Terminator: Dark Fate | Nov 1 2019 | Estimated to lose 122.6M

[dudalb]

On ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 11:22 AM, John2015 said:

 

Dark Fate is actually getting good reviews (66% at rotten tomatoes)

 

The main problem is that many general audience are not interested in watching another Terminator film. 

66% is a mediocre reception ,not a good reception.

[dudalb]

4 hours ago, marveldcfox said:

James Cameron, the producer, was/is always a flop commercially. 

No one can make a James Cameron movie except if Cameron directs. Cameron just producing has been nowhere near as successful as when Cameron directs.

ALita did not flop, but the minor profit it made did not justify it's budget. You spend a lot of money, you expect to  make a lot of profit. Yes, making even a little profit is better then actually losing money, but still, it's not a good outcome.

[Alexdube]

46 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Yup. I have no idea where this idea that James Cameron being a producer means that a movie is going to bring in a billion dollars even came from. He's not Spielberg.

Lol what does that mean? Spielberg, great producer of Transformer movies I guess? He just attaches his name to a lot of projects and hopes something sticks. He's basically just an investor, his name as a producer means nothing creatively. 

 

Spielberg has a hard time even directing movies that won't bomb these days

[Napoleon]

Paramount’s “Terminator” franchise is back to rule box office charts.

 

“Terminator: Dark Fate,” the sixth installment in the sci-fi series, should earn $40 million when it bows in over 4,000 North American theaters, while some estimates show that figure could reach $47 million. Though it will launch against three other nationwide releases, “Dark Fate” is expected to easily win the weekend over fellow new offerings: Focus Features’ Harriet Tubman biopic “Harriet,” Warner Bros.’ crime drama “Motherless Brooklyn” and Entertainment Studios Motion Pictures’ animated adventure “Arctic Dogs.” All three anticipate debuts around $10 million.

 

Should “Terminator” reach the higher end of estimates, “Dark Fate” would earn the distinction of the franchise’s biggest opening yet. That title currently belongs to 2003’s “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” ($44 million), followed by 2009’s “Terminator Salvation” ($42.5 million). The most recent entry, 2015’s “Terminator Genisys” bowed with $27 million and ended its box office run with $89.7 million in North America and $440 million globally. “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” is still the highest-grossing iteration with $520 million in worldwide box office receipts.

 

At least one aspect that should work in its favor: it’s the first franchise entry in 28 years, since “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” that has series creator James Cameron on board. In a sign of optimism, Variety’s Owen Gleiberman called this movie “the first vital ‘Terminator’ sequel since ‘T2.'” “Terminator: Dark Fate” could use that kind of clout, since it carries a hefty $185 million price tag. Skydance Media co-financed the film.

 

“Terminator: Dark Fate” also marks an on-screen reunion for Linda Hamilton and Arnold Schwarzenegger after nearly three decades, reprising their roles as Sarah Connor and the Terminator, respectively. In “Dark Fate,” Connor must protect a young girl from a deadly new Terminator from the future. Tim Miller (“Deadpool”) directed “Dark Fate” from a screenplay by David S. Goyer (“The Dark Knight,” “Blade”), Justin Rhodes and Billy Ray. New cast members include Mackenzie Davis, Natalia Reyes and Gabriel Luna.

 

“Terminator: Dark Fate” kicked off overseas this weekend, earning $12 million at the international box office. Disney-Fox is releasing the movie in all foreign territories aside from China, where Tencent Pictures is handling distribution.

 

https://variety.com/2019/film/box-office/box-office-terminator-dark-fate-harriet-opening-weekend-1203386841/

[dudalb]

56 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Is it really that high. Sheesh, you'd think that they'd learn their lesson.

When was the last time Cameron actually spent just a modest amount on a movie? Propaby Terminator One...since then every movie he has made has had a big budget to begin with,,and most of the time Cameron goes way over budget. The guy who got great production values out of a small budget with the first Terminator film is long gone.

That is another difference between Spielberg and Cameron:Spieldberg, though willing to spend a lot of money on a film, tries to keep the costs of hi films down;I doubt Cameron even tries to watch his budget.

[dudalb]

5 minutes ago, Alexdube said:

Lol what does that mean? Spielberg, great producer of Transformer movies I guess? He just attaches his name to a lot of projects and hopes something sticks. He's basically just an investor, his name as a producer means nothing creatively. 

 

Spielberg has a hard time even directing movies that won't bomb these days

And thanks for proving my point about how Cameron fanboys have to badmouth everybody else.

 

[Barnack]

1 minute ago, Alexdube said:

Lol what does that mean? Spielberg, great producer of Transformer movies I guess? He just attaches his name to a lot of projects and hopes something sticks. He's basically just an investor, his name as a producer means nothing creatively. 

That not the story people that made tv show for him in interviews tell from what I remember of them, apparently he is some genius at it. Didn't we get some Will Smith story about getting a call from Spielberg himself pitching him Men In Black lead role ?

