Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Sci-Fi

Struggling 'Terminator' Movie Has An Even Worse Second Weekend (cinemablend.com) 271

Posted by EditorDavid from the I-may-not-be-back dept.
"The news just keeps getting worse for Terminator: Dark Fate," reports CinemaBlend: It had a disappointing opening last week and a sharp drop in its second weekend at the box office. It also had the worst Friday-to-Friday drop of any other Terminator sequel in the franchise... According to Forbes, it made only $2.8 million on Friday, November 8, marking a 73% drop from opening day on November 1...

[A]t this point, Terminator: Dark Fate is only expected to make just over $10 million this weekend, which would be a drop of 65% from last weekend. That is pretty big considering Dark Fate only started with a $29 million opening weekend. To go back to Terminator Salvation, that movie opened to $42.5 million 10 years ago, so even a slightly bigger week-to-week percentage drop gave it more money than Dark Fate...

Terminator: Dark Fate cost between $185-$195 million to make, not including marketing costs. According to Deadline, the movie will have to make $470 million worldwide to break even. If it were making a killing at the international box office, that might happen. But it's not exactly crushing overseas either. Going into this second weekend, the film was only at $135 million worldwide, with $94M of that from the foreign box office. That's a lot more than domestic, but the addition of this weekend's numbers, and whatever comes next week and beyond, probably won't be enough to hit that break even point... [E]ven if you too think you know where James Cameron was going with his Terminator trilogy plans after Dark Fate, it's unlikely now that those plans will see the light of day.
Forbes calls it "a sign that making a better sequel couldn't save a franchise for which general audiences stopped caring decades ago... [I]t's an example of the studios looking at the threat posed by video-on-demand and streaming and giving theatrical audiences exactly what they don't want."

Meanwhile, they write, the movie Joker has become the most profitable comic book movie of all time, earning $958.7 million worldwide on a budget of just $62.5 million.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Struggling 'Terminator' Movie Has An Even Worse Second Weekend More

Struggling 'Terminator' Movie Has An Even Worse Second Weekend

Comments Filter:

  • bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mSparks43 ( 757109 ) on Sunday November 10, 2019 @08:43PM (#59401108) Journal

    ->Dark Fate cost between $185-$195 million

    4 or 5 unknown actors, Arnie, and a load of cgi did not cost nearly $200 million to put together.

    • Re: bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

      by saloomy ( 2817221 )
      This movie was so political I could taste my own vomit when I watched it. They spent it on Lisa Hamilton, Arnie, and Ridley Scot. The bad part: jumping the border as a political statement. Getting rid of skynet for no reason whatsoever. Making a female the primary focus I can get on board with, but for no reason... (she doesn't do anything but stand up for a young girl facing bullies. What's so special about that?).

      I don't mind females taking on roles, but find a better reason than her gender. And pleas

      • but you like the bit where the american feminist was fisted to death by the mexican immigrant.

      • Imagine there was NO terminator 1 and 2. Cut off the 5 minutes with jones. And you got a passable watchable sci fi film similar to T2 story with a savior. It is worst than T2 because at least in T2 you see the kid doing stuff (more IMO but I may be wearing my nostalgia glasses here), But basically the same story. So WHY it is so dropping the ball at box office ? Because they killed JOHN for naught so they basically alienated all those who like the franchise. When I heard the first reviews I knew the film w

    • Actually, Terminator movies use so much CGI they run into huge computing bills. Nobody is offering a GPU-high cloud VPS yet...

    • So if it cost $200 million, where from does the $500 million to break even come from? That would make $300 million in profit. The break even point is $200 million.

      Is this the "new math"?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DavenH ( 1065780 )

        Do you think cinemas give 100% of the ticket revenue back to the studio? Well, they don't! Google the term "Recoupment Waterfall". Cinemas, distributors, sales agents, and other middlemen snag a share of the revenue, particularly overseas revenue, before the production studio gets to pay off the budget.

        Also, there's the marketing budget, which is huge for these tentpole movies, that isn't reported in the official costs to make a movie. All using old math.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jezwel ( 2451108 )

          Also, there's the marketing budget, which is huge for these tentpole movies, that isn't reported in the official costs to make a movie. All using old math.

