|
|
| Page 1 of 25 |
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
 Posted: Sat, 19th Mar 2016 22:13 Post subject: Terminator: Dark Fate [Arnold Schwarzenegger is back, R] |
|
 |
Arnold is hopeful. 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/terminator-genisys/arnold-schwarzenegger-confirms-sixth-movie/
| Quote: | He'll be back: Arnold Schwarzenegger claims Terminator 6 is coming
Never mind the box office and critical failure of Terminator Genisys - Arnold Schwarzenegger says Terminator 6 is on the way
In news that may surprise anyone who saw 2015's Terminator Genisys, its star Arnold Schwarzenegger has announced that a sixth Terminator film is on the way.
In an interview broadcast on Australia's Channel 9, the 68-year-old screen killing machine and former Governor of California was asked about the possibility of Terminator 6: "I am looking forward to it, absolutely," Schwarzenegger told host Richard Wilkins, without giving any further details on plot or release date.
The film is yet to be confirmed by Terminator studio Paramount, who in January pulled the planned sequel from its release schedule. Terminator 2 was due to be released in March 2017, but its slot was taken by Dwyane Johnson's Baywatch reboot; a further film had been due in 2019.
Many assumed the new film was cancelled as a result of the disappointing box office performance of Terminator Genisys, which took just $89 million at the US box office. However, Genisys - which also starred Game of Thrones actress Emilia Clarke, former Doctor Who Matt Smith and Jai Courtney - did significantly better overseas, making $350 million at the international box office. In China, the film made $89 million in a single day.
Genisys, whose rewriting of the franchise's timeline left plenty of unanswered questions, also received the worst reviews of any Terminator film, scoring a 26 per cent fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes and being called 'obsolete on arrival' by Telegraph critic Robbie Collin.
Schwarzenegger also surprised another Australian TV host by terminating an interview after being asked for his thoughts on Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump: "This is an interview that I only do about fitness and health, not about politics or my relationships," he told Channel 7's Angela Cox. |
China is watching the movies no body wants and bringing Arnolds, Terminators. Some of them are good people I assume.
 Spoiler: | |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 19th Mar 2016 22:36 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In an interview broadcast on Australia's Channel 9, the 68-year-old screen killing machine and former Governor of California was asked about the possibility of Terminator 6: "I am looking forward to it, absolutely," Schwarzenegger told host Richard Wilkins, without giving any further details on plot or release date. |
It's nice to want things.
TWIN PEAKS is "something of a miracle."
"...like nothing else on television."
"a phenomenon."
"A tangled tale of sex, violence, power, junk food..."
"Like Nothing On Earth"
~ WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY CAN ONLY BE SEEN ~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHTUOgYNRzY |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Sat, 19th Mar 2016 22:52 Post subject: |
|
|
they're going to lose the rights, they should just suck it up and do two final films dealing with the initial aftermath of the nukes (like t4 but without the suck) and the final push to destroy skynet (like t5, but without the suck)
id love to see a more horror-based (like t1) take on the building of the resistance, and then a gritty war-like scifi battle about the end of the war. you can still leave it on a loop possibility if you dont want the finality of a victory and destroying the paradoxical nature of the films, but i think that would have been a suitable way to finish the franchise.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 19th Mar 2016 23:16 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ixigia
[Moderator] Consigliere
Posts: 65078
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Sun, 20th Mar 2016 00:10 Post subject: |
|
|
I love Arnie and his excitement always makes me happy, but (and I thought I'd never say it) this is just a terrible idea 
The harm has been done, and the recent attempt to salvage it was a very clumsy one, so it's time to accept that things can't work out, and let T-Pops have the deserved rest. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 20th Mar 2016 00:52 Post subject: |
|
|
I still love Arnie and always thought of him as a clever man.
But i have very little faith in the next Terminator movie.
