Terminator Franchise Kaput?
KalElFan
and that includes about $3 million for the midnight showings.
Four other major Memorial Day weekend movies have opened
on the Thursday and all four did $25M+ that day.
Extrapolating from last year's Indiana Jones sequel, which also
opened on the Thursday before the Memorial Day weekend,
Terminator: Salvation would project out to perhaps $75 million
total through Monday inclusive. However Indy had better
reviews and word of mouth, as well as significantly weaker
competition. The Night at the Museum sequel, which will be
playing well to the family market, has a good chance at taking
the weekend now, while Star Trek should also do decent box
office and there are several other holdovers as well.
So it's likely Terminator will open to less in 5 days than Star
Trek did in 3 days only a few weeks ago, perhaps significantly
less. Terminator cost $200 million versus $150 million for
Trek. Terminator ought to do better overseas but Sony has
those distribution rights, not Warner Bros., which is handling
only the domestic release. Depending what kind of deal or
guarantees Warners made to get the domestic rights, the
bottom line on this movie may be marginal at best for them
and not inspire much enthusiasm for a sequel.
Likewise the foreign partners or investors who had to pony
up for this one and would be asked to do so for the planned
next two. Those next two may not happen now.
Meanwhile on the TV side, Warners was producing the
Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles TV series, which
was cancelled by FOX despite having better ratings than
Dollhouse at the end and being a consensus better show
than Dollhouse. FOX produces Dollhouse so one can't
blame them for favoring its own, but Warners meanwhile
was said to not even be trying to shop the TV series around.
Presumably Warners saw the bad reviews and reception of
the movie coming, and that factored into them giving up on
the TV series, But if indeed the planned movie trilogy is
stopped in its tracks now, it arguably leaves the field clear
for the consensus better quality TV series to continue its
run and become a standard bearer for the franchise. Then
in another 10-15 years, maybe there's a remake of the
original movie and storytelling starts over again. If the
movie series stops at this one, Warners might even be able
to pick up all the franchise rights relatively cheap at this point.
Fred1...@gmail.com
No, the fact that no one watched it caused them to cancel the series.
Better luck next time, dipshit.
David
does that well they'll be happy.
Edward McArdle
third, or this one.
My reason is that there is no reason to expect that the story will ever end.
I can go and see innumerable SpiderMan or X-Men, or Batman movies, because
each one is a story, separate from the others. Terminator films are one
story, and I will happily go to see the END of the story, but I doubt it
will happen.
--
Edward McArdle
David
> I watched the first two Terminator movies and was not tempted to see the
> third, or this one.
> My reason is that there is no reason to expect that the story will ever end.
I watch them for the great car chases and 'splosions. I mean, I love
time-travel stories but this one doesn't hold up to any logic. There
was a long thread here a year ago with people scrutinizing the
"Terminator" movies and that floored me because I didn't realize
anyone looks at it as anything more than a (very good) action
franchise.
ib...@san.rr.com
> I watched the first two Terminator movies and was not tempted to see the
> third, or this one.
I'm with you - I boycotted all the later ones, because the ending to
the second one was perfect, and could not be improved upon.
I only watched the TV series when I thought it was following T2's
timeline - when they started aping the idiocy of T3, I quickly lost
interest in the TV show...
Anim8rFSK
<28c143bd-e33e-4828...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
ib...@san.rr.com wrote:
> On May 22, 5:54�pm, mcar...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
> > I watched the first two Terminator movies and was not tempted to see the
> > third, or this one.
>
> I'm with you - I boycotted all the later ones, because the ending to
> the second one was perfect, and could not be improved upon.
You mean the original ending, with old Sarah in the future, right?
--
MEGA-SHARK VS GIANT OCTOPUS!
A new contender for "worst film of all time"
Deborah Gibson is like a Tracy Lords without talent.
Dimensional Traveler
> In article
> <28c143bd-e33e-4828...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> ib...@san.rr.com wrote:
>
>> On May 22, 5:54 pm, mcar...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
>>> I watched the first two Terminator movies and was not tempted to see the
>>> third, or this one.
>> I'm with you - I boycotted all the later ones, because the ending to
>> the second one was perfect, and could not be improved upon.
>
> You mean the original ending, with old Sarah in the future, right?
>
(original, II and Salvation) into a nice circle.
--
"Define 'interesting'."