          Good ol' Hollywood accounting, where even the biggest films still lose money somehow if the actors are paid in % profit (and not revenue).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        It cost 200 million *before marketing*. It's right in the summary. Also, the movie studios let the actual theatre have a buck or so per ticket to clean the floors and make sure nobody sneaks in with a video camera.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        The $200 million was the production cost. Add to that the cost of distribution and promotion.

        Just providing studio executives with stacks of $100s to light their cigars with can really add up.

    • on it's $196 million budget [wikipedia.org]. So yeah, it's already turned a small profit, and they've kept the franchise going.

      Part of me wonders if the crappiness is another example of a movie made to be sold overseas. e.g. the dialog & story were kept simple for dubbing and the plot watered down to make it palpable to foreign censors.

      • definately aimed at a foreign audience.

        Cant imagine they were under any illusion that a black comedy about the rescue of america by a mexican immigrant would do well in a "domestic" market.

        I think all we are seeing here is some of the 80 mill they supposedly spent on advertising. even tho the only "adverts" ive seen so far are stories like this.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DavenH ( 1065780 )

        So yeah, it's already turned a small profit

        Eyeroll. Subtract 100m for prints and advertising. Subtract a likely 40-55% for the exhibitor (cinema). Subtract the up to 50% Entertainment Tax of the jurisdiction in which its airing. Subtract 35% of the remaining for distribution. NOW subtract the monster 196m budget....

        How much profit are we making? 500m break-even is no exaggeration.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by FritzTheCat1030 ( 758024 )
      There's no reason whatsoever for the studio to overstate the amount of money they spent making the film. To do so would be essentially under-reporting profits...barring some sort of "The Producers"-type scenario, that's not something any studio would want to do.

  • You definitely do not want a Fark Date, especially if you live in Florida.

  • So last week when this story broke a whole lot of people who had no idea what "good" or "bad" means in terms of opening weekend declared it all fake news saying that's it's just opening weekend woes and that this film will magically not follow the usual curve of diminishing returns.

    They were right. It didn't follow the curve most other movies do, in fact it seems to have fallen faster than most.

    Anyway let's get this over with fake news people, come in an tell us all how this is actually some roaring success

  • Not another sequel (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Local ID10T ( 790134 ) <ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com> on Sunday November 10, 2019 @08:54PM (#59401154) Homepage

    Stop making sequel #4 or 5 (or 9...)

    Make something new, and we might pay to watch it.

    • If only it were that simple (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Sunday November 10, 2019 @10:32PM (#59401378)
      Unfortunately it's not that simple. The way it works is:
      • A1. If it's a sequel we like, we will pay gobs of money to see it (e.g. Marvel and Star Wars movies).
      • A2. If it's a sequel we dislike, we complain the movie companies are making too many sequels.
      • B1. If it's a new movie we like, we will pay gobs of money to see it.
      • B2. If it's a new movie we dislike, we laugh at the movie companies for trying something so stupid and thinking it would make money.

      Unfortunately, the losses in A2 and B2 are about equal. But the losses in B2 tend to be greater than the losses from A2 (fanbois still pay to see it). So we get more and more sequels.

    • Some drama series keep it good season after season (e.g. Breaking Bad S1-5, and GoT S1-7), and the reason is because they keep the same team all along, within a rather short time frame (every year), and keep the same story line. The problem is when a movie arises from its ashes many years later, with the unavowed aim to (just) make money.

    • Stop making sequel #4 or 5 (or 9...)

      Make something new, and we might pay to watch it.

      Oh, ok, so the next terminator will be a reboot of the original, with Sarah Connor as the terminator and Kyle Reese as the single father locked up in an insane asylum. Gotcha loud and clear, *wink*. -Hollywood

  • I hope the real takeaway is that people are tired of reboot-quels, just continue your damned story with the old characters if you must.

    • the old actors were just too old. This movie was meant to introduce a new cast so they could keep the franchise going. It might still work. My understanding is they weren't expecting it to do all that well (though not _this_ poorly). The goal is just to keep it in people's heads.

