come off as Agenda fueled.

The trailer shows him killing border guards because they’re clearly trying to stop him from attacking or whatever. No terminator has just obliterated everyone in their sight just because.

Besides I thought you said you liked the movie fine but it was too repetitive. Why are you seemingly changing your whole stance?

[Andrew NDB]

See now you’re just twisting it to come off as Agenda fueled.

The trailer shows him killing border guards because they’re clearly trying to stop him from attacking or whatever. No terminator has just obliterated everyone in their sight just because.

Besides I thought you said you liked the movie fine but it was too repetitive. Why are you seemingly changing your whole stance?

Rewatch the movie. Almost none of the Border Patrol people are even trying to fight the Rev9. All we see is him cutting through them in wide shots in which we see the captives flowing by them equally abrasively and yet the Rev9 seems to know exactly who to stab through. Somehow.

I haven't changed my stance. I was clear I didn't like it.

[Wildcat]

After he says “my whole body is a weapon” he walks through the metal detector that beeps and says “sorry” to next guy. Then it cuts to people running off (detainees I guess) and he’s walking in the opposite direction of everyone else and kills the guards passing by and then others pile onto him.

Even without seeing the movie I’m guessing the Rev9 or Sarah/T800 caused a diversion because then we see it fighting Mackenzie Davis.

They’re by themselves in this fight which leads me to think the Rev9 killed off the guards so nobody could help her get away or be a distraction.

Unless Skynet or whatever it’s called has some kind of political vendetta against the border and programs the Rev9 to kill guards as a side mission?

I don’t like being sarcastic but this whole topic is just silly to me.

[DarkFell]

No terminator has just obliterated everyone in their sight just because.
LQy7tFLaQ6o
The massacre starts at 1:09. Arnie shot first.

Even the T-1000 killed John's foster parents, a security guard, and a guy that drove a liquid nitrogen truck. Neither of those people thought of defending themselves first.

[oldmanwinters]

Rewatch the movie. Almost none of the Border Patrol people are even trying to fight the Rev9. All we see is him cutting through them in wide shots in which we see the captives flowing by them equally abrasively and yet the Rev9 seems to know exactly who to stab through. Somehow.



Gee, how is the Rev9 not the unintentional hero of the movie? :tlol:



Even the T-1000 killed John's foster parents, a security guard, and a guy that drove a liquid nitrogen truck. Neither of those people thought of defending themselves first.

I gotta say, I thought the ol' T-1000 still deserves credit for showing some "strategic" restrain in the film. I seem to remember the original police man he attacks for the purpose of the car (and clothes?) looks like just a KO punch to the stomach rather than an obvious kill. Also, there's his famous "get out" line to the helicopter pilot... which might have resulted in death for all practical purposes, but who am I to judge?
SIm1hc8TqcM

[Wildcat]

The massacre starts at 1:09. Arnie shot first.

Even the T-1000 killed John's foster parents, a security guard, and a guy that drove a liquid nitrogen truck. Neither of those people thought of defending themselves first.But there’s reasonable context to this scene too. It’s clearing out the place because it knows Sarah is there. He even asks first.

Didn’t the T1000 kill the foster parents for the same reason? It thought John was home until he calls.

The security guard that’s getting a cup of coffee? I mean he’s cloning his appearance and hides him the closet. He can’t have a double walking around. The truck driver was actually unnecessary though.

The point is each terminator has left behind people without killing them because it’s main objective is Kyle/Sarah/John whoever it needs to eliminate. Not wasting time by going GTA on everyone.

Accusing the Rev9 scene of something it’s not over an interview question is just dumb.

[Leo656]

No, what's dumb is going through the kind of contortions that would make Plastic Man jealous simply to defend a movie that 1. Was CLEARLY trying to make a Very Specific Point, even if it's just for one scene, whether you want to believe it or not, and 2. Doesn't deserve defending in the first place.

You can have your own opinion, but not your own Facts. You can't say, "I don't think that's what they were going for" when people who worked on the movie say otherwise. Besides, in a movie full of poor choices, what's one more, anyway?

I swear, I need to start bringing pom-poms to these discussions, because this place is full of f*cking cheerleaders. Zero objectivity to be found anywhere.

[Wildcat]

Contortions? I’m defending all the terminators. Like that scene in first one. I’m not gonna make some ridiculous accusation by trying to say it has a deeper message about the police.