"'Oh God. Oh God. We're all going to die'?"
jessica_smith_nyc
Arnold........especially in T2. After that, it was just another Sci-Fi
movie with special effects and bad acting.
---
http://www.moviesitearchive.com
On May 22, 12:05 pm, "KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
Rich
They made it a SISSY (pander to EVERYONE) PG-13 instead of the R it
should have been and it backfired, horribly. A PG-13 rated war. They
DESERVED to see it go down in flames.
Jack Bohn
>I watch them for the great car chases and 'splosions. I mean, I love
>time-travel stories but this one doesn't hold up to any logic. There
>was a long thread here a year ago with people scrutinizing the
>"Terminator" movies and that floored me because I didn't realize
>anyone looks at it as anything more than a (very good) action
>franchise.
If I wanted only what the reviews call "a roller coaster ride of
a movie," there are ACTUAL roller coasters I could ride.
--
-Jack
Edward McArdle
<jack...@bright.net> wrote:
Of course, according to Variety, which I just discovered is on the web, it
is extremely successful! But it is only the first weekend.
--
Edward McArdle
KalElFan
news:mcardle-2305...@192.168.1.2...
> I watched the first two Terminator movies and was not tempted to
> see the third, or this one. My reason is that there is no reason to
> expect that the story will ever end...
There is that problem, yes, and I think it's worse when a story is
told that's primarily set in the future. It's expensive to make, the
setting is apocalyptic and dark, and much of the core audience
is thinking about the past era leading up to Judgment Day. The
past era (i.e., our present) is the real home base of the Terminator
story.
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, because the Terminator
played by Arnie said it. But in terms of any ongoing story, it's just
an impossible to break out of apocalyptic loop UNLESS that line
from Kyle Reese is the focus. No one really wants to watch some
umpteen sequels about a neverending apocalyptic loop story.
The TV series, ironically, got it right on the extended premise. We
see the time war play out but our perspective is the present, not the
future though we see glimpses of it. In its logical conclusion, Young
John Connor in the TV series will never witness Judgment Day and
become leader of the post-apocalyptic human resistance, because
Judgment Day will be avoided.
Of course that premise makes the current movie seem even more
pointless. The movie side would have balked and said "But you
can't say Judgment Day won't happen, our $200M+ movie is based
on it, and so are our wannabe two sequels!" Since I don't think
those movie sequels are happening now, it's all the more reason
Warners should continue the TV series and openly explain the
premise. A few usual suspects will balk, but again the "No Fate
but what we make" premise was set out in the very first movie
and pointed the way to the extended story that works best.
KalElFan
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. If they'd
liked Terminator 3 all that much, they wouldn't have just basically
ignored it and taken six years to come out with another one.
It's worse than that though, because T3 had 70% positive reviews
at Rotten Tomatoes and this one has half that. Popular reaction is
along the same lines and the equivalent box office numbers look
like they'll be no better and quite possibly worse than T3. The
latest estimates have it closer to $70M than $75M cumulative by
Monday inclusive, and that 5 days including the first midnights
will probably be half what it makes domestically.
It's also expected to lose now to Night at the Museum 2 for both
the 3- and 4-day weekend box office bragging rights.
KalElFan
If Variety ever said that about this movie (they didn't and you can't
provide a link because they never said it), they'd be lying. Seeing
as their very survival is in serious question like all other old print
media is, it would be understandable if they did a little shilling for
wannabe blockbuster movies backed by their primary sources
of advertising revenue.
nick
> "David" <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
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.
trotsky
Schadenfreude.
David
<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. And there really is
no call for amateur accountants with incomplete numbers and no idea of
the goals. The trade publications, the studio, the existene of the
fifth movie itself; all these things will let you know if T4 was
successful.
David
wrote:
Nothing wrong with enjoying something for the spectacle.
Patrick McNamara
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:23vf15hjma76bonqp...@4ax.com...
I get the impression this fourth movie is intended to wrap it all up.
There's no more steam left in the franchise, and they could see that from
the TV series. But they wanted to cash in on a fourth movie before it all
ended. Box-office today doesn't matter as much as it use to. They make the
money from the DVD sales, and you know those will be big because there's
going to be people wanting to compete their collections.
The first movie was good, if not logically flawed. Everything that followed
was a mistake.