  • Even the trailers looked bad.

    Flat, boring shots. The CG effects seemed to have devolved even from "Terminator: Genisys," and that's saying something. New Terminator doesn't even look remotely threatening. I think we did that "chasing them in a truck" thing already. Linda and Arnold look old and tired, new characters look like people I'd expect to star in a "Paranormal Activity" movie or something. Some crap with planes crashing into each other, which is kinda tasteless given the ongoing Boeing situation, bu

  • First Friday Includes Thursday (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kunedog ( 1033226 ) on Sunday November 10, 2019 @09:04PM (#59401196)

    According to Forbes, it made only $2.8 million on Friday, November 8, marking a 73% drop from opening day on November 1...

    These days the first Friday number is (typically) really "Friday + Thursday previews," so comparing the two is going to make the drop off look worse. It's better to compare the whole weekend, even though the second weekend number is just an estimate:

    $(29-10.8)/$29 ~= 63%

    Still dismal, and either indicative of bad word of mouth, or continuing fallout from the Ghostbusters-2016-style marketing:

    http://archive.is/lEBTS [archive.is]

    “If you’re at all enlightened, she’ll play like gangbusters. If you’re a closet misogynist, she’ll scare the fuck out of you, because she’s tough and strong but very feminine,” Miller said. “We did not trade certain gender traits for others; she’s just very strong, and that frightens some dudes. You can see online the responses to some of the early shit that’s out there, trolls on the internet. I don’t give a fuck.” - Director Tim Miller

    If you made a good movie, Tim, you wouldn't be so desperate to pre-emptively insult anyone who's not interested. If your cyborg were "very feminine," you wouldn't have to repeatedly tell us.

    • And it's still going. Ghostbusters made $200 million on a $100 million budget.

      All of this is before we talk about home video, streaming and merchandising (where the real money from the movie is made!)

      I would like better movies, but better movies aren't necessarily money makers. Dredd [wikipedia.org] was fucking fantastic and it lost real money.

    • According to Forbes, it made only $2.8 million on Friday, November 8, marking a 73% drop from opening day on November 1...

      These days the first Friday number is (typically) really "Friday + Thursday previews," so comparing the two is going to make the drop off look worse. It's better to compare the whole weekend, even though the second weekend number is just an estimate:

      $(29-10.8)/$29 ~= 63%

      Still dismal, and either indicative of bad word of mouth, or continuing fallout from the Ghostbusters-2016-style marketing:

      http://archive.is/lEBTS [archive.is]

      “If you’re at all enlightened, she’ll play like gangbusters. If you’re a closet misogynist, she’ll scare the fuck out of you, because she’s tough and strong but very feminine,” Miller said. “We did not trade certain gender traits for others; she’s just very strong, and that frightens some dudes. You can see online the responses to some of the early shit that’s out there, trolls on the internet. I don’t give a fuck.”

      - Director Tim Miller

      If you made a good movie, Tim, you wouldn't be so desperate to pre-emptively insult anyone who's not interested. If your cyborg were "very feminine," you wouldn't have to repeatedly tell us.

      Omg his statement is one of the most colossally self-righteous and ignorant statements I've ever read.

      Sci-fi of the past, including this and Alien, presented women and minorities as strong and capa

      I can't go on. Jesus effing christ what a world-class fool. Who do you think kept sci fi alive for decades so you could earn millions? Nerds.

      It's the presentation. Before, it was, "Isn't this a nice future to consider?" Now it's "Isn't this a nice future and you are the problem."

      And it tanks? What a surprise

  • Surprise surprise (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Ryzilynt ( 3492885 )

    Make a shitty movie, a reboot no less and it doesn't do well in the box office. A washed up Arnold trying to wring the last few drops out of his acting career ( who can blame him).

    But pinning it's demise on the left? really? Fake news? Really? This shit has to make it into a discussion about a garbage movie?

    That makes about as much sense as pinning it on the fact that a former republican politician stars in it. Who cares?