I was born in 1984 but I’m pretty sure there was probably something then too that could have been brought up in regards to it...if you really wanted to twist it.

If I really wanted too I could accuse a bunch of movie of a bunch of stuff from a political standpoint. Not just from this era but any time.

It’s like all those arguments in the 90s targeting video games as a cause of violence. You’re picking a subject and then applying it whatever is easiest.

Yes they admitted to having a border scene that reflects real life and they obviously wanted the audiences to take notice....but to take it as far as to say they purposely made the Rev9 kill guards to play out a political fantasy is just absurd.

[Leo656]

No it isn't in any way "absurd". :roll: It's merely taking the information given at face value.

You REALLY mean to tell me that in a year when aside from impeachment and gun control, the ONLY other topic of merit according to mainstream media was "people in cages", the fact that an entire scene in the movie was assigned to showcasing that same topic - a topic which has NOTHING to do with Terminator, I'll remind you - and in that scene ONLY the "evil border patrol agents" got blown away and all the poor mistreated "undocumented" folk are essentially set free unharmed... You REALLY want to tell me that's a f*cking COINCIDENCE?

No, it wasn't. Forget everything else about the movie for a second. THAT scene was a deliberate choice for reasons they're not even shy about admitting. The only person saying "Nuh uh!" is you, buddy. Literally Just You.

It was a choice. For better or worse, they wanted to make a statement and include a scene of some "Big Mean B.P. Agents getting what they deserved" in hopes that it would be enjoyable and cathartic for a certain section of the audience - Which, as they've also admitted, is why White Savior John Connor and his mother needed to be pushed aside to make room for the New And Improved (read: Not White or Male) version. It seems to have backfired on them, but to repeatedly insist "No they didn't" when Jesus, yes they f*cking did only serves to make you appear to be a person in deep, deep denial about facts which you find inconvenient.

Your insistence that "NO agendas went into the making of this movie" is comical, because according to easily-confirmed factual evidence, EVERY decision that went into it was agenda-driven, from killing off John (and including an entire SCENE about apologizing for the White Male Savior trope) to the border facility scene to the fact that most of the main cast were Kick-Ass Females while Arnold's merely a sidekick and the villain, of course, is a guy (at least on the outside, since, y'know... Robots). These are CHOICES.

And I'm not even trying to get into whether they are good or bad choices. I'm simply pointing out, these things happened on purpose, for a reason. You keep saying "No, definitely not," and I'm BEGGING you to stop being so obtuse and naive because it's not cute anymore.

You can't deny facts because they don't support your personal wishful thinking. Several things in this movie are explicitly, unapologetically agenda-driven. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to each individual viewer. But it's reality. Like it or not, it is what it is. "I don't think so" isn't in any way a persuasive expression of opinion, and you do it an awful lot.

At this point, I half-expect you to tell me that the Ghostbusters fiasco a few years ago wasn't all about "sticking it to dudes because Yay Feminism", when anyone who actually watched it can see that's exactly what the point of it was. Sometimes people make bad decisions for stupid and petty reasons, and sometimes it ruins a movie. You don't have to like it - I certainly don't like it - but it DOES happen, and it's not at all hard to tell.

[Andrew NDB]

All of that is legit, Leo.

After he says “my whole body is a weapon” he walks through the metal detector that beeps and says “sorry” to next guy. Then it cuts to people running off (detainees I guess) and he’s walking in the opposite direction of everyone else and kills the guards passing by and then others pile onto him.

You're missing the "and then gives a big grin to the camera" before he knows the slaughter of them is about to start.

Contortions? I’m defending all the terminators. Like that scene in first one. I’m not gonna make some ridiculous accusation by trying to say it has a deeper message about the police.

No, but if there was particular ragings against the police in 1984 (like, all over all the news of the time, 24/7) and James Cameron and Arnold were taking interviews on the red carpet talking about, "The police are really terrible lately, it's a very sad situation at the police stations these days" then that should probably give pause, given they just made a movie about a whole police station being massacred.

Yes they admitted to having a border scene that reflects real life and they obviously wanted the audiences to take notice....but to take it as far as to say they purposely made the Rev9 kill guards to play out a political fantasy is just absurd.

Even though him slicing through Border Patrol agents is like at the forefront of all of the marketing? Just about all the trailers and TV spots (the ones that aren't just about Grace or whatever), especially the red band ones, they shove that stuff to the forefront.

