Terminator: Dark Fate

[Traab]

All that matters is people still go to see them in large enough numbers to make these films profitable. You personally may hate remakes, sequels that add nothing and reboots, but there is pretty clearly a robust market for all of them.

[The Pilgrim]

Michael Biehn also had a Cameo in Terminator 2 in the Special and Director Editions of that movie.

So, in short, he sacrificed his life to save the future of humanity in the first movie, and all he got was a cut-out-of-the-theatrical-release cameo.

Why adjust for inflation? Why not also adjust for other arbitrary metrics like population of the world in 1939 or some other arbitrary metric.

Because inflation is not an arbitrary metric. You can't compare gross revenues of different times without some sort of adjustment, as prices and salaries were a lot lower back then. All other things equal, if a movie of 2018 had been released in 1939, they wouldn't have got many viewers charging 10 bucks a ticket. Specially as movies are so short now, back then if a movie lasted for less than 4 hours we demanded our nickel back!

[gooddragon1]

..
we demanded our nickel back!

I prefer their later works. (What are you waiting for - Nickelback)

[Ramza00]

Because inflation is not an arbitrary metric. You can't compare gross revenues of different times without some sort of adjustment, as prices and salaries were a lot lower back then. All other things equal, if a movie of 2018 had been released in 1939, they wouldn't have got many viewers charging 10 bucks a ticket. Specially as movies are so short now, back then if a movie lasted for less than 4 hours we demanded our nickel back!

But why inflation? Why not ask how many people watched the movie? Or what was the percent of the population who watched the movie?

You are making choices of analysis when you pick the metrics of comparison, there is no objective comparison tool and there never was. Bad faith readings that pretend to be objective when they are not, is importing values into a critique without makin thoses values evident. This is a nonsense misleading / nonsense deceptive strategy.

[Seppl]

What does the MCU have to do with remakes, reboots, or low effort sequels? The movies may be formulaic but each movie has new characters and new plotlines. Endgame is a radically different story than Infinity War, and expands creatively on the previous plotline. No wonder, that particular franchise is still so successful after all this time.

If you liked Infinity War, you HAVE to watch Endgame, otherwise you are missing something important. If you liked Terminator 1, you have to see Terminator 2 or you are missing something great. But Dark Fate? That one is just more of the same that we already knew, without any creativity. You may watch it to satisfy the craving for more Terminator but it will do nothing more.

[Dragonus45]

But why inflation? Why not ask how many people watched the movie? Or what was the percent of the population who watched the movie?

You are making choices of analysis when you pick the metrics of comparison, there is no objective comparison tool and there never was. Bad faith readings that pretend to be objective when they are not, is importing values into a critique without makin thoses values evident. This is a nonsense misleading / nonsense deceptive strategy.

Because money talks, and comparing gross profits is the easiest way to work out the comparative success of a movie. That isn't complicated or bad faith.

[pendell]

All that matters is people still go to see them in large enough numbers to make these films profitable. You personally may hate remakes, sequels that add nothing and reboots, but there is pretty clearly a robust market for all of them.

Not for Terminator

Link 2

link 3 .

I'll let the people here discuss exactly why this is, but it looks to me as if the Terminator Franchise was more or less done after T2.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Willie the Duck]

But why inflation? Why not ask how many people watched the movie? Or what was the percent of the population who watched the movie?

You are making choices of analysis when you pick the metrics of comparison, there is no objective comparison tool and there never was. Bad faith readings that pretend to be objective when they are not, is importing values into a critique without makin thoses values evident. This is a nonsense misleading / nonsense deceptive strategy.

It is not a strategy, and the people participating in this conversation with a different take on the matter than you are not inherently being bad actors attempting some kind of deception.

Simply put, there is no universal measure of this thing. Number of people or percent of population are different measures, but in no way better measures*, at least not without a more specific agreed-upon goal as to what specific question we are trying to suss out.
*In particular because the media landscape is more diversified now, with movies playing a different role within the entertainment sphere.

[The Pilgrim]

But why inflation? Why not ask how many people watched the movie? Or what was the percent of the population who watched the movie?