    When you wake up in the hospital after a car accident do you ask your doc his/her pol

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 )

      The movie's director confirms he made it as an explicit far left political statement.

      http://archive.is/lEBTS [archive.is]

      âoeIf youâ(TM)re at all enlightened, sheâ(TM)ll play like gangbusters. If youâ(TM)re a closet misogynist, sheâ(TM)ll scare the fuck out of you, because sheâ(TM)s tough and strong but very feminine,â Miller said. âoeWe did not trade certain gender traits for others; sheâ(TM)s just very strong, and that frightens some dudes. You can see online the respon

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Who's he talking about? The kid is pretty forgettable. The terminator looks kind of frail. Linda Hamilton with mirrored aviators and a bazooka is pretty awesome though. He must have been talking about Linda Hamilton. But all geeks, including the male ones, love Linda Hamilton, so what's all that crap about frightening dudes?

        • Science fiction people were enlightened long before this jackass came along. Heinlein had gender neutral facilities and gay sex (though not explicit, mentioned as casual and without disapproval) in his novels. His reward? A pathetic pos turned one story into a Nazi movie.

        • She's literally just that tough-acting dude who never matured past puberty and confuses toughness with manliness. So it's the typical feminist crap of how "wymen" are oppressed util they act just like men, with somebody confusing those "tough" forever-pubescent losers for men.
          (Just for the record: AvE is a man. [Search YouTube])

    • A washed up Arnold trying to wring the last few drops out of his acting career ( who can blame him).

      Having seen the movie I'd say that Arnold was one of the brighter spots. The pandering to modern themes was distasteful but I think the biggest mistake was changing the overall story line. That said the pandering certainly didn't help. It was fun to see both a Terminator and Rambo movie in the same year. It's like going back in time myself :-)

      • A washed up Arnold trying to wring the last few drops out of his acting career ( who can blame him).

        Having seen the movie I'd say that Arnold was one of the brighter spots. The pandering to modern themes was distasteful but I think the biggest mistake was changing the overall story line. That said the pandering certainly didn't help. It was fun to see both a Terminator and Rambo movie in the same year. It's like going back in time myself :-)

        Fair enough, I didn't see the movie. I don't think I bothered after the second installment. Which goes for a lot of movies, there have been exceptions.

        I never really thought of Arnold as possessing incredible acting skills, but he's always been entertaining. When I was a kid I had like 12 movies on VHS and I watched them over and over again. Commando was one of them. Ohhh Alyssa Milano.....

  • LOL, not surprised (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by p51d007 ( 656414 )
    1. Arnold is old 2. Linda is old They made the thing about "women power" or some such crap. It will be on PPV, then streaming before Christmas

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by DesScorp ( 410532 )

      1. Arnold is old
      2. Linda is old
      They made the thing about "women power" or some such crap.

      Yeah, but commenters here by and large are afraid to even broach that aspect. This type of movie has an overwhelmingly male audience, and they're not into Very Important Films about Strong Womyn. And we know it was a Very Important Film because Hollywood repeatedly told us how empowering it was. For Womyn.

  • Does anyone see these movies and after wonder where their viewing time went and the wasted acting/crew/directing/production talents go?

    Since Star Wars I in 2000 or perhaps before that, the banks have been virtually out of control with this type of mass marketing in the US. That's the core problem: movies are nothing more than a marketing dalliance to millionaires. To them, the millionaires leveraging these movie empires see it as parallel to stock buy-back programs.

    Also, all of the Spiderman movies are exis

  • Who's the audience for this movie? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gizmo2199 ( 458329 ) on Sunday November 10, 2019 @09:56PM (#59401324) Homepage

    So the hero is an illegal Mexican girl, and they literally wage war on an ICE detention center. I'm guessing that would be a big turnoff for the natural audience for this movie. I guess someone forgot to tell that to the writers.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      TLDR: Get woke, go broke.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Ksevio ( 865461 )

      More likely, the potential audience has already seen the previous ones and can't be bothered to see it again.

  • I won't be bahck (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Sunday November 10, 2019 @10:12PM (#59401344) Journal

    Terminator franchise, you've been terminated!

  • I haven't seen a 10base5 network in many years.