Not that I'm saying Miller or anyone at that level probably had a hand in the marketing (that's whole other people and a whole other beast, though certainly one signed off on by the distributor... our friends at Paramount/Viacom, in this case)... but if that's the way they want to "push" the movie, that's very clearly playing off of today's... climate. i.e., the people screaming at the TVs and Twitter about the cages and all of that.

[Wildcat]

@Leo656 and Andrew NDB

Actually I could see replacing John Connor as kinda agenda-ish. He was setup as the hero to the entire future. It’s a bit too convenient that anyone could replace him. Which I’ve mentioned many times. Aside from Salvation everything has been repetitive.

However though there’s a massive difference between changing a hero for diversity reasons (because they’re the hero) and saying they purposely wanted to pretend kill government employees with an evil robot. That’s a horrible and over the top thing to accuse filmmakers of doing.

Even if hypothetically this was true are we now going to say that the past terminators behavior and actions were wrong? They should have just destroyed everything and everyone with no context whatsoever?

Because in some weird way...now if you don’t get killed by a terminator it means the filmmakers are secretly telling us who deserves to live? That’s just mind boggling logic.

[DarkFell]

I gotta say, I thought the ol' T-1000 still deserves credit for showing some "strategic" restrain in the film. I seem to remember the original police man he attacks for the purpose of the car (and clothes?) looks like just a KO punch to the stomach rather than an obvious kill. Also, there's his famous "get out" line to the helicopter pilot... which might have resulted in death for all practical purposes, but who am I to judge?
SIm1hc8TqcM
That T2 T-1000 was a nice piece of work, wasn't he?

Honorable mentions in T1 deaths also include Bill Paxton's character, Sarah Conner's mom, a Tech Noir dance fanatic, and the semi-truck driver towards the end of the movie. Also, Kyle Reese.

[Leo656]

Wildcat: Believe me, filmmakers have done much, much worse than this kinda stuff. Like kill people and try and cover it up (even if it was an accident, Mr. Landis :lol:). This kinda thing, using their "art" to try and influence people to think or feel a certain way about something "topical", is small potatoes, and in the end, mostly-harmless. It's just eyebrow-raising, and anyone who says it wasn't done on purpose is, well, simply wrong. You keep insisting it was some Happy Accident, and THAT is what's absurd when evidence AND common sense all say otherwise.

This is not the first, nor the last, movie to try and do this kind of thing. And that in and of itself is NOT necessarily a Bad Thing. It just doesn't make sense for THIS kind of film, and as such it stands out like a sore thumb to the point of being abrasive. That's the long and the short of it.

[Wildcat]

I can see when things seem PC. Naturally you notice things. Generally it does not bother me and in the case of movies I always try to view them on their own merits and not what might be behind it.

It just seems so much is criticized for some reason that it doesn’t matter what the characters happen to do or be about. Fault will be found.

The only thing I thought was absurd was saying filmmakers purposely make villains kill off certain people to play out a fantasy. I mean it insinuates they would like to kill people in real life.

Edit: just read about the Landis story. Never knew about that. It’s awful.

[Leo656]

Isn't it, though? Just horrible. BUT, he does seem like, generally, a really nice guy and I'm quite certain he feels horrible about it. I mean, yeah, he kinda had it buried to try and keep his career alive, but... wouldn't anyone? Let's be reasonable. I'm sure he's not a ghoul, it probably bothers him a lot, like all the time. But you still kinda gotta live your own life, y'know? But some people feel very strongly about it, still. I just bring it up because, y'know, Sh*t Happens.

And to clarify, I never insinuated the filmmakers were "playing out a fantasy" or enticing the audience to do so. Heavens, no. That would be ghoulish and irresponsible and I don't think they'd do that. I DO however think it was entirely done to be a cathartic, "cheer-'em-on" moment for the audience by playing on their emotions and perhaps leading them to feel a certain way in that moment. Kinda like how Thomas Wayne getting shot in "Joker", by the time it happens, made many people in the audience cheer because they threw "Kill The Rich!" on-screen at you a dozen times in bold letters for the previous two hours. Now, not everyone took it as a "feel-good" moment, BUT, a lot of people did, and the movie "allows" them to feel that way because it directs them to, either subtly or overtly. This is the same thing, from a different direction but done for the same reasons: To riff on the current political climate. "Joker" does it more overtly but it's on purpose in either case.