You are making choices of analysis when you pick the metrics of comparison, there is no objective comparison tool and there never was. Bad faith readings that pretend to be objective when they are not, is importing values into a critique without makin thoses values evident. This is a nonsense misleading / nonsense deceptive strategy.

I agree that it's nonsense to use "inflation" as a metric of comparison. That's why the metric of comparison we were using here, as proposed by Magic_Hat, was "Gross Revenue", not "inflation".

"Inflation" is just the bare minimum conversion tool to be able to compare "money from 1939" with "money from 2018". Not doing it would be as misleading as saying that 100 pounds are heavier than 60 kg, because 100 is more than 60.

Anyway, I did not contest Magic_Hat's choice of "gross revenue" as metric of comparison, neither he did contest my use of "inflation" as adjustment tool. And we both agreed that Endgame making it first or fifth in that list doesn't changes the validity of his reasoning.

[danzibr]

It was the previews. No one didn't notice.

Oh man, it was that obvious?

[Bartmanhomer]

Oh man, it was that obvious?

I was sitting in the front and everybody else sitting in the back. Also, the movie that I saw was in Imax.

[Dragonus45]

Not for Terminator

Link 2

link 3 .

I'll let the people here discuss exactly why this is, but it looks to me as if the Terminator Franchise was more or less done after T2.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Yea T2 is a movie that fundamentally is Anti Sequel. Everything about its themes and plot is about Sarah freeing John from his fate as the leader of the resistance and creating defying the closed time loop that created him so that they could live their lives free from predetermination.

Spoiler

Show

That's why the start of this movie sits so poorly with me, and why I do appreciate that they went with the idea that the Skynet was dead for good but that mankind would still create some different AI to destroy themselves with spawning its own plot and time stuff.

But yea, there has never been a good movie after 2 for that reason. Till now, the movie was in fact fairly good. Shame it bombed so hard. I wonder if they might not go with the high ratings and potential fan support and leverage Female Action Lead cred to make a lower budget follow up and try to rehabilitate the franchise. Or perhaps just let it die.

[Tyrant]

I haven't watched Dark Fate yet. I'm not sure that I will see it in a theater. I have watched all but the first one in a theater (because I was 3 at the time) and the previews and reviews for this aren't really doing it for me. Maybe I'll watch it at a matinee.

Having said that, I think the only real way to continue with the franchise is to either try to take off with the plot threads from Genisys* (not sure how well that would work out though, but it leaves a lot of room to work with the introduction of multiple time lines) or to create movies set during the future war. But make them R rated and have them use the advanced weapons that we have seen in all of the future war sequences. Otherwise, don't all possible sequels boil down to "Evil AI sends back a machine, humans send back somebody/thing, they fight over someone, future may or may not be altered". They are all just the first movie with different effects and maybe different emphasis on different plot or interpersonal elements. Genisys at least appeared to be the result of multiple time travel efforts from multiple time lines all colliding which could be an idea to further explore.

* For the record, I liked Genisys for trying to do some things differently and introduce the idea of multiple time lines.

[Kitten Champion]

It's hard to see Dark Fate bombing as a surprise when we already had Genisys showing the flagging interest in the franchise.

It's in a similar position as the Alien movies now, I think, where they've released so many movies with - at best - tepid reception among fans that they've lost most of their momentum. Unlike Alien, Terminator also has to deal with convoluted time-travel mechanics as a basic staple, which Hollywood isn't great at keeping straight within a single movie let alone a multi-timeline franchise.

I largely share the opinion of Dragonus45. After Judgement Day - which concluded things neatly - I genuinely don't know what the Terminator franchise is about in a broader thematic sense. It largely feels that Skynet, or whatever it gets renamed in each timeline, is inevitable more for the sake of these movies then because it's satisfying for the narrative.

[Clertar]

I largely share the opinion of Dragonus45. After Judgement Day - which concluded things neatly - I genuinely don't know what the Terminator franchise is about in a broader thematic sense. It largely feels that Skynet, or whatever it gets renamed in each timeline, is inevitable more for the sake of these movies then because it's satisfying for the narrative.

I agree. It would have to go with a chronological shift. After the original T3, they should have stopped the present day-based films and focused on the future timeline (as Salvation did try to do!). Like future Trunks's timeline, they managed to save John Connor in the past and now we move to adult John Connor's time, which is still in a Matrix-like machine apocalypse, and we finally get to see in full how humanity is fighting that losing battle, maybe with the goal of stopping a major time-changing plan from Skynet.