--
Patrick McNamara
E-mail: patjmc...@gmail.com
My Toy Store: http://patrickjmcnamara.webs.com
Webpage: http://www.geocities.com/writerpatrick
Blue Hot Gossip comedy: http://bluehotgossip.blogspot.com
Podcast Ping: http://podcastping.blogspot.com
Torrentcast: http://www.mininova.org/rss.xml?user=PodcastPing
David
<writer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>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. And there really is
>> no call for amateur accountants with incomplete numbers and no idea of
>> the goals. The trade publications, the studio, the existene of the
>> fifth movie itself; all these things will let you know if T4 was
>> successful.
>
>I get the impression this fourth movie is intended to wrap it all up.
It's supposed to be a second trilogy and they've already started
working on T5.
ib...@san.rr.com
wrote:
>
> The first movie was good, if not logically flawed. Everything that followed
> was a mistake.
T2 was a "mistake"?!
That's nothing short of crazy talk.
ib...@san.rr.com
> In article
> <28c143bd-e33e-4828-8ac1-73363b387...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
>
> ib...@san.rr.com wrote:
> > On May 22, 5:54 pm, mcar...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
> > > I watched the first two Terminator movies and was not tempted to see the
> > > third, or this one.
>
> > I'm with you - I boycotted all the later ones, because the ending to
> > the second one was perfect, and could not be improved upon.
>
> You mean the original ending, with old Sarah in the future, right?
I actually haven't gotten around to watching the alternate scenes on
my T2 DVD yet. Maybe one day...
Ian (But, no, I was talking about the theatrical ending of the car
lights on the empty road with Sarah's V.O...)
Anim8rFSK
<7d3d1da6-12f3-4147...@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
ib...@san.rr.com wrote:
> On May 22, 8:54�pm, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <28c143bd-e33e-4828-8ac1-73363b387...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �ib...@san.rr.com wrote:
> > > On May 22, 5:54�pm, mcar...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
> > > > I watched the first two Terminator movies and was not tempted to see the
> > > > third, or this one.
> >
> > > I'm with you - I boycotted all the later ones, because the ending to
> > > the second one was perfect, and could not be improved upon.
> >
> > You mean the original ending, with old Sarah in the future, right?
>
> I actually haven't gotten around to watching the alternate scenes on
> my T2 DVD yet. Maybe one day...
>
>
> Ian (But, no, I was talking about the theatrical ending of the car
> lights on the empty road with Sarah's V.O...)
I hate that ending. It was slapped together at the last minute to leave
it open for part 3. Now, the original ending, THAT was perfect!
TBerk
You _know_ they named a roller-coaster after the franchise, don't you?
(I think Magic Mountain maybe.)
berk
Derek Janssen
>>
>>If I wanted only what the reviews call "a roller coaster ride of
>>a movie," there are ACTUAL roller coasters I could ride.
>
> You _know_ they named a roller-coaster after the franchise, don't you?
> (I think Magic Mountain maybe.)
Yes, but at this point, it may be too late:
http://www.sixflags.com/magicMountain/rides/TerminatorConstructionUpdate.aspx
Derek Janssen (at least a humble sim-ride could've come and gone without
fanfare)
eja...@verizon.net
PV
>Yes, but at this point, it may be too late:
>http://www.sixflags.com/magicMountain/rides/TerminatorConstructionUpdate.aspx
>
>Derek Janssen (at least a humble sim-ride could've come and gone without
>fanfare)
Don't get me wrong, I *love* wooden coasters, but why the HELL would you
pick one to tie to the terminator series? It's like building a steam
locomotive and calling it "the nuclear missile". I don't get it. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Derek Janssen
> Derek Janssen <eja...@nospam.verizon.net> writes:
>
>>Yes, but at this point, it may be too late:
>>http://www.sixflags.com/magicMountain/rides/TerminatorConstructionUpdate.aspx
>>
>>Derek Janssen (at least a humble sim-ride could've come and gone without
>>fanfare)
>
>
> Don't get me wrong, I *love* wooden coasters, but why the HELL would you
> pick one to tie to the terminator series? It's like building a steam
> locomotive and calling it "the nuclear missile". I don't get it. *
Only theorizing (only heard about it two days ago), but I'm guessing
that the prewar ruins of an "ancient" wooden coaster is the only way of
getting through some gauntlet to safety--
Since coaster enthusiasts believe that only "chickens" like nice, safe,
sturdily-built steel coasters.