Which is fine, by the way. Being "topical" is a great way to get attention, but it fits far better in that movie - where it's important to the overall plot - than in this one, where it's more like cheap pandering than anything. An important but subtle distinction. In this movie's case, it's merely an example of how they spent a lot of time thinking the wrong things were important. Their choices reflect their priorities, after all.

It's just one of a lot of things they didn't need to focus on for this project, is all. Not "The Problem" by itself, but rather, indicative of "The Problem" as a whole, which is, they actually didn't know what they were doing, and just kinda threw what they could at the wall.

Sigh. I miss the "Salvation" timeline.

[Wildcat]

I’m sure it bothers him. Just didn’t care enough about safety measures I guess. Then he said it was the effects guy setting it off at the wrong time.

Ya I understand about be cathartic or “sticking it to the man”. Whatever you want to call it.

I am very curious if either Cameron or Miller had/have any intention of doing their own Future War movie after this. Like do they care at all about showing that side of the story?

[Leo656]

One would hope, right?

I mean, part of it is what a person is mentally conditioned to, I suppose. This movie and the last one - and even T3 - were mostly about re-creating things, either scenes or feelings, that people remembered and enjoyed from T2. T2 is MOST people's most vivid frame of reference regarding the franchise - I know people who love T2 but have never seen "The Terminator" - and most people's favorite movie in the series, so it makes sense that if someone is trying to reignite interest, that would be the well they would go to.

BUT - and people have heard me say this many times about many, many things - I learned about "Terminator" from comic books, specifically the NOW-published ones in the late-1980s, all of which were very interesting and some of which had some truly wonderful artwork (including the first published work of the legendary Alex Ross, on "The Burning Earth"). I only had a couple, but I used to see the ads for them everywhere. That's how I first knew of Terminator. Those stories were set in the future, right in the middle of The War, and full of things we only got glimpses of in T1 and T2. So that's what I've always looked forward most fondly to eventually seeing. At this point, everything else feels like a preamble to what should be, by now, a much bigger story that they've simply held back on delivering for one reason or other. Instead, they repeat the same plot; "Evil AI sends killer robots back to our present to kill 'Someone'." 5 out of 6 movies have that exact plot; that's kind of more than a little ridiculous, and annoying. Like Jon Bon Jovi said: "It's all the same, only the names'll change."

And that's a sad bit of wasted potential, any way one looks at it.

[Sumac]

My first Terminator was the first movie, so this is my frame of reference to what franchise can be.

[Voltron]

You guys are all whiners. This was the most anti-immigration movie I've ever seen.

We have TWO time immigrants who enter the US illegally. One of whom radicalizes two Americans. They then proceed to illustrate just how terrifying Latinx people are by freeing all their criminal compatriots and murdering a bunch of border guards. Finally, they 9/11 the Hoover Dam with a C-5 they stole and have an all out immigrant brawl that probably tanked some businesses in Las Vegas because it took out a couple of the turbines. Also, one Dani kills her protector then goes off to learn how to kill better. . . in the US. Illegally.

ALL of this reflects poorly on immigrants. I don't know what you guys want.

[oldmanwinters]

Nice to see Voltron has a sense of humor.

:tlol:

:tcouch:

[Andrew NDB]

Edward Furlong "bummed" that he wasn't in more of the movie because he wanted to get a "sh** ton of money."

http://www.darkhorizons.com/furlong-bummed-out-by-terminator-cameo/

[Sumac]

I've watched it and I can say - it is bad.

WARNING: CONTAINS OPEN SPOILERS

Actors are good and they acting relatively well, given the material, but every other thing in this movie is just horrid. I liked Grace - she was genuinely cool and probably the closest thing to Kyle Reese from T1. It is sad that her character was wasted o this pile of crap. Sarah was nice, though I hardly can imagine that she was able to stay sane after death of John. Dani was not bad, but hardly believable as a future leader of resistance. This scene in a future with her was pretty bad. Carl was funny, but I think writers went to fat, trying to humanize terminator. I can't believe that his wife never figured out that there was something "off" with him, considering that he doesn't eat, drink, sleep, goes to toilet and so on. Rev 9 was cool, it was the best evil terminator since T1000. Once again a wasted casting.

