Re: Terminator Franchise Kaput?
KalElFan
news:c301eb54-ac92-4053...@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
[re the disappointing reception and box office results of T4]
> Was there ever any doubt about that? I never understood the
> Terminator Salvation hype anyway. It was a franchise in decline even
> with the iconic presence of Arnold, and take away that iconic presence
> and what do you have, aside from the latest in an endless run of big
> loud post-apocalyptic action thrillers? Classing up the proceedings
> by casting Christian Bale might get some votes with the geek
> constituency or maybe Bale's fanbase (and both of those will be better
> off served later with Public Enemies) but it's not going to be enough
> to replace the absence of Arnold Schwarzenegger.
T4 was expected to do much better than this until about a week ago
when the bad news started leaking out and got worse. Its stock price
in that HSX game quickly plunged to about 20% off its all-time-high.
It'll take a further big dip after it adjusts when this weekend's results
are announced, because it still disappointed even after the downward
movement. The fifth movie's price also went down almost 30% (40%
off its all-time high). There's doubt the sequel will get made, or if it
does it'll bomb even worse and/or take another six years to make.
Bale was in the second-biggest movie of all time less than a year ago,
and people knew he'd be in this movie. Nothing changed last week
when it came to that or anything else, except for the bad buzz taking
hold and I'd add the TV series cancellation as part of that. There
were several posts on discussion boards calling for a boycott of the
movie, and the TV show did have five million or more who watched
it in North America when you add up DVR and online. These were
not random people, they were Terminator core base and Warner
Bros.'s response was to issue a press release pointing out that the
franchise would continue with the movie. Most viewers of the show
would not have followed news on it in great detail, but fans of this
genre do follow things closely enough that many if not most would
have learned of the cancellation. News spreads very quickly these
days.
The cancellation alone could have easily cost $5-$10 million in the
opening weekend box office. The bad critical reception, buzz and
word of mouth probably hurt much more. There were other factors
like the premise and Arnie not being in it (except a likeness of sorts
as a gimmick), and the competition, but again those were all known
a week ago. What killed it was massively bad buzz that started
gushing out a week ago and continues with threads like this all
over cyberspace. The movie has developed a reputation and
it's a negative one.
It's a bit reminiscent of the Superman Returns debacle, in that it's
a "franchise" with a TV series going on at the same time, and the
movie was massively hyped but burnt out very quickly. Warner
Bros. involved in both, at least domestically, is another similarity,
as are the sequel plans that in the Superman Returns case still has
not happened after almost four years. Both of the franchises have
foreign and/or investment partners.
It took *months* if not a year or more before Warners and some
of the shills stopped defending and spinning Superman Returns
and Singer and so on. They wouldn't just admit that there were
some big problems that would at the very least need to be fixed
before a sequel would be viable.
I think there's a strategy that could still work for both franchises,
but it starts with being honest and trying to understand the creative
and other problems they're facing *with_their_WIDER_market*.
One of the huge problems the Superman side has had for more
than 20 years now is they've let the DC Comics tail wag the dog
AND in particular a noisy online segment of their comic book
market. It's akin to the noisiest Trek fans ranting and raving that
the old Star Trek continuity had to be continued and the like.
This is literally a small fraction of 1% being allowed to negatively
influence creative innovation.
Instead of freaking out because some online morons say it needs
to be this or that way, why not pay attention to 5 million or more
fans who watch Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles and
not can their show three days before the movie comes out? Do
you think there might be a bit more upside in that and being
concerned about that, both short and long-term? Likewise not
just junking a Superman movie that probably tens of millions
have seen and at least some liked at least parts of, and that
undeniably was at least trying to pay some tribute to arguably
the best Superman incarnations, the first two Reeve movies.
KalElFan
news:Xns9C147221...@74.209.136.100...
> KalElFan <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote in rec.arts.tv:
>> The key line or mantra in any ongoing Terminator story is the Kyle
>> Reese one from the first movie "No Fate but what we make". In
>> popular culture it's "I'll be back" of course...