Derek Janssen (official coaster chicken)
eja...@verizon.net
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
> 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. *
Juan F. Lara
Edward McArdle <mca...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> I watched the first two Terminator movies and was not tempted to see the
> third, or this one.
I just couldn't take the premise of T3. After all that effort to save
the world in T1 and T2, the world gets mostly destroyed anyway? :-(
- Juan F. Lara
Seamus MacRae
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.
Dan Lanciani
| 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.
And there's always his less poetic but more practical explanation
of coming from one possible future from Sarah's point of view (though
he did continue that he didn't really know tech stuff)...
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
cameron.t0k...@gmail.com
> The widely-hyped movie made only about $13 million yesterday
> and that includes about $3 million for the midnight showings.
> Four other major Memorial Day weekend movies have opened
> on the Thursday and all four did $25M+ that day.
>
terminators always come back.
The adverts told nothing of the excellent multidimensional storylines
or about the excellent acting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snLEZoMmop4
Sample ad.
What kind should have been shown instead (Summer being interviewed in
WonderCon)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSzN6zf4zLM&feature=related
Several shows have gotten renewed because of fans.
This is simple, only two steps.
1. Action
2. Success
There are several fan efforts to save Terminator The Sarah Connor
Chronicles going on, originating from the Terminator Wiki members, so
if any fans here, read about them and Join the Resistance!
Asking SciFi channel (soon SyFy) to buy the show.
http://forums.scifi.com/index.php?showtopic=2332484
Asking WB to continue the show.
http://www.thewb.com/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=43
Asking Virgin to co-fund.
http://terminatorwiki.fox.com/thread/2857468/UK+Fans+UNITE
Creating a distributed neural network to form a supercomputer to make
a cgi version of the show. (Artists, musicians etc. needed.)
http://terminatorwiki.fox.com/thread/2852389/THE+OFFICIAL+T%3ASCC+RESSURECTION+PROJECT+THREAD
Oh Cameron.
So sweet is your smile, so beautiful your walk.
But Cameron your eyes look so tired,
has John not been treating you well? Have you not been sleeping well?
You love him so but he says your only a machine.
Cameron you look so thin, have you not been eating well?
Oh Cameron you would be better off with me.
I would not call you machine, I would cook for you and I would always
love you back.
And with you I would dare go out at night in my neighborhood, with you
I would be so safe.
Oh Cameron, I would love to love you so.
Oh Cameron, if you wish to stay with John, at least send me Allison.
In addition to the wiki site (where Discussions is the place to visit)
there are several fan sites, including:
http://www.savethescc.com/ or the new site http://savetscc.com/
On savethescc.com the writers came to talk to the fans in the chat.
Also Summer (Cameron, the cute Terminator) sent a thank you letter in
her own fan site to fans and Thomas Dekker (John Connor) sent a video
to You Tube to thank fans.
Mark Nobles
Seamus MacRae
> Also Summer (Cameron, the cute Terminator) sent a thank you letter in
> her own fan site to fans and Thomas Dekker (John Connor) sent a video
> to You Tube to thank fans.
The cute terminator with the creepy pout, you mean.
Archie S. Wheeler
> Terminated.
She'll be back.
ib...@san.rr.com
John Connor's not a terminator!!1!
Anthony Buckland
"Dan Lanciani" <ddl@danlan.*com> wrote in message
news:135...@news1.IPSWITCHS.CMM...
Most of the Terminator series is built around the concept that
the machine and human forces in the future are in a kind of
Time War, with both sides sending warriors back to influence the
past so that their present (i.e. the future) will turn out better.
The difference in the new movie is that we're spending substantial
time in that future trying to influence the future to make the Time
War possible.
The weird thing is probably going to be (if more sequels are
made, as the end of Salvation certainly hints) experiencing
the sudden disappearance of individuals whose heritage has
been destroyed in the past -- think about how many 20th
Century potential fathers were wiped out in the first Terminator's
police station rampage, for instance. The ultimate weirdness
would be a jolt to the past sufficient to make the invention and
use of time travel unneccessary. You probably see paradoxes
here. That's the way it gets with time travel stories, your head
starts to hurt dealing with the paradoxes and contradictions.
Patrick McNamara
"Anthony Buckland" <anthonybuc...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:H6KdnTMDBeasV4fX...@giganews.com...
That's always been the problem with the Terminator movies: in order for the
future to happen, the future must influence the past. So in effect, the
future influences the future.