Story is a mess, where a lot of parts are not explained or explained poorly. It brings nothing new to the table, while simultaneously ruining one of the core ideas of the franchise as a whole. It seems it was written in two minutes on a piece of a napkin without any additional passes.

Special effects and camera work are bad and similar to the TV series of 2000s, especially in the beginning. Constant slo-mo during action scenes to make them more epic made them look cheap and awkward.

Action scenes were over the top and feel like something from a generic blockbuster, not terminator-like at all. And of course our human heroes suffered very little or not at all.

All in all, it felt like rushed and unpolished idea, which was never properly thought out. There are some interesting ideas, but they are buried under such big piles of crap, it is hard to see or appreciate them.

TG was better.

[CyberCubed]

I really enjoyed Sarah Conner in the film, her whole, "I don't give a crap" personality worked really well.

[Sumac]

I really enjoyed Sarah Conner in the film, her whole, "I don't give a crap" personality worked really well.
Indeed, but as I said, I hardly can imagine her staying sane after John's death. He is basically all her world and very meaning of existence.
But that's just one of the many problems of this movie.

I wonder, where was Cameron during the filming? I've read he had a "fight" with director about story, but couldn't he see that it was a pile of crap? Or he just shrugged and whatever'd?

[Andrew NDB]

Indeed, but as I said, I hardly can imagine her staying sane after John's death. He is basically all her world and very meaning of existence.

Me, too. I believe she'd just say "f*** it," at that point.

I wonder, where was Cameron during the filming?

Not on set, not even once. He's said so.

I've read he had a "fight" with director about story, but couldn't he see that it was a pile of crap? Or he just shrugged and whatever'd?

In the editing room there was fighting.

To me, it sounds like... well, remember Terminator: Salvation? When McG tried to get Cameron's blessing, and even some input? Cameron said he would be delighted to, but wanted to be paid to do so (which is when McG ran away). In the case of "Dark Fate," it sounds like this time they actually paid him, but it doesn't amount to much more than notes/"input" that the director could heed or ignore during filming and then some actual final say in the editing room afterward.

I believe his role in "Dark Fate" is wildly exaggerated. We know that none of those ideas were his and I suspect he only had opinions about how to best execute them.

[Sumac]

And then his input was promptly ignored. Or at least it looks like it.

Also, I must admit, I didn't see much "feminist pandering" in this movie. I liked to see three female leads as main heroines of the movie, but sadly it was wasted on this pile of crap.

Besides, even if Dani was replaced with Daniel, the main idea of this movie still would be the same and it still would've been ****.

[Andrew NDB]

Just such a waste. The entire saga, even just T1 and T2: "None of that matters anymore. It's a whole different SkyNET with a different name that happened all differently, not connected to anything before at all."

So who even cares, then? What are we left to look forward to? Unraveling the mystery of how LEGION came to be?

[ZariusTwo]

Linda is happy to never return.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/linda-hamilton-would-be-happy-never-return-terminator-1274687?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=THR%27s%20Today%20in%20Entertainment_ 2020-01-30%2007:11:00_aweprin&utm_term=hollywoodreporter_tie

[Andrew NDB]

Linda is happy to never return.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/linda-hamilton-would-be-happy-never-return-terminator-1274687?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=THR%27s%20Today%20in%20Entertainment_ 2020-01-30%2007:11:00_aweprin&utm_term=hollywoodreporter_tie

That's fine, she doesn't have anything to worry about. Nobody is going to be making Terminator 7 with or without her anytime in the remotely foreseeable future thanks to her last movie.

[AquaParade]

I share her thoughts that they need to go small. Much smaller. Indie sensibilities. Pitch it to the studio as the next “Joker“.

This constant chasing of bombast has only led to failure. It’s understandable to try and mimic T2, all things considered, but it’s the prequel that should be the North Star. Or branch off of T1 in a completely different way than T2 and really surprise us. Just stop trying to recreate the energy of T2.

[CyberCubed]

I still see all the Terminator movies past T2 as one part of a huge alternate timeline discrepency by Skynet constantly sending Terminators back in time and Kyle Reese going back as well. Every time we get a new Terminator movie it feels like another side affect of time travel in an alternate universe.

I damn near forgot in Genysis that John Conner got turned into a cyborg Terminator synth in the movie. And Kyle Reese lives and just stays in the past living with a young Sarah Conner. What a weird timeline that was.

