Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
simsarge

Terminator 6

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Insein said:

Estimated to lose over $100m.

As it should because this movie sucked. Sorry, but Mackenzie Davis as an enhanced human? This movie was garbage

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Jules Winnfield said:

As it should because this movie sucked. Sorry, but Mackenzie Davis as an enhanced human? This movie was garbage

She actually wasn't the worst part of this. She did what she could with the part but it was an awful part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Insein said:

She actually wasn't the worst part of this. She did what she could with the part but it was an awful part. 

She looks like a tall Justin Bieber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you liked this movie, Rambo 9 comes out soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 9:34 AM, Jobber said:

This is the only direct sequel to T1 & T2, and directed by James Cameron. For once, I’m somewhat excited about a new Terminator movie.

How was T3 not a direct sequel?  It had the same characters and referenced the events of T2 regularly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 12:00 PM, Hov34 said:

Saw it last night.  It wasn't that bad.  I enjoyed it for what it was - a popcorn flick.

 

Just saw it and this is how I feel. It was okay. 

But with the John scene, what about in a previous Terminator (don't remember which one) but it ended with him and Claire Danes in a bunker when the world was getting blown up. Are we supposed to think that didn't happen?

Also, I have some mild issues with the movie. Who is to say Dani doesn't die from a hunger after Legion takes over? Or some other freak thing? Or another person...who doesn't die....rises up to lead? It's all kinda silly. Or why doesn't Legion just send back a few R9s and take over the world then? I don't know. And how da #### does Arnold age? He's a robot. Grey hair? Meh.

Still entertaining though. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, boots11234 said:

#METOO #BORDERPOLITICS Just entertain me.  Stop with the broader messages. The terminator terminates things. That’s what I want to see. That’s all I want to see. 

Don't go looking for it and it won't bother you. Another pro Trump guy I know thought The Joker was way too political. There just movies. Just movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jules Winnfield said:

As it should because this movie sucked. Sorry, but Mackenzie Davis as an enhanced human? This movie was garbage

:goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, eoMMan said:

 And how da #### does Arnold age? He's a robot. Grey hair? Meh.

Still entertaining though. 

I try not to overthink and time travel movies.  It starts to hurt my head...

My biggest beef with Arnold was his job.  "Carl's Draperies"???

He should have been an "Exterminator".  C'mon this writes itself doesn't it?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, FreeBaGeL said:

How was T3 not a direct sequel?  It had the same characters and referenced the events of T2 regularly.

Basically they're doing the Halloween thing and disregarding ALL the other sequels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hov34 said:

I try not to overthink and time travel movies.  It starts to hurt my head...

My biggest beef with Arnold was his job.  "Carl's Draperies"???

He should have been an "Exterminator".  C'mon this writes itself doesn't it?

 

Apparently not. I wonder how much the monkeys with typewriters got for this drek?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked it. Action was great. Arnold was funny. 

What more do you want from a Terminator movie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Insein said:

Basically they're doing the Halloween thing and disregarding ALL the other sequels.

It's a good idea that movies are doing that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

It's a good idea that movies are doing that.

 

I disagree. People can't unremember what has already happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hov34 said:

I try not to overthink and time travel movies.  It starts to hurt my head...

My biggest beef with Arnold was his job.  "Carl's Draperies"???

He should have been an "Exterminator".  C'mon this writes itself doesn't it?

 

Ex-Terminator

  • Thanks 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Insein said:

I disagree. People can't unremember what has already happened.

Apparently a lot of people can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ghostguy123 said:

Apparently a lot of people can.

I would say apparently not. Set to lose over $100m. People are just not interested now that it's out that John Connor dies in the first 5 minutes.

Share this post


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

I would say apparently not. Set to lose over $100m. People are just not interested now that it's out that John Connor dies in the first 5 minutes.

This movie loses money, so that makes it not a good idea for all the others??  Ok then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

This movie loses money, so that makes it not a good idea for all the others??  Ok then

Yes. That's exactly how that works. When the majority of people don't even want to go see a movie because they think the idea is dumb, that makes it not a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Insein said:

Yes. That's exactly how that works. When the majority of people don't even want to go see a movie because they think the idea is dumb, that makes it not a good idea.

Halloween made it work.  Good thing they didn't agree with you.

There are several reasons why this Terminator movie isnt making money.  They idea of it being a direct sequel to T2 isnt the main reason by a longshot.

Edited by ghostguy123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wish us old farts would stop pining for the movies we grew up with so much that we have to plop down money to see these crappy sequels.  Maybe they would go away if they stopped making money?? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I just wish us old farts would stop pining for the movies we grew up with so much that we have to plop down money to see these crappy sequels.  Maybe they would go away if they stopped making money?? 

They really don't make money. This Terminator is going to lose over $100m. These companies need to churn out a movie for these franchises every so often or else they risk losing the rights.

Think back to Fan4stic a couple years ago. That was Sony's literal least they could do in order to keep the rights before it reverted to Marvel. In the end they ended up selling it back to Marvel anyway because of how badly they mismanaged it.

Another example is Charlie's Angels. No one is clamoring for a sequel. Everyone had forgotten about it. Yet they have a new movie coming out that looks absolutely awful. No one asked for it. The studio didn't even want to make it but they had to to keep the rights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

Halloween made it work.  Good thing they didn't agree with you.

There are several reasons why this Terminator movie isnt making money.  They idea of it being a direct sequel to T2 isnt the main reason by a longshot.

Fans still hated that it disregarded previous movies. They just made a better movie with the source material. Didn't try to make Michael a woman or kill off Michael and have a new killer at the very beginning of the movie. Just Michael Myers killing people And Laurie Strode trying to stop him. Kept it simple and fans were satisfied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Insein said:

They really don't make money. This Terminator is going to lose over $100m. These companies need to churn out a movie for these franchises every so often or else they risk losing the rights.

Think back to Fan4stic a couple years ago. That was Sony's literal least they could do in order to keep the rights before it reverted to Marvel. In the end they ended up selling it back to Marvel anyway because of how badly they mismanaged it.

Another example is Charlie's Angels. No one is clamoring for a sequel. Everyone had forgotten about it. Yet they have a new movie coming out that looks absolutely awful. No one asked for it. The studio didn't even want to make it but they had to to keep the rights. 

Good point, I always forget about that aspect and the possibility of losing the rights.  

Is this the first of these new Terminator sequels to possibly lose money? 

Still surprised to see so many posts from people who went to see it in the theater. (I know, says the guy who went to see The Predator, but that was $5 day, and someone else paid my way!;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Good point, I always forget about that aspect and the possibility of losing the rights.  

Is this the first of these new Terminator sequels to possibly lose money? 

Still surprised to see so many posts from people who went to see it in the theater. (I know, says the guy who went to see The Predator, but that was $5 day, and someone else paid my way!;)

I think the others broke even at least. This was a total failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Insein said:

Fans still hated that it disregarded previous movies. They just made a better movie with the source material. Didn't try to make Michael a woman or kill off Michael and have a new killer at the very beginning of the movie. Just Michael Myers killing people And Laurie Strode trying to stop him. Kept it simple and fans were satisfied.

How many fans?  Like 5%?

As you said, fans were satisfied.  What are you even trying to argue?

If you want to argue that this terminator movie was dumb, argue that.  You are arguing an idea is dumb because one movie is dumb that used that idea.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ghostguy123 said:

How many fans?  Like 5%?

As you said, fans were satisfied.  What are you even trying to argue?

If you want to argue that this terminator movie was dumb, argue that.  You are arguing an idea is dumb because one movie is dumb that used that idea.  

What are you trying to argue? That ignoring every movie that came in a franchise before it is a good idea? That's not an idea. That's just laziness. That's the lack of an idea so you just take a muligan. 

"Man we really FUBAR'd this franchise. Instead of trying to think of a compelling idea to move forward, were just going to pretend it never happened."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The japanese monster movies routinely disregard prior movies, reimagine the monster origins, change monster names, etc. (example: multiple king ghidorah variants)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ShaqAttaq said:

The japanese monster movies routinely disregard prior movies, reimagine the monster origins, change monster names, etc. (example: multiple king ghidorah variants)

Good for the Japanese monster movies with literally $50k budgets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw it late last night.

Surprisingly, I did not hate it.

Yes, it's gasping and wheezing now. There is nothing new to the story. The action scenes are derivative and repetitive.

But the alleged wokeness really wasn't there. They didn't really try to present it as some sort of female empowerment or anti immigrant message. Of course Sarah lived in Mexico - she was wanted in the US. 

Having her be cartoonishly angry didn't work any more than it did with Luke Skywalker. I wonder if these young script writers and directors have an age bias against Baby Boomer actors.

Share this post


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

Saw it late last night.

Surprisingly, I did not hate it.

Yes, it's gasping and wheezing now. There is nothing new to the story. The action scenes are derivative and repetitive.

But the alleged wokeness really wasn't there. They didn't really try to present it as some sort of female empowerment or anti immigrant message. Of course Sarah lived in Mexico - she was wanted in the US. 

Having her be cartoonishly angry didn't work any more than it did with Luke Skywalker. I wonder if these young script writers and directors have an age bias against Baby Boomer actors.

As I said above, I enjoyed the movie. It was fun.

But I thought the weakest part was Linda Hamilton's over the top acting. But maybe you are right - it was more the script than the actor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should all just agree that the franchise is better off without John Connor. He was the worst part of every sequel, including T2. Most of it was casting, but it doesn’t make it less true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one needed a good GNR song in it.  Another "You Could Be Mine" would have rocked.

Share this post


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

What are you trying to argue? That ignoring every movie that came in a franchise before it is a good idea? That's not an idea. That's just laziness. That's the lack of an idea so you just take a muligan. 

 

Seems like it is the complete opposite of what you are suggesting it is.

 

3 hours ago, Insein said:

 

"Man we really FUBAR'd this franchise. Instead of trying to think of a compelling idea to move forward, were just going to pretend it never happened."

Did the same people produce all those sequels that are producing these new movies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, the Terminator franchise has a trilogy of bad sequels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you thought you knew how bad Terminator:The Last Ditch Effort was, Charlie’s Angels only made $8 million

Edited by Jules Winnfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jules Winnfield said:

If you thought you knew how bad Terminator:The Last Ditch Effort was, Charlie’s Angels only made $8 million

Well obviously it was men's fault as the director stated. Men just don't watch female action movies 😒

Share this post


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

Well obviously it was men's fault as the director stated. Men just don't watch female action movies 😒

Yeah, that's it.  

Share this post


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

Well obviously it was men's fault as the director stated. Men just don't watch female action movies 😒

The director of Charlie's Angels said that? Or of Terminator?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

The director of Charlie's Angels said that? Or of Terminator?

Charlie's Angels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

Yeah, that's it.  

Except for Wonder Woman, Lara Croft, Captain Marvel, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, clearly it's men's fault that a woman made a stupid movie that nobody wanted