  • It was all the great CGI. Even better than Terminator. You couldn't even tell it was there.
    • Terminator: Woke Fate - $185 Million spent - Agenda driven androgynous characters - Loses money
      Joker - $55 Million spent - No social agenda - One of the most profitable movies in history

      I'm sure the next time will be different.... its like communism.... hasnt really been tried.

  • I wonder how much of this poor box office performance is due to the female leads, versus male leads. I saw the movie since I was too busy last weekend
    Really enjoyed the film until the last third when excessive CGI and ridiculous plot took over.
    Lots of great lines, and Linda Hamilton was lucky enough to get quite a few of them. Plot twists that were expected and some that weren't. My wife wants to see it again, and I might join her.

  • How to make a great movie again (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Monday November 11, 2019 @12:53AM (#59401710) Journal
    1. Find writers who like the past plots and who understand the topics. Who can write. Who can understand the topic and plot going back to the 1990's.
    "Friends" from past random projects are fun but may not be the most "skilled" for the needed plot.
    2. Find actors who will look good considering the past years of plot. Don't make a new plot to fit around new actors... for political reasons.
    The politics of selecting actors cant fill in for actually needing a plot people want to "pay" to see.
    Given that the work is going to have to fit back into past work.
    Pay homage to what fans want to see. Don't replace the past work that sold well globally with your own side of US politics.
    3. Find people who know about computer art and what was done in the past. Try and do better given actual advances in skills creating computer art since 1990.
    Better in 2015 terms is not 1989 work using a different dark color. People paying to see the new movie will notice the total lack of any creative effort.
    4. Don't add your own politics to a plot.
    5. Don't expect your own side of US politics added to a very different plot to sell a movie.

    What to make a 2019 US political drama with some science fiction parts? Do so as a totally new project and see how it sells...

  • Such a pity (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tomahawk ( 1343 ) on Monday November 11, 2019 @05:22AM (#59402168) Homepage

    I really enjoyed the movie. I as looking forward to the next one after coming out of the cinema. I thought it was a great sequel to T2.

    However, I guess some people on the Internet didn't like the premise and made themselves heard, and thus loads of people just didn't go to see it.

    It's the Han Solo movie all over again -- another movie I really enjoyed.

  • Hollywood, get a clue (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday November 11, 2019 @06:31AM (#59402284)

    I'm a consultant. Normally I sell good advice, but this one is free. Because I'd like to go watch movies again.

    1. Reboots are a bigger gamble than writing some original material. Yes, you will get some viewers purely based on your franchise. But your movie will invariably be compared to the one you reboot. And unless your movie is AWESOME, it will be considered inferior. Why? Because the movie you reboot was AWESOME. That's why you rebooted it. In other words, there's a reason you don't reboot Plan 9 or The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes. Same reason your movie has to be awesome or people will think it sucks. Your movie can even be decent, but that's not going to be enough for a reboot. It would be enough for a standalone movie, but if you reboot, anything but AWESOME is "it sucks".

    2. You can put social commentary into your movie. That's fine, some of the best movies of all times criticized or satirized the political landscape of their time. But it is no replacement for plot, character development or an engaging story. Think of your commentary as the icing on the rich cake made out of your awesome plot. If you have no cake, all you have is a messy puddle.

    3. If you reboot, rehash, redo or refurbish a franchise, be prepared that people have certain expectations for your plot. When I go to your vegan restaurant, you could deliver the best filet mignon and I will yell at you and maybe even throw it in your face. With good reason. You didn't deliver what your patron expected. Cater to your audience.

    4. If you have visions, go seek professional help.

  • Stop making lame sequels (Score:3)

    by thereddaikon ( 5795246 ) on Monday November 11, 2019 @12:03PM (#59403192)

    The franchise was killed with Terminator 3, but they just keep shitting out new versions. How many reboots have they had at this point? I don't even remember.

    There was no way this movie was going to be good. There just isn't an ounce of originality left in this franchise. Maybe, if they had followed up more quickly and had kept Cameron and Wisher to do the third film in the mid 90's. But they waited over a decade and everyone involved are a bunch of no names who have never done anything notable. Then the other fifteen were the same shit. And now 30 years later they bring Cameron back but the damage has been done. Nobody gives a fuck.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close