Struggling 'Terminator' Movie Has An Even Worse Second Weekend (cinemablend.com) 271
"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.
[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.
bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
->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)
I don't mind females taking on roles, but find a better reason than her gender. And pleas
Re: bullshit (Score:2)
but you like the bit where the american feminist was fisted to death by the mexican immigrant.
the biggest sin was not the girl savior (Score:2)
Re: bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
All I need is a Russian Hacker and I got a BINGO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think he was being sarcastic.
Re: bullshit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Non-Skynet sent back a terminator that was coincidentally very much like Skynet's terminators because reasons. You choose your fate, Except you don't. Because reasons.
The movie was just bad. I mean, I'm sure the explosions and punching were fine, but if you were looking for more than explosions and punching, it was bad.
Re: bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
In the army there was male/female latrine, male/female barracks, male/female uniforms. That was the normal way of speaking, and there is absolutely nothing wrong or derogatory in referring to a group of women as a group of females.
But I guess I have done something with my life in the past to know that, while you were wasting it on being "woke". You are seriously everything that is wrong with your generation, and I'm sorry but you'll be that "woke" stereotype everyone makes fun of a few decades later when it's not cool anymore.
Triggered by someone saying "females", and then bursting up with "incels" and misogynists. I bet you aren't even married, if you're a woman you never will be with that attitude. If you're a man you're a triggered little pansy, and will never be married either. Incel much?
Re: (Score:2)
In the army there was ...
Since it's veteran's day, thank you for your service. And while we mock woke Millenials, lets also remember that basically the entire US Marine Corps are Millenials right now, so they're not all bad.
Also, happy Singles Day to all the woke losers and incels out there. Today's your day!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It appears that the word 'female' is no longer a synonym for 'woman',
The whiners are just going to have to realize that they don't get to rewrite our dictionaries every time they run out of issues to be triggered over. A man is male, and and woman is female. Done. That has been the language for the 50 years I've been speaking it. They don't get to change it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Terminator movies use so much CGI they run into huge computing bills. Nobody is offering a GPU-high cloud VPS yet...
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't good enough for you?
https://cloud.google.com/gpu/ [google.com]
Or this:
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/dl... [amazon.com]
Or this:
https://lambdalabs.com/service... [lambdalabs.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth noting that the original Terminator was made on a shoestring budget at a time when CGI wasn't really very ready for prime time.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Looks like it's done $199 million world wide (Score:2)
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.
Re: Looks like it's done $199 million world wide (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, skipping out of taxes is not a thing in Hollywood.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect that the real problem is that Arnold knows that they need him more than he needs them, which means he's probably a double digit part of that budget if not a quarter. Unfortunately the three or four previous attempts at jumpstarting this franchise again have been enough of a botched abortion that not even the promise of Arnie will get them to bite.
None
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Film makers doing those "franchises" are not interested in making a good movie but milking the audience.
I only go into the cinema when my friends literally force me to do so, can not remember to have seen any movie worth it except LotR during the last 20 years, ah, a french movie, Anellie or something ...
Re: (Score:3)
A cheap French film with a surprising amount of CGI itself.
It was panned by Parisians for being overly cute and misrepresenting their city, which might be why I liked it.
Re: bullshit (Score:2)
botched so badly this film brought in only 10 times as much in the first 11 days as the first film did in its first 11 years. catastrophic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
You missed the part where Terminator 1 cost $6.4 million and made $38 million at the box office (mostly in North America where American studios get a higher percentage back)
whereas this one cost about ~$190 million to make and has only made back $134 million at this stage, most of which is spread around the world in places where US studios don't get as much of a % of the ticket price back. It really is hemorrhaging money at this point in time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: bullshit (Score:2)
not really.
you were explaining how they spent 20 million more than the waterworld budget of 175 million.
all you got to so far was account for the 25million budget for the joker.
you still have another 170 million to find.
Re: (Score:2)
Crew just isn't that expensive. Modern CGI is, but this film wasn't a Marvel movie. Sometimes you have to wonder about Producers-style shenanigans. But maybe Hollywood really has just lost all control of budgets, and there aren't any fat Swiss bank accounts anywhere. Could be.
Re: bullshit (Score:2)
are you an americunt?
Re: I'm boycotting everything out of Hollywood. (Score:2)
lol. then you should probably watch terminator dark fate.
its the best piss take of that garbage since team america.
Fark Date? (Score:2)
You definitely do not want a Fark Date, especially if you live in Florida.
Marinated Tater Fork (Score:3)
Anagrams of the title:
Marinated Tater Fork
I Note Trademark Fart
A Retardant Time Fork
Earmarked a Front Tit
Retard Make tin fart
Terminated Art Fork
Fake News? (Score:2)
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
Re: Get Woke, Go .... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Woke (AKA raised consciousness AKA tuned in AKA remove the wool over your eyes AKA whoever has eyes let them see, from the Bible, it's nothing new, etc.) is to be aware of the machinations driving you in political beliefs.
How can you be woke recognizing the other side's machinations, while not recognizing your own? You're doing it wrong.
The "be woke" memes bouncing around your echo chamber are there to program you to support your politicians. It's just more wool.
Re: (Score:2)
The term 'woke' in common parlance refers to the far left.
The right version is 'based' or 'red-pilled'.
The Joker was just a good movie.
Not another sequel (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to throw in a monkey!
Audience has been burned too many times, but.. (Score:2)
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.
They couldn't (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, except for the unions, which won't allow it without better cuts.
Seriously? (Score:2)
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)
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.
It still broke even (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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 also neither womanly nor manly. (Score:3)
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])
Re: (Score:2)
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 :-)
Re: (Score:2)
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.....
Re: (Score:2)
She WAS hot when she was 9.. I was 6. Who's the fucking Boss?
LOL, not surprised (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
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.
the problem is wealth concentration (and bankers) (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Terminator franchise, you've been terminated!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This time nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
Terminators are obsolete. (Score:2)
I haven't seen a 10base5 network in many years.
Re: (Score:2)
Rarer still is the slashdotter who has seen a male connector insert into a female receptical.
Only One Reason 'Joker' Made a Lot of Money (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
While I won't disagree that Joker had a social agenda(it's social agenda being wholly subordinate to the story itself) the idea that all works of fiction have a social agenda is fucking clown shoes.
Have you seen the movie, it's good (Score:2)
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)
"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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How to make a great movie again (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How to make a great movie again (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the power of sci-fi is the ability to veil politics in allegory. Sometimes with quite a thin veil. Do you think making an episode about the senseless violence of racial oppression would have gone down well in parts the US in 1969? The civil rights act only passed five years earlier, and there was intense opposition to it in some states. There would have been boycott campaigns, protests, and possibly violent attacks against the studio. But make the episode about, say, an alien race wiping each other out about some small cosmetic difference, and Star Trek gets away with it.
The number of sci-fi works trying to carry a warning against unrestrained capitalism reached the point where 'plucky heroes vs evil mega-corp' has become an overused cliche.
Re:How to make a great movie again (Score:5, Insightful)
What current day hack writers do is they just put in modern day politics in a way that can only be described as "verbatim" without even trying to explore ideas on the conceptual level. On top of that they also write it such that the only reasonable way to look at it is the protagonists' way of looking at it and the villains are always unreasonable to the point of being plain irredeemable. All this really does is come off as trying to dictate to people they disagree on said issue that they're wrong and re-affirm that they're right to people who agree with the writers on the issue in question.
My guess as to why writing has degraded to this point is that audiences just don't have the attention span to follow shows trying to explore things on the conceptual level, particularly when the concepts discussed aren't clear cut or simple. We'll probably never have another Star Trek series with episodes like The Measure of a Man that explore unclear concepts the way it did. This unfortunately makes me quite depressed as I think about it and what it says about the direction our society has been headed in since I was born (the Star Trek episode in question having been broadcast the year I was born).
News for nerds, stuff that matters? (Score:2)
C'mon!
Such a pity (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I find it funny people are surprised a movie called Dark Fate is living up to it's name.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point the Terminator "series" is so screwed up story and continuity wise that it really doesn't matter. They should just be watched as standalone movies rather than trying to consider how they fit into any kind of larger universe.
I thought Terminator 3 had its moments (again, ignoring how they totally trash the themes of the first 2 and all the various plot holes and such). Everything past that has been pretty meh imo.
Re: (Score:2)
T3 is entertaining enough up to the point where they get to the military base, but after that it turns to absolute garbage. It's still not a great film. The villain doesn't drive it the way Arnie does in Terminator, or the T1000 does in Terminator II. It's more just a vehicle for deadpan robot jokes like "she is a healthy female of breeding age".
Re: (Score:2)
Agree, the actual action and really last part of the movie is pretty blah and pointless, and the first half is best enjoyed as a comedy. Definitely not in the same league as the first 2.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if you watch "The Terminator" as a double feature with "Halloween 2" (the original, from the 80s), you'll see they're practically the same movie.
Re: Who Knew (Score:2)
Re: Who Knew (Score:2)
Re: Who Knew (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real test of any article of this kind, and of anyone who supports the notions it puts forth, is to replace the word “white” with “black” and vice versa, and ask: “how does that make you feel?”. Few of these articles pass this test...
Re: Who Knew (Score:2)