Jump to content
grim22

Terminator: Dark Fate | Nov 1 2019 | Cameron to shepherd project | Visionary director Tim Miller to direct | Arnold, Hamilton on board

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, dudalb said:

Losses on Dark Fate for Disney are minor;Fox  did not have that big a share of the film. But Disney has to eat every penny of the Dark Phoenix losses.

Not a good comparasion.

And Disney had no control of any kind over Dark Fate. It was an investor with no say in how the film was made.

I wasn't comparing, just making a statement of acquired losses. Not sure what part of my comment on that read like a comparison to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back from seeing the movie. It's decent entertainment, comfortably better than Salvation or Genisys, and probably more solid as entertainment than T3 (which however has that kickass ending and generally tries to be more inventive). The problem is that it's a really thinly disguised rethread of the T1-T2 formula and I really wanted something juicier, particularly knowing that Cameron was somewhat involved. It really feels they tried to ape the TFA formula (recycle plot from the classics, throw in a young cast alongside the old cast), except this one bombed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Celedhring said:

The problem is that it's a really thinly disguised rethread of the T1-T2 formula.

Well yeah it's a sequel. The whole cat and mouse chase is what this series revolves around.

 

Like all Indiana Jones movies involve him travelling around to find an artifact while bad guys are trying to get it too first. 

 

If they didn't have that formula then it wouldn't be Terminator.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Celedhring said:

Back from seeing the movie. It's decent entertainment, comfortably better than Salvation or Genisys, and probably more solid as entertainment than T3 (which however has that kickass ending and generally tries to be more inventive). The problem is that it's a really thinly disguised rethread of the T1-T2 formula and I really wanted something juicier, particularly knowing that Cameron was somewhat involved. It really feels they tried to ape the TFA formula (recycle plot from the classics, throw in a young cast alongside the old cast), except this one bombed.

They overestimated themselves. Now both are hiding in their caves while their minions do the work on their respective projects.

  • Not Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty, I actually can't believe how much this is bombing worldwide. I buy that there wasn't an intense demand for this movie but at the same time I figured the return of Cameron, Linda and Arnold all together would be a bigger deal. Thought this would be a 150-350-500 kind of deal.

 

A shame for all involved but it should be a huge red flag for the studio that this franchise needs to be laid to rest.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, JB33 said:

In all honesty, I actually can't believe how much this is bombing worldwide. I buy that there wasn't an intense demand for this movie but at the same time I figured the return of Cameron, Linda and Arnold all together would be a bigger deal. Thought this would be a 150-350-500 kind of deal.

 

A shame for all involved but it should be a huge red flag for the studio that this franchise needs to be laid to rest.

Genisys killed any chance this movie had. The "back to basics" approach might have worked with a 10 year wait, and also Genisys was so wretched that most casual moviegoers were probably still turned off.

Edited by Celedhring
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should have been the Terminator 3 we got in 2003 really. Ideally with Edward Furlong not being a junkie so he could have taken Dani's place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, scabab said:

Well yeah it's a sequel. The whole cat and mouse chase is what this series revolves around.

 

Like all Indiana Jones movies involve him travelling around to find an artifact while bad guys are trying to get it too first. 

 

If they didn't have that formula then it wouldn't be Terminator.

I think the Indy Jones Formula is a lot more flexible then the Terminatro formula, though.

You can do a lot more with it; the Terminator formula restricts you a lot more.

Edited by dudalb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This movie bombed simply because it is bad. Very tedious to watch, much like DP.

Edited by A Marvel Fanboy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Not Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dudalb said:

I think the Indy Jones Formula is a lot more flexible then the Terminatro formula, though.

You can do a lot more with it; the Terminator formula restricts you a lot more.

 

Only because they let themselves be restricted, meaning filmmakers and also part of the fandom. For them, it is a chase movie with Arnold as T-800. In my opinion, one could tell great stories during the future war. Salvation had the right idea, only the execution was not quite up to scratch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, scabab said:

This should have been the Terminator 3 we got in 2003 really. Ideally with Edward Furlong not being a junkie so he could have taken Dani's place.

I think it was more than just Furlong not being able to reprise his role. I mean, why not recast him, then? Hell, the future John Connor in T2 didn't look anything like Edward Furlong. And you can get away with it since he was still a child and people change a lot in 30 years growing up.

 

I think, based on interviews, they didn't know what to do with the character of John Connor, him not being the savior anymore. Because i feel like they didn't want T1 and T2 to feel meaningless by saying they didn't prevent anything. At least that way they did prevent "a" possible future war. And his death was supposed to be a catalyst for Sarah Connor to kick her story off. They wanted her back.

 

I'm sure one could have done it differently, maybe better than what they came up with. Like i have been saying, personally, i would have scratched all that and done the future war.

Edited by Elessar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, A Marvel Fanboy said:

This movie bombed simply because it is bad. Very tedious to watch, much like DP.

it's such a bad take I feel like I could report this post for offensive content

  • Thanks 1
  • Not Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, scabab said:

What more do people want? Of course it's not as good as the first two but that doesn't mean that this isn't still a good movie. It's like the series has a bit of a stigma against it now.

For sure. It doesn't deserve to flop as badly as it does. As good as it is, the filmmakers didn't do themselves any favors by basically rehashing the story told better 30 years ago. You can get away with it if you are Star Wars. Also, with Star Wars it was a long wait between Ep 6 and Ep 7, a long time since the original actors' return. Had T3, Salvation and Gensys not happened, i think hype would have been a lot higher for Dark Fate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Elessar said:

I think it was more than just Furlong not being able to reprise his role. I mean, why not recast him, then? Hell, the future John Connor in T2 didn't look anything like Edward Furlong. And you can get away with it since he was still a child and people change a lot in 30 years growing up.

But they keep doing that. It's one of the worst parts of the whole franchise. John Connor is arguably the main character of the series, yet he's portrayed by a different actor in every movie so there's no strong connection to the character or the story when there should be.

 

Edwards Furlong was John Connor in Terminator 2, then he was replaced by Nick Stahl, then he was replaced by Christian Bale, then he was replaced by Jason Clarke and now he'd be replaced again? Six different actors across five movies? Oh and the series had a different actor too. It'd be like if they replaced Luke Skywalker for every movie he was in.

 

Considering that this was the true Terminator 3 and they brought back Linda Hamilton also, I would rather Edward Furlong be killed off in a cameo than have someone else play him again. Preferably, John Connor would have had a large role where Edward Furlong played him but the guy is a junkie so that wasn't about to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@scabab

 

We are back at T3, Salvation and Gensys should never have happened. ;)

Edited by Elessar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terminator peaked in 2008-2009.  Then Salvation happened and the rest is history. 

  • Not Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, langer said:

Terminator peaked in 2008-2009.  Then Salvation happened and the rest is history. 

That's some alternate history.

 

Terminator clearly peaked in 1991.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Elessar said:

That's some alternate history.

 

Terminator clearly peaked in 1991.

 

I still think the story and visuals of the TV show was slightly better than T2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.