[oldmanwinters]

As much as I love T2, even that movie has a ridiculous premise that Skynet... in desperation facing the last battle against the human resistance... sent two Terminator units back in time (with precious little historical records available). The first unit being a supposedly cutting-edge Cyberdine Systems Model 101 T-800 (which Kyle Reese said was a remarkable culmination of their infiltration units), and the second being a crazy advanced prototype T-1000 whose abilities were light-years beyond the cutting-edge CS Model 101 infiltrator. In their desperation, Skynet could only afford to send those two terminator units back in time to specify locales and times where the general residency of Sarah and John Connor were a matter of publicly known record.

Moments later, the Resistance arrives and is able to discern the aftermath of Skynet's last ditch effort to preserve its own existence. John Conner has prepared Kyle Reese for this moment of destiny and sends him back to stop the cutting edge CS Model 101, along with the picture of his mother. But in order to stop the T-1000, the Resistance just so happens to have a re-programmed CS Model 101 ready and willing to following the T-1000 prototype back into the 1990s and secure the future a second time.

Beyond the first two movies, it turns out there might have been dozens of terminators (mostly that cutting edge CS Model 101 but also an occasional T-1000 or whatever), and yet the Resistance somehow fails to account for the murder of young John Connor in 1997. Oops.

[Andrew NDB]

and the second being a crazy advanced prototype T-1000 whose abilities were light-years beyond the cutting-edge CS Model 101 infiltrator.

Makes you wonder how they could even possibly lose the Future War with the T-1000.

[CyberCubed]

Was it ever made clear Skynet was always in L.A. or whatever? The whole world was destroyed so did John Conner just stop the U.S. branch of Skynet? How did they not know if there were multiple Skynets in China, Russia, Europe, Africa, etc?

[Andrew NDB]

Was it ever made clear Skynet was always in L.A. or whatever?

I think in the original timeline, yeah, before the first time travel. Back then it was hardware. As the timeline changed after the events of 2, it became software (T3) with hubs/server bases at different locations around the globe (Salvation) and then evolved into an actual being (Salvation AND Genisys).

[Candy Kappa]

I still see all the Terminator movies past T2 as one part of a huge alternate timeline discrepency by Skynet constantly sending Terminators back in time and Kyle Reese going back as well. Every time we get a new Terminator movie it feels like another side affect of time travel in an alternate universe.

I damn near forgot in Genysis that John Conner got turned into a cyborg Terminator synth in the movie. And Kyle Reese lives and just stays in the past living with a young Sarah Conner. What a weird timeline that was.

Genysis feels very much like a fanfic written by some dude sitting in his dorm, and that's whats fantastic about it

[Sumac]

Just such a waste. The entire saga, even just T1 and T2: "None of that matters anymore. It's a whole different SkyNET with a different name that happened all differently, not connected to anything before at all."

So who even cares, then? What are we left to look forward to? Unraveling the mystery of how LEGION came to be?
Even Genesys was more interesting.
At least there was intriguing element with Skynet and whoever sent T800 playing speed chess with time travel.

Makes you wonder how they could even possibly lose the Future War with the T-1000.
Supposedly Skynet could afford to create only one T1000.
On the other hand, he was capable of creating a lot of TX units, which are much more deadlier than T1000 in normal warfare.

I think in the original timeline, yeah, before the first time travel. Back then it was hardware. As the timeline changed after the events of 2, it became software (T3) with hubs/server bases at different locations around the globe (Salvation) and then evolved into an actual being (Salvation AND Genisys).
Some comic books released before T2 had another AI from Russia called MIR (Peace). It worked together with Skynet apparently.

[TigerClaw]

Its a time loop. No matter how many times they stop it. Another AI from a different company is created and it still becomes self aware.

[CyberCubed]

One day they'll make another Terminator movie that acknowledges all these split timelines and universes as a result of Skynet abusing their time machine. So basically everything is in continuity in its own weird way.

Too bad this will probably be Arnold's final Terminator movie though...

[TigerClaw]

One day they'll make another Terminator movie that acknowledges all these split timelines and universes as a result of Skynet abusing their time machine. So basically everything is in continuity in its own weird way.

Too bad this will probably be Arnold's final Terminator movie though...
The Skynet from Genesys took on a humanoid form known as the T-5000.
https://terminator.fandom.com/wiki/Skynet/Genisys

[Andrew NDB]

One day they'll make another Terminator movie that acknowledges all these split timelines and universes as a result of Skynet abusing their time machine. So basically everything is in continuity in its own weird way.