>
> That's what I don't get. It was a throwaway line when he tried to
> get Sarah from the police, and he immediately came back and
> slaughtered everyone. It's not the ominous threat of the cyborgs
> everyone has falsely evolved it to be.
Some might see it in that context, but mainly I think it was just
Arnie saying the line that made it iconic. The Kyle Reese line
gets more to the basic story premise, and I think it's one that
many people forget when they talk about the story as if it has
to be a closed loop or was intended as unalterably that. The
end of the first movie *screams* that Judgment Day and by
extension the apocalyptic future *can* be avoided, and it
all goes back to that "no fate but what we make" line.
>> ... No one really wants to watch some umpteen sequels
>> about a neverending apocalyptic loop story.
>
> Mad Max
It was never in the same league as the other major franchises,
and most importantly the apocalyptic future was the premise.
So I think it's fundamentally different than Terminator with its
time travel loop initially, and then the "no fate but what we make"
angle that points to avoiding Judgment Day entirely.
> John Connor is a hero. He is a leader and a savior, people die for
> him, would die for him, tamper with time to save or eliminate him,
> he is *that* respected and powerful. If you look at the way John
> Connor has been portrayed at any age in any presentation, he's quiet
> and deliberate in his passions. One can only guess he's like that
> because that's the way his mother(s) is. It's also how Kyle and
> Derek were. He has always been that way up until T3 and/or SCC.
> And that's the kind of person who earns such respect and devotion.
>
> All I've seen is a screaming, yelling, dour, grumbling, man I can't
> imagine anyone caring that much about other than they were written
> to do so. I don't like seeing storylines and portrayals that don't
> logically reconcile to how humans really behave and respond.
I think T:TSCC is exempt from that criticism because John is still
just a young kid and learning. People forget that the first movie had
no Young John Connor at all. He was in Sarah's womb at the end.
Then in T2 Young John Connor basically sees first hand proof that
his mother isn't insane with all her stories. It's only the events of T2
that drive home to Young John Connor that the danger to him is
real, that his destiny is fighting and winning a post-apocalyptic war
against the machines and so on. Only at that point does he really
begin to take it seriously.
Then, in the overall franchise chronology, it's the TV series that
actually comes next. John and Sarah jump forward in time, thereby
avoiding the events depicted in T3. The TV series is effectively a
continuation of T2 with relatively little time gap. So it makes sense
that the five or seven years depicted in the TV series (if it continues)
would be the key formative years for Young John Connor, and for
the story's progression towards the avoidance of Judgment Day.
Your point about how humans would really behave is key, just
as it applies to John and Sarah Connor in the TV series. The
events depicted there, the events they experience, are virtual
proof to both of them that the future is evolving. It's 100%
confirmation to them that Kyle Reese's "no fate but what we
make" maxim applies.
If you're Young John Connor, and as depicted in the season
two finale find yourself in a future where you never became
the savior of humanity, that would be further evidence of Kyle
Reese being right. Once they got out of that and returned to
the present, John Connor should have become even more
persuaded that his best objective is to avoid Judgment Day
entirely. The alliance with the shapeshifter and John Henry,
which was in the works by Future John and Cameron knew
of it, was brilliant and a logical extension of Future John
Connor using Protector Machines to send back and counter
Skynet's efforts.
Once again if we look at the series as a whole, and the key
first two movies, it's the TV series approach that fits best both
creatively and in terms of its critical and viewer reception. It
had a substantial core base and they shouldn't junk it.
On the Superman franchise side right now, it's really the flip
side. Yes, Superman Returns had problems but Smallville
has descended into a steaming pile of Krypto doggie-doo.
There's no particular downside to keeping the thing going
for another one or two seasons, but it should be wound up
after season 10 at the latest, in May 2011. Within a year
or so after that, Warners should be targeting a Superman
Returns followup in theaters that fixes the very fixable
problems that movie had.
