James Cameron working on a new Terminator movie

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by 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.

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". 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.

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. 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."

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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

(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

.....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/scottme.../#5f63c0225a3e

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

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


https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme.../#5f63c0225a3e

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

https://www.dailywire.com/news/get-w...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! 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.

[oldmanwinters]

Originally Posted by sdp

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

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.

EDIT:
Beautiful:

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

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-t...avis-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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.