James Cameron working on a new Terminator movie

[Sumac]

So we have 4 failed start ups for the new trilogy now?
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.

Originally Posted by Wildcat

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]

Originally Posted by Sumac

So we have 4 failed start ups for the new trilogy now?
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]

Originally Posted by Leo656

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]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

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]

Originally Posted by Sumac

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Leo656

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Xav

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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. 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]

Originally Posted by Xav

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.

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.

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.