KalElFan
news:23vf15hjma76bonqp...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 03:12:07 -0400, "KalElFan"
> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:bfa9562e-5516-40f3...@u8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> They're not measuring it against anything except "Terminator 3."
>>> If it does that well they'll be happy.
>>
>>I don't think they'd be happy with those results any more than they
>>were last time, in terms of it resulting in a true sequel.
>
> That is what everyone is measuring it up against.
Most people are focused on reviews, buzz, box office versus the
expectations for the movie and so on. Very few know or care what
the last installment did. To the extent they do, it's a minor comparative
and implicitly understood that since the last one was virtually ignored
and they waited six years they wanted to do *better* this time.
It's relevant to Superman, because in addition to the similarities I
mention in the other posts in this set, there's difference of opinion on
whether Warners should try to reboot that again. I say no. As
flawed as Superman Returns was, it's easily fixable. We see from
Hulk and now this Terminator movie that studios can have all the
reboot hopes in the world and blow their brains out making one,
only to come up no better and often worse in return on their
investment. It also gives the stench of neverending reboot and
giving up again and again to the whole thing. "Oops! We blew
it again! Can we start over, please?"
Well, sure you CAN, but a lot of people just tune out and there's
little upside. Batman Begins and the Bourne franchise suggest
at least the potential to do a followup and hit it big. That's what
Warners should be doing with Superman Returns, and why they
should keep T:TSCC going. If the SR sequel goes off the rails
or T:TSCC takes a disastrous season 3 turn, then fine put it all
on the scrap heap and wait 15 years to reboot again. But do
it right and both continuations can be great assets to their
respective franchises.
> The trade publications, the studio, the existence of the
> fifth movie itself; all these things will let you know if T4 was
> successful.
Well that might be your way apparently, and it's consistent
with your frequent contributions being the posting of trade
articles and the like. Many others will take trade publications,
the studio, shills, plans for sequels and so on all with many
grains of salt and think for themselves.
PV
>The cancellation alone could have easily cost $5-$10 million in the
>opening weekend box office. The bad critical reception, buzz and
Probably more. As you say, TSCC fans are the core audience, and canceling
the show, even though we all knew it was going to happen anyway, a week
before the release of the movie, will go down in history as one of the most
boneheaded studio maneuvers of all time.
Beg Fox to delay their upfronts. How hard would that have been? You don't
make a multimillion dollar movie an easy fan boycott target, unless you are
either dumber than a sack of hammers, or you know the movie is going to
tank anyway.
I wasn't going to see it because I hated T3, but still. Dumb move. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Super-Menace
> On the Superman franchise side right now, it's really the flip
> side. Yes, Superman Returns had problems but Smallville
> has descended into a steaming pile of Krypto doggie-doo.
> There's no particular downside to keeping the thing going
> for another one or two seasons, but it should be wound up
> after season 10 at the latest, in May 2011. Within a year
> or so after that, Warners should be targeting a Superman
> Returns followup in theaters that fixes the very fixable
> problems that movie had.
I don't think the problems are fixable. There are several:
Richard White. Nice guy. Generous to Lois. Understanding, brave and
kind. They have to kill him off to get Lois back together with
Superman. The way you'd do that in a bad movie is to turn Richard into
Brainiac and have him attack Superman, and then have him accidentally
kill himself off at the end. I'm not really interested in that kind of
stupidity. There's no good way to get rid of Richard, but they have
to. But what can they do, except to make another poor choice?
Jason. He was six or seven years old in the first flick; he'd be in
his early teens by the time they make another, if they ever do. They'd
have to re-establish Jason all over again. Would it work? Did it work
for Charlie in The Santa Clause 2? (Answer: no.)
Perry White. Jesus, what a cipher. I don't want a calm, cool and
collected Perry White. Perry White in the comics defined type-A
behavior. Everybody knows who Perry and these other characters are,
and how they're supposed to act. The Perry in the movie wasn't Perry.