The first one was just a good horror film, but taking it into the second
film revealed all sorts of inconsistencies such as using the technology from
the destroyed terminator being used in developing a terminator. While all
the documents could be destroyed, the knowledge never could be.
And of course there's that future father/best friend issue. You also can't
erase Sarah's experiences and unkill people in the past that were killed by
the future terminators who travelled into the past. In order for past events
to have happened, the future must happen. As soon as the first terminator
entered the past the terminators must exist in the future because one from
the future existed in the past. And there is nothing that any of them could
do to stop it. Sarah had already lost the war before she even encountered
the first terminator, so any further action was futile.
Seamus MacRae
I was, clearly, referring to Cameron.
Seamus MacRae
> And of course there's that future father/best friend issue. You also
> can't erase Sarah's experiences and unkill people in the past that were
> killed by the future terminators who travelled into the past. In order
> for past events to have happened, the future must happen. As soon as the
> first terminator entered the past the terminators must exist in the
> future because one from the future existed in the past. And there is
> nothing that any of them could do to stop it. Sarah had already lost the
> war before she even encountered the first terminator, so any further
> action was futile.
The war to prevent Judgment Day, possibly, but not the war to save
herself and her son, or, eventually, the resistance in the future.
David V. Loewe, Jr
>On May 22, 12:05�pm, "KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>> The widely-hyped movie made only about $13 million yesterday
>> and that includes about $3 million for the midnight showings.
>> Four other major Memorial Day weekend movies have opened
>> on the Thursday and all four did $25M+ that day.
>>
>> Extrapolating from last year's Indiana Jones sequel, which also
>> opened on the Thursday before the Memorial Day weekend,
>> Terminator: Salvation would project out to perhaps $75 million
>> total through Monday inclusive. �However Indy had better
>> reviews and word of mouth, as well as significantly weaker
>> competition. �The Night at the Museum sequel, which will be
>> playing well to the family market, has a good chance at taking
>> the weekend now, while Star Trek should also do decent box
>> office and there are several other holdovers as well.
>>
>> So it's likely Terminator will open to less in 5 days than Star
>> Trek did in 3 days only a few weeks ago, perhaps significantly
>> less. �Terminator cost $200 million versus $150 million for
>> Trek. �Terminator ought to do better overseas but Sony has
>> those distribution rights, not Warner Bros., which is handling
>> only the domestic release. �Depending what kind of deal or
>> guarantees Warners made to get the domestic rights, the
>> bottom line on this movie may be marginal at best for them
>> and not inspire much enthusiasm for a sequel.
>>
>> Likewise the foreign partners or investors who had to pony
>> up for this one and would be asked to do so for the planned
>> next two. �Those next two may not happen now.
>>
>> Meanwhile on the TV side, Warners was producing the
>> Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles TV series, which
>> was cancelled by FOX despite having better ratings than
>> Dollhouse at the end and being a consensus better show
>> than Dollhouse. �FOX produces Dollhouse so one can't
>> blame them for favoring its own, but Warners meanwhile
>> was said to not even be trying to shop the TV series around.
>>
>> Presumably Warners saw the bad reviews and reception of
>> the movie coming, and that factored into them giving up on
>> the TV series,
>
>No, the fact that no one watched it caused them to cancel the series.
>Better luck next time, dipshit.
Then why pick up Dollhouse which got lower ratings (3.7 million viewers
on average versus 4.64 million viewers on average for TSCCC)?
>>�But if indeed the planned movie trilogy is
>> stopped in its tracks now, it arguably leaves the field clear
>> for the consensus better quality TV series to continue its
>> run and become a standard bearer for the franchise. �Then
>> in another 10-15 years, maybe there's a remake of the
>> original movie and storytelling starts over again. �If the
>> movie series stops at this one, Warners might even be able
>> to pick up all the franchise rights relatively cheap at this point.
--
"By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population
to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people."
Paul Ehrlich 1969
Patrick McNamara
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:l99o1512h9fqq8tso...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 May 2009 15:42:30 -0700 (PDT), Fred1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>No, the fact that no one watched it caused them to cancel the series.
>>Better luck next time, dipshit.
>
> Then why pick up Dollhouse which got lower ratings (3.7 million viewers
> on average versus 4.64 million viewers on average for TSCCC)?
>
Most likely cost. Also, since Dollhouse is a newer show it has a better
chance to gain viewers.
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.