I still didn't find the time to watch Genesys. As from what i heard, it's very bad.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kumkss
Posts: 4834
Location: Chile
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 20th Mar 2016 01:23 Post subject: |
|
|
Well she is the daughter of the owner of Oracle, so basically unlimited funds for a second attempt. Maybe they should make something that isn't as bad as the second half of that movie! It's not like Genisys was worse than Jurrasic World 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 20th Mar 2016 01:26 Post subject: |
|
|
uggggh, hopefully it will stay being that... a wish.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 20th Mar 2016 01:44 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Yondaime on Mon, 2nd Dec 2024 15:34; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 20th Mar 2016 02:02 Post subject: |
|
|
| PumpAction wrote: | | Well she is the daughter of the owner of Oracle, so basically unlimited funds for a second attempt. Maybe they should make something that isn't as bad as the second half of that movie! It's not like Genisys was worse than Jurrasic World |
Megan Ellison didn't pay a single dime to make the movie Her production company dropped it (33% of funding) and her brother who was co-producing (another 33%) with his own production company paid her share (thus 66%, with another ~34% paid by Paramount).
I'm not sure who of the two siblings owns the rights now. She bought them but her brother made the movie and it's kind of implied he owns them now at least "in practice" if not officially.
In any case rich people are looking to become more rich and making money with a Terminator movie looks quite uncertain now.
TWIN PEAKS is "something of a miracle."
"...like nothing else on television."
"a phenomenon."
"A tangled tale of sex, violence, power, junk food..."
"Like Nothing On Earth"
~ WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY CAN ONLY BE SEEN ~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHTUOgYNRzY |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14330
|
| Posted: Sun, 20th Mar 2016 02:09 Post subject: |
|
|
Seriously? Do it! There are more shit Terminator movies than good ones. What could possibly go wrong? The franchise is fucked up anyway and I'm always in for some Arnie action before he stops from old age.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Apr 2016 19:43 Post subject: |
|
|
http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/terminator-6-could-see-james-cameron-reunite-with-producer-gale-ann-hurd/
| Quote: | Terminator 6 Could See James Cameron Reunite With Producer Gale Ann Hurd
In case you weren’t aware, Terminator: Genisys was intended to launch a brand new trilogy that Paramount had spread across the calendar right up until 2019. It didn’t fare particularly well at the domestic box office though and critics weren’t enthusiastic about it, either. Still, it managed to scoop up a decent haul internationally, hence Arnold Schwarzenegger’s recent comments about a sequel. Yes, even though the second and third movies in this proposed trilogy were removed from Paramount’s calendar, the unstoppable T-800 seems to think Terminator 6 is still happening.
While most people would agree that the kindest thing anyone could do for the franchise at this stage is put it to pasture – there is another option. Let the man who created the series have another bash at it.
Seeing as the rights to the franchise revert back to James Cameron in 2019, it’s not entirely out of the question. According to original producer Gale Ann Hurd, who chatted to Digital Spy at a recent Fear The Walking Dead event, there might be life in the cyborgian series yet.
"Jim Cameron has an exclusive deal with 20th Century Fox, my deal is with Universal, so [right now] there’s no collaborating… On the other hand, we’re still close friends – and I hosted him and his son on the set of The Walking Dead. One day, you never know – maybe one day we’ll get Terminator back."
Okay, so this is about as far from confirmation of a new Cameron-directed sequel as you can get – but it’s nevertheless an interesting concept to mull over. When the rights do return to Cameron, though, there’s every chance he’ll lock them away in a vault and never let anyone make Terminator 6. And, after Genisys, could you really blame him? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Apr 2016 20:38 Post subject: |
|
|
Cameron ain't got time or interest for that.
TWIN PEAKS is "something of a miracle."
"...like nothing else on television."
"a phenomenon."
"A tangled tale of sex, violence, power, junk food..."
"Like Nothing On Earth"
~ WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY CAN ONLY BE SEEN ~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHTUOgYNRzY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Apr 2016 01:45 Post subject: |
|
|
i know a lot of people here seem to hate cameron, but i genuinely believe the guy has a good level of artistic integrity (incoming flack from people still harping on about avatar being derivative), so if he cant see any point in continuing with terminator and thinks that all that needed to be said had already been said, then yeah.. he wont be doing another terminator or letting anyone else do any when he gets the rights back.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Apr 2016 12:30 Post subject: |
|
|
Cameron from 1985, maybe.
Current Cameron is a visionary only in terms of business and mainstream appeal. He proved his talent as a filmmaker many years ago, and he clearly isn't passionate about the art anymore.
That's not really the kind of Terminator I'd be interested in.
As far as I'm concerned, the first Terminator is the only good Terminator.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Apr 2016 13:08 Post subject: |
|
|
...i mean.. i was debating responding to the points you brought up, but then you said terminator 2 wasnt good, and i realised there wasn't any need.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Apr 2016 13:14 Post subject: |
|
|
You mean, people can't disagree with you without being objectively wrong?
Cool
Oh, it's not a bad popcorn flick.
T2 is like a pretentious Michael Bay film.
Michael Bay knows he's making popcorn flicks for the masses. With T2 - Cameron went full Hollywood and did everything he could to appeal wide, whilst still pretending it should be taken seriously.
Avatar is sort of the ultimate evolution of that. 100% spectacle and 0% intelligent script.
I'm shocked he didn't go for PG-13 with T2, actually.
Nah, Aliens was the last great film he made.
That doesn't mean he's a bad director - he's just not my kind of director.
Clearly, he cares about going big and he's the perfect ego-maniac to go that way.
But there's no denying the guy has talent. As I said, he just proved himself twice with T1 and Aliens. After that, it's been a steady decline in quality and a steady incline in monetary success.
Maybe if you equate big hit with quality, I can see what you mean.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Apr 2016 13:38 Post subject: |
|
|
As far as I'm concerned, T1 is the exact same thing as T2: it's in no way more complex or serious, or better written - it's just cheaper and done with less directing experience. Both movies are essentially SF action flicks. So you like T1 more than T2 - that's alright. But pretending the first movie was somehow less Holywood just because Cameron didn't have as much $ to spend and comparing T2 to MBay movies is just silly.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Apr 2016 13:43 Post subject: |
|
|
| Aquma wrote: | | As far as I'm concerned, T1 is the exact same thing as T2: it's in no way more complex or serious, or better written - it's just cheaper and done with less directing experience. Both movies are essentially SF action flicks. So you like T1 more than T2 - that's alright. But pretending the first movie was somehow less Holywood just because Cameron didn't have as much $ to spend and comparing T2 to MBay movies is just silly. |
Funny, I don't remember the Terminator giving a little "thumbs up" at the end of the first one, and I must have missed the whiny teenager.
Humanizing the Terminator was a very bad idea, but it could have worked if some effort was poured into it.
Making Sarah Connor do a complete 180 in terms of personality was overcompensating - and it was taking a good idea way too far. You completely lost the original person - which just doesn't ring true at all.
I'm not saying the first Terminator is perfect - and it was definitely a little clunky and awkward in terms of special effects - but the characters worked and the whole thing was quite plausible if you accepted the internal structure of the universe.
There's no reason to call me silly because I don't agree with you. We could go back and forth all day calling each other stupid because we disagree, but that's not my thing.
Appparently, you think they're the same movies and you don't think there's a change in tone at all.
That's cool, I simply don't agree.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Apr 2016 13:56 Post subject: |
|
|
You mean I didn't see it because I don't agree that it's great?
I suppose that's theoretically possible.
I mean, it's not like people like different things for different reasons.
I mean, if people really think that nothing inside Cameron changed after he became successful, that's cool.
We can ignore the changes in T2 and focus on Titanic and Avatar. To me, there's really no argument against a complete change in the quality of the scripts and the emphasis on mainstream appeal to justify the ludicrous budgets.
Maybe that's just me, though.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Apr 2016 14:00 Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, maybe "exact" was a bit too much, but I still stand behind what I wrote. I also disagree with pretty much everything you just wrote about the second movie, so I suppose we may just as well agree to disagree.
Also, I didn't exactly call you silly - I said something you did was, and I did that because what you wrote seemed just that outlandish and incomprehensible to me. Still, sorry for offending you.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Apr 2016 14:09 Post subject: |
|
|
| Aquma wrote: | Okay, maybe "exact" was a bit too much, but I still stand behind what I wrote. I also disagree with pretty much everything you just wrote about the second movie, so I suppose we may just as well agree to disagree.
Also, I didn't exactly call you silly - I said something you did was, and I did that because what you wrote seemed just that outlandish and incomprehensible to me. Still, sorry for offending you. |
I don't get offended online very often, but I just don't think it's a productive comment. I mean, by now we should both know we stand by what we're saying - and something might seem silly until we hear more reasons for it.
Obviously, T2 isn't a Michael Bay movie - and I acknowledge it was a bit of a cheap shot, but I actually really mean that T2 is very spectacle oriented.
I don't think that's necessarily wrong - and I think there's a very simple reason for it: the budget.
If I recall correctly, T2 had one of the largest if not THE largest budget of all time - back in 1991.
There's no way Cameron could afford NOT to target the mainstream audience.
That's what I meant by "full Hollywood". I didn't mean Terminator 1 wasn't made in Hollywood - just that it had a much smaller budget, and as such - didn't have to appeal as wide.
I don't think there's anything silly about that - though I could be wrong. I'm convinced they turned Arnold into a no-kill partial teddy bear because of the budget - and though the John Connor character had to be there, I don't think either implementation served the story very well - and I think the movie would have been ten times better if it had kept the same tone of the first movie, without cute little "Hasta la Vista" and "thumbs up" crap. But that's me.
But sure, let's agree to disagree as always. I'm puzzled what I'm saying seems so "silly" - as it's so clear to me - but I'm sure that's how we all feel about it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Apr 2016 14:29 Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I get what you mean. But what I'm trying to say is that the only reason T1 wasn't like T2 is the budget - it tried to appeal to the exact same audience, it just didn't have the tools to do it. You seem to think smaller scale somehow made the movie better, but I'm just not seeing that. I don't see any more depth or cleverness in T1's script (aside from the fact that it was the original one, I suppose, so the time travel paradox was new - but, on the other hand, T2 said more about the emerging AI and its evolution - which you didn't like, but I did, even though it certainly wasn't overly deep), I don't find its characters more relatable or interesting (in fact, I find T1 Sarah a pretty boring cliche and easily the worst part of the movie). There are changes in tone, agreed, but they aren't nearly as huge and harsh as you seem to suggest and they're easily offset by the better pacing and general production values.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Apr 2016 14:42 Post subject: |
|
|
| Aquma wrote: | | Yeah, I get what you mean. But what I'm trying to say is that the only reason T1 wasn't like T2 is the budget - it tried to appeal to the exact same audience, it just didn't have the tools to do it. You seem to think smaller scale somehow made the movie better, but I'm just not seeing that. I don't see any more depth or cleverness in T1's script (aside from the fact that it was the original one, I suppose, so the time travel paradox was new - but, on the other hand, T2 said more about the emerging AI and its evolution - which you didn't like, but I did, even though it certainly wasn't overly deep), I don't find its characters more relatable or interesting (in fact, I find T1 Sarah a pretty boring cliche and easily the worst part of the movie). There are changes in tone, agreed, but they aren't nearly as huge and harsh as you seem to suggest and they're easily offset by the better pacing and general production values. |
I'm not saying Terminator was particularly clever - and that's not necessarily what I'm looking for in my movies.
To me, the original idea and concept will always have an edge unless you do something truly "new" with it - so Terminator 1 wins here, because I agree T2 didn't really do anything new that wasn't special effects related.
My problem, as I said, is about implausible changes to characters and things that simply feel out of place in an established universe with established rules.
I don't think I've said anything about small budget = better. All I'm saying is that with a smaller budget - you don't have to appeal as wide, and I'm saying that because you don't.
You and I have absolutely no way of knowing with certainty what kind of audience Cameron tried to target with either movie - but we can make an educated guess.
In my world, Cameron is a talented guy with a ton of skill in terms of the craft. I think when he started out - he had to "prove" himself, and so naturally he worked very hard on that.
That's a very common story in the arts - and it's hardly unusual that people get complacent as time goes by - and that most artists have their peak at some point, and usually earlier in their career. At least, that's been my experience with my favorite directors, including people like Ridley Scott, Coppola, Hitchcock and so on.
As for Terminator 1 characters, I think Sarah Connor WAS meant to be a relatively normal girl put into an extraordinary situation. I think she played that well - and that it was established well.
I'm probably in the minority - but I happen to think the romance between Kyle and Sarah is among the most natural and touching in the science fiction genre. Even the sex scene is genuinely touching - and I tend to hate sex scenes in movies.
For T2 - everything had to be bigger and more of a spectacle. To me, that's completely obvious.
Everything from the stupid and almost comic bar scene at the start, to the exaggerated female Rambo stuff with Sarah Connor simply doesn't ring true to the characters established in the first movie. It was just "bigger and louder" to me.
I mean, really. Think about how the Terminator is threatened by that fat gangbanger with a shotgun - and what does he do about it? He grabs the gun and steals the fucking SUNGLASSES while "bad to the bone" is playing in the background.
Can you remember the similar introduction sequence in the first Terminator? How did he respond to the gangbangers threatening him? He slaughtered them instantly - and there was no pop-culture bullshit music going on.
To me, those are two entirely different movies right there - and it only gets worse.
I know I'm in the minority - and that's ok. But that doesn't make it any less obvious to me - and I think a lot of people were a lot younger when they first saw this in the theater. It seems to be cut a ton of slack because it was so cool when we were kids.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Apr 2016 15:14 Post subject: |
|
|
i disagree that sarahs progression wasnt natural.. if anything, after everything she saw, everything she was told, and the task she was CHARGED with by kyle, 'going rambo' was the only logical progression for teh character. she KNOWS the world is going to end, how do you just go back to being a powerless naive young woman after that? the man she loved was this soldier, this hero, she wanted to be strong like him.. he drummed into her this 'mother of the future', this almost godess like ideal of her and what she ment to him and to humanity.. that, mixed in with slight mental instability she developed... yeah i think its completely natural for her to go the way she did.. to seek out people to help her, to start stockpiling weapons, to drum in survival knowledge into her son knowing he would need it and she'd have to keep him safe?
the only unnatural progression after all she experienced in t1, would have been to stay more or less the same.
as for john and his cyborg best buddy.. never had a problem with that either. the terminators change was less 'robot being a kids toy' thing, and more a reflection of a teenage mind trying to cope... and quite frankly, the way john responded at times, as annoying as it might have seemed to us (knowing the necessity of killing for him to survive), the way he desperately pleaded with a killing machine to change, and that death wasnt an ideal or necessary thing, was very powerful. The terminators change was important because a: it meant we werent seeing the exact same film again, and b: it was necessary for johns growth
it was also crucial to the stories core driving concept, that being of love. The terminator, having no capacity to feel any emotional connection to john, transcends that by doing literally anything to keep him safe due to his programming, and eventually his ability to learn. hes a father surrogate for a child who feels hes been abandoned and let down by everyone hes ever met, and heres this thing that was made with the intention of killing him that hes formed such a powerful bond with PRECISELY because it can not, and will not, ever fail him. The characters and relationships are much more dynamic and interesting than they were in terminator 1 (which i loved, dont get me wrong)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Apr 2016 15:28 Post subject: |
|
|
No one said any change would be bad.
A natural progression involves keeping the core personality intact. As in, make her a tougher more determined character - not a crazed female Rambo.
Her character was clearly there to make an impression, because Linda Hamilton went over-the-top for Cameron - and they just couldn't keep it within the realm of plausibility. Also, there's no way such a smart girl like that would be placed in a mental facility. Only a moron would go on about time machines and Terminators when faced with the authorities.
If she'd been raised from childhood to be like that, it would have been different. But you don't make a complete 180 change once you reach adulthood. It just doesn't happen.
Then again, I feel the same way about Arnold in the original film. The first concept was of a character that could easily blend into environments - and who wouldn't stand out.
Which makes a ton of sense, actually. But Cameron had lunch with Arnold, who was going for the Kyle character, and he just couldn't help himself.
So, it's not like Cameron was ever big on subtlety or anything - he just got increasingly more about the spectacle.
As for the moralising whiny teenager - I didn't buy it, as they mostly took the humor angle. Humor is ok - but the teddy bear "kidding around" simply didn't fit.
To me, it was just a bad script playing for cheap points - and not a valid display of teenage coping mechanisms.
To each his own, though.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 25 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
I even bought the ORIGINAL bluray to support it 