Superman. In that movie, he's a guy who deserted Earth for years for
no good reason. This take on Superman was absolutely weird, and it
could have been fixed easily in the first film. "I thought I'd be back
in two weeks, but the ship broke." Simple as that.
I think they're much better off starting from scratch making a Superman
movie people want to see, and one that's written and directed by people
who understand this stuff.
KalElFan
news:Jr-dnXUkvIGC74XX...@supernews.com...
> "KalElFan" <kale...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>The cancellation alone could have easily cost $5-$10 million in the
>>opening weekend box office...
>
> Probably more. As you say, TSCC fans are the core audience, and
> canceling the show, even though we all knew it was going to happen
> anyway, a week before the release of the movie, will go down in
> history as one of the most boneheaded studio maneuvers of all time.
Yep. It's looking like it had a bigger effect than my lowball estimate.
The theoretical maximum effect of ticking off the TV series market
was more like $70M+ for the opening weekend, when you factor
in viewers plus one movie partner. So I was basically taking 10%
of that. But even the $70M+ doesn't count families/kids or friends
going in larger groups, and one-time viewers of the TV show or
others negatively influenced by news of the cancellation. Then
there's also the negative buzz, vitriol, boycott and Franchise is
Kaput talk that flowed at least in part from the TV series getting
cancelled. It was an incredibly boneheaded move.
I noticed that Fox is actually behind Night at the Museum, so
they stood to gain by T4 being damaged and their sequel getting
the #1 bragging rights. But it just makes no sense that Warners
didn't even try to shop the series after FOX cancelled it.
The cost of Warners just announcing a 13-episode order for
season 3 would have been less than $40 million, and there
would be guaranteed revenues and upside against that. By
just ditching it Warners also threw away a lot of TV series
DVD sales revenue, in addition to the very big cut of the
gross they lost on the movie just this weekend alone.
T4's gross for the five days (including midnight showings the
first day) was barely what Watchmen made in its first five
days and that wasn't even a holiday weekend. Watchmen
has virtually ended its run now with $107.5 million domestic.
T4 may not even reach $125 million domestic, compared
to $150M+ that T3 made six years ago and $200M+ T2
made 18 years ago. To the extent the sequels are now in
jeopardy, more opportunity costs there.
What would have got more to see T4 is if Warner Bros.
had announced a 13-episode renewal of T:TSCC right after
FOX cancelled it, and said that a full 22- episode order
would depend on the show's DVD sales, the movie's
success, and the ratings once a deal had been finalized
with whatever new outlet or cable channel would be
carrying it next season.
Instead of pitting one against the other, the interests of the TV
show and movie would have been in sync. It wouldn't be a
cancellation threat if the movie underperformed as it has,
because the 13-ep order would still be there and the DVD
sales of the show and its ratings could still result in a 22-
episode order. But people wouldn't have had the sense
that Warners was abandoning the TV show because the
movie is supposed to be it now, and then being patronizing
enough to effectively say that in their press release.
There is a theory floating around that for some reason
Warners Television had no choice. They were more or
less forced into this situation where they had to get out
of the way with the TV series and let the movie side
hang itself if it was hell-bent on doing so. One can see
this happening as arrogant movie frakwits demand "Get
that bloody TV series out of our way!" having no clue
that they're just ticking off their own market.
Now that it has hanged itself and the stakeholders are
reeling, maybe the pieces get picked up and everyone
gets it that ticking off their core base like this was stupid.
If it means the whole franchise goes dark for 15 years
well then so be it. Better yet...
Without spoiling the movie, even the events depicted
in it can be thought of as consistent with the TV series
because it contemplates alternate futures. The season
finale cliffhanger has a much more radically different
future than the movie has. So they *could* have
even promoted a tie-in, and could yet do so for a
sequel. Try to tap much more of that $70M+ first
weekend potential next time, instead of driving it
away. The TV series could lead the way in helping
the franchise recover.