[Talakeal]

I thought this movie was an all right action movie.

The plot made little to no sense, but time travel movies (let alone sequels to time travel movies) rarely do. The weirdest part is how it felt like the film makers were banking on nobody having remembered the last three sequels, because they sure do steal a lot of plot points and images from them, leaving this movie without a whole lot of original material in it.

It was good to see Linda Hamilton back, and Arnold was good as always, but overall I thought their characters added nothing but confusion to the plot and, I can't believe I am saying this, I think the movie would have been better if they left them out and just made this a straight up reboot.

[Talakeal]

Also, the air force sequence going into the third act came out of nowhere and went nowhere. It seems like it was just an excuse to have an action sequence on a plane in an attempt to top Genysis and provide some form of novelty to the movie.

[Seppl]

Also, the air force sequence going into the third act came out of nowhere and went nowhere. It seems like it was just an excuse to have an action sequence on a plane in an attempt to top Genysis and provide some form of novelty to the movie.

Also, Terminator 1 and 2 had chase sequences involving big vehicles ramming each other at that exact same point in the plot.

[Starbuck_II]

I thought this movie was an all right action movie.

The plot made little to no sense, but time travel movies (let alone sequels to time travel movies) rarely do. The weirdest part is how it felt like the film makers were banking on nobody having remembered the last three sequels, because they sure do steal a lot of plot points and images from them, leaving this movie without a whole lot of original material in it.

It was good to see Linda Hamilton back, and Arnold was good as always, but overall I thought their characters added nothing but confusion to the plot and, I can't believe I am saying this, I think the movie would have been better if they left them out and just made this a straight up reboot.

Okay the plot

Spoiler

Show

So, Skynet sent out multiple T's, 100/180 or 101 (Model 101 was Arnold he said), 10 succeeded, but they had already destroyed Skynet through all realities. But future resists changing so some scientist that worked on Skynet made a Wargames AI called Legion that decided to do just that since it now had no competition.

Anyway, without John future is pretty bad. Sure, Dani helped gather bums and raiders into a militia, but still the world is pretty bad. Although, they had advanced enough to make cyborgs that run on insulin like Grace? Weaker than Terminator 4's cyborgs since Marcus didn't have that issue, but again different timelines.

Anyway, so Arnold had no purpose after killing John. So, he eventually learned to like humans and find a purpose by raising a kid.

R's? Why didn't anyone think to freeze them since they are liquid metal? They kept using fire/explosives instead.

I liked it.
Was not a fan of new Terminator, he just didn't have the charisma. Half of his jokes fell flat.
Arnold though was still pretty good.
Grace, the cyborg, wasn't bad either. Very ruthless, reminded me of Terminator 2 Arnold, would have thought her being human would not make her so vicious, but she was.
Sure, she has a mission to save Dani, but did she need to beat the ICE's so bad in the way?


I think they left her in so they didn't confuse fans of older movies.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kitten Champion
It's hard to see Dark Fate bombing as a surprise when we already had Genisys showing the flagging interest in the franchise.

It was mainly because of Genisys that I’m skipping Dark Fate. Apart from being extremely weak on its own, Genisys completely shredded the timeline(s) and left the shreds blowing in the wind. The only reason I’d see another movie in the franchise is to see if they taped all the shreds together, and it doesn’t sound like Dark Fate does that.

Really, the only Terminator movie I want to see is a follow-up to the Lena Headey/Summer Glau series, and both of them have moved on since then.

[Dragonus45]

It was mainly because of Genisys that I’m skipping Dark Fate. Apart from being extremely weak on its own, Genisys completely shredded the timeline(s) and left the shreds blowing in the wind. The only reason I’d see another movie in the franchise is to see if they taped all the shreds together, and it doesn’t sound like Dark Fate does that.

Really, the only Terminator movie I want to see is a follow-up to the Lena Headey/Summer Glau series, and both of them have moved on since then.

Using that metaphor I would say that Dark Fate just goes out and buys a whole tapestry for its timeline and tosses out the old shreds from Genisys.