 

https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/06/16/when-steven-spielberg-called-colin-trevorrow-answered/

https://www.theverge.com/2015/6/12/8741981/jurassic-world-director-colin-trevorrow-interview

I feel like it is a great privilege to write a screenplay based on a story by Steven Spielberg. These are his ideas; this idea of having a park that’s functional, and having a raptor trainer who is trying to communicate with those animals, and then having this genetically modified dinosaur that breaks loose. Those three pillars came from his mind, and they’re so rich and they have so much room to build something creatively around them that I couldn’t help myself. Yes, I had to go into that world; I had to do it.

 

This is based on what ?

[dudalb]

Anyone notice that Alexdube sounds an awful lot like Jimbo lately?

[Alexdube]

1 hour ago, dudalb said:

And thanks for proving my point about how Cameron fanboys have to badmouth everybody else.

 

Where is your complaining when everyone is badmouthing Cameron? Double standards. 

 

I love Spielberg like everyone else, but he has over 170 credits as a producer, he can't possibly be very involved in most of them.

Edited October 30, 2019 by Alexdube

[Zakiyyah6]

Spielberg has produced highly successful movies. James Cameron has not. That is a stone-cold fact. Everyone involved with Alita and The Cave wishes that they did as well as Men in Black, Back to the Future and yes the dumb Transformers franchise. 

[Alexdube]

30 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Spielberg has produced highly successful movies. James Cameron has not. That is a stone-cold fact. Everyone involved with Alita and The Cave wishes that they did as well as Men in Black, Back to the Future and yes the dumb Transformers franchise. 

Well that's just not true isn't it? He's credited as a producer for True Lies, T2, Titanic and Avatar. Should we not count them just because he also directed them? His movies are some of the most complex projects in movie history involving much more than just holding the camera and directing. He works in concert with many experts in different fields, did an actual underwater exploration project for Titanic, years of R&D developing new tech for his movies etc.

[Darth Lehnsherr]

4 minutes ago, Alexdube said:

Well that's just not true isn't it? He's credited as a producer for True Lies, T2, Titanic and Avatar. Should we not count them just because he also directed them? 

Considering the purpose of the argument is that a "Cameron produced" film means little unless he's director as well yes they don't count 

[Alexdube]

47 minutes ago, Darth Lehnsherr said:

Considering the purpose of the argument is that a "Cameron produced" film means little unless he's director as well yes they don't count 

And it means little for Spielberg as well. Yes Spielberg has some billion dollar movies to his name, but that's only because he has a ton of stuff with his name on it, not because he's some absolute reliability as a producer. He also has a lot of bombs to his name.  Besides, his largest successes are as executive producer, not producer. Which means even less of a hands-on role.

 

Edited October 30, 2019 by Alexdube

[John2015]

5 hours ago, dudalb said:

No one can make a James Cameron movie except if Cameron directs. Cameron just producing has been nowhere near as successful as when Cameron directs.

ALita did not flop, but the minor profit it made did not justify it's budget. You spend a lot of money, you expect to  make a lot of profit. Yes, making even a little profit is better then actually losing money, but still, it's not a good outcome.

Alita lost money.  But Dark Fate will loss much more.

1 hour ago, Alexdube said:

And it means little for Spielberg as well. Yes Spielberg has some billion dollar movies to his name, but that's only because he has a ton of stuff with his name on it, not because he's some absolute reliability as a producer. He also has a lot of bombs to his name.  Besides, his largest successes are as executive producer, not producer. Which means even less of a hands-on role.

 

"Cameron produced" films have two different kinds

 

1) Cameron isn't creatively involved  (eg. Solaris, Sanctum)

2) Cameron is creatively involved  (eg. Alita, Dark Fate)

[SchumacherFTW]

Spielberg has produced or been involved with Back to the Future, Gremlins and The Goonies. Nothing Cameron has merely produced comes close to those movies. 

[Xavier]

Just saw the movie and really loved it. The budget is up there on the screen, Hamilton and Arnold are great together and there’s a heartbreaking twist at the beginning that I was definitely not expecting.

Edited October 30, 2019 by Xavier

[The Futurist]

It s flopping in France hard, might struggle to sell 1m tickets and we re in the middle of vacation.

Audience reception is borderline terrible.

 

Terminator 7 is gonna be the great Terminator sequel we ve all been waiting for promise.

[Chucky]

I've never taken the term 'produced by' seriously, im surprised you guys do. As for Speilberg vs Cameron they're too different. Spielberg is the greatest director of all time imo, no director has made 2 movies in 1 year, 1 of which becoming the highest grossing movie of all time whilst the other project swept the Oscar's. Spielberg is the sort of guy who can make movies in his sleep, so much diversity

 

James cameron however is the director cinema needs, he's the guy who's happy to go over budget and keep his movie in post production for years more than usual so we get never seen before state of the art projects, I love them both.

 

 

[Noctis]

11 hours ago, dudalb said:

66% is a mediocre reception ,not a good reception.

It's decent. 

[The Futurist]

Reception is somewhat decent because you know, the movie conforms to "modernity".

So, it cannot be that bad, hum ?

The good old days when Cameron was a jerk to them ...

the memories ...

cherish them for they are now gone forever.

 

Edited October 30, 2019 by The Futurist