That's pretty much what Salvation and especially Genisys already did with SkyNET. It's always learning, after every movie.

[TigerClaw]

That's pretty much what Salvation and especially Genisys already did with SkyNET. It's always learning, after every movie.
Yep Genesys's Skynet uploaded itself into a T-5000 Terminator.

[DarkFell]

Genysis feels very much like a fanfic written by some dude getting inebriated in his dorm, and that's whats fantastic about it
I had to fix the former sentence - that movie was such a train-wreck ..even if it is a poorly written fan-fic. :B
I'm sorry Candy Kappa, but for me, Genisys should have never been made into a movie. Salvation has it's critics, but it felt more 'finished' than Genisys did.

[Andrew NDB]

I think the casting choices in Genisys pulled me out more than anything else. Namely Reese and John's. Also the PG-13. And also that everything seemed hinged around the big twist that John becomes a Terminator, which nobody cared about.

The ideas of SkyNET becoming aware and ahead of the game were neat, but not explored enough and clearly left for sequels that never happened. Like with the other two failed trilogy starters.

Man, this all makes me sad.

[frank_one]

True, I've never cared about Connor in Genisys, his face... was wrong since the beginning. Reese? I'm having an hard time even remembering he was in the movie. Worst casting ever.

[CyberCubed]

The guy who played John Conner in Genysis reminded me of Bill Murray for some reason. Also why was he constantly laughing or chuckling in the movie even in the beginning or in flashbacks? Christian Bale or the guy who played him in T3 fit his character much better.

[newfan]

The guy who played John Conner in Genysis reminded me of Bill Murray for some reason. Also why was he constantly laughing or chuckling in the movie even in the beginning or in flashbacks? Christian Bale or the guy who played him in T3 fit his character much better.

I didn't feel that guy looked right for John Conner.

I actually didn't go out to see this one in the end, I planned to but then lost interest, I'll still catch it though.

Actually, I'm curious, where would you guys rate this movie compared to the others? (obviously not including the first 2 as they are well liked, I mean the less well received, like the last one for instance)

[Andrew NDB]

Just appallingly bad casting. I'm not saying they needed a Beihn lookalike, but it's like they didn't even try. And either Nick Stahl or Bale from 3 or 4 would have been fine as John. If the whole movies hinges on the John Connor reveal as a Terminator, we need to care or have some invested interest in that John Connor. It falls apart if we're constantly going, "That doesn't even look like John Connor at all. Any John Connor."

Actually, I'm curious, where would you guys rate this movie compared to the others? (obviously not including the first 2 as they are well liked, I mean the less well received, like the last one for instance)

Eh... from best to worst...

1. T1
2. T2

Small gap.

3. T3.

Bigger gap.

4. T4.

Even larger gap.

5. T5.
6. T6.

So yeah, "Genicyst" better than "Woke Fate" by a few hairs.

[newfan]

Just appallingly bad casting. I'm not saying they needed a Beihn lookalike, but it's like they didn't even try. And either Nick Stahl or Bale from 3 or 4 would have been fine as John. If the whole movies hinges on the John Connor reveal as a Terminator, we need to care or have some invested interest in that John Connor. It falls apart if we're constantly going, "That doesn't even look like John Connor at all. Any John Connor."



Eh... from best to worst...

1. T1
2. T2

Small gap.

3. T3.

Bigger gap.

4. T4.

Even larger gap.

5. T5.
6. T6.

So yeah, "Genicyst" better than "Woke Fate" by a few hairs.

My list might be similar to that (barring not seeing 6 yet), though I'm not sure if I like 2 better than the first or equally.

Totally agreed on Connor, I just kept thinking he looked like a business man (ignoring the scar) rather than a guy leading people in a fight to stay alive and take down man killing machines. :)

[Sumac]

I think the casting choices in Genisys pulled me out more than anything else. Namely Reese and John's. Also the PG-13. And also that everything seemed hinged around the big twist that John becomes a Terminator, which nobody cared about.
I agree, casting in TG was bad.
Deynerys was not convincing as bad ass Sarah and Jai had nothing on Kyle Reese from the first movie.

Guy who played John Connor was not a good leader of Resistance, but he worked as villain, so I suspect he was cast with that idea in mind.

Its a time loop. No matter how many times they stop it. Another AI from a different company is created and it still becomes self aware.
More like Status Quo on universal scale.

[Andrew NDB]

Which is why the only interesting "new" place to go with Terminator after T3 was full-on into the Future War. We could have used 3 movies of that. No time travel malarky (maybe at the very end).

[CyberCubed]

Seems every few years we'll get a new reboot anyway:

T3 = 2003

Salvation = 2009

Genysis = 2015

Dark Fate = 2019


Honestly surprised how fast Dark Fate came after the last one, I was expecting a bigger gap like there was between T3 and Salvation, and then Salvation and Genysis.

Oh well, by 2025 they'll most likely be yet another Terminator movie. I don't know if Arnold will be in that one though, he'll be pushing 80.

[sdp]

Yeah T3 felt like it came out only like 5 years or so after T2 but it was 11, but somehow T4 felt like it also took forever but it was only 6 years later. T5 felt like it took forever as well but it was only 6 years as well and T6 feels like it came out not long after T5 but it was 4 years. I'm sure there's confusion why T6 doesn't continue off T5.

Let's also not forget Sarah Connor Chronicles, only watched the first season but probably more fun than the sequels of the 2000's.

[Andrew NDB]

Linda Hamilton really didn't want to watch herself in Dark Fate:

https://www.looper.com/189381/why-linda-hamilton-didnt-want-to-watch-terminator-dark-fate/

[Andrew NDB]

Director suspects (literally) that the movie failed because of "get woke, go broke."

https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/02/28/director-tim-miller-blames-get-woke-and-go-broke-sentiment-for-terminator-dark-fates-box-office-bomb/

[Sumac]

Director suspects (literally) that the movie failed because of "get woke, go broke."

https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/02/28/director-tim-miller-blames-get-woke-and-go-broke-sentiment-for-terminator-dark-fates-box-office-bomb/
Because, making a movie with ****** special effects, ****** over the top action scenes, which do not suit the franchise, rehashing ideas from every piece of Terminator media, while adding little to no of the new fresh ideas, killing one of the main characters of the whole franchise, just to replace him with sex-swapped carbon-copy is a good writing and directing and absolutely fine and dandy and sits well with long-time fans of the franchise (and people who appreciate good movies in general).

Time Miller is either an idiot or an idiot who think that he can shift the blame for his ****** work for bunch of random people.

Anyhow TDF was a deserved failure and this always will be a Dark spot on his Fate, no matter amount of whining about toxic fans and the like.

[Voltron]

You know he's ******** on you guys, right? Did you read the article? He's calling you a vocal, negative minority waiting to pounce.

He adds, “There is quite a toxic atmosphere around this film online, which I was really surprised at. I shouldn’t be, but I was.”

Miller agrees with this assertion saying, “Yeah and unfortunately, I think it is a small minority, but it’s a very vocal minority and they make a lot of noise and it’s hard. You now, I don’t dwell online on the negativity, but it’s human nature to read a little bit.”

It's not the "Get woke, go broke" thing he's talking about. He's talking about you complaining about not being catered to at every turn.

Read the damn article.

[Sumac]

It's not the "Get woke, go broke" thing he's talking about. He's talking about you complaining about not being catered to at every turn.

Read the damn article.
Speaking for myself, I don't want to pounce on this guy, neither I want to pounce on his movies.

I just want a GOOD movie. As in with the good acting, good story, good CGI, good OST.

This hack failed to deliver a good movie and instead of admiting that it was his fault, putting his tail between his legs and quietly hiding in shadows for a time being or at least not acting like a toxic 15 year old, he cries about "toxic minorities hating his work". And even before that he was crying how everyone who will hate his movie is a "misogynist".

This guy is an idiot, no matter how you read the article.

[oldmanwinters]

Blame the fans. Never fails after movie fails.

[Andrew NDB]

You know he's ******** on you guys, right? Did you read the article? He's calling you a vocal, negative minority waiting to pounce.

Except we really weren't. Most of us were really holding out hope for the movie. Terminator sorely needed a win, not social justice.

[ZariusTwo]

You know he's ******** on you guys, right? Did you read the article? He's calling you a vocal, negative minority waiting to pounce.



It's not the "Get woke, go broke" thing he's talking about. He's talking about you complaining about not being catered to at every turn.

Read the damn article.

He calls them the minority yet when they spoke with their wallets, he paid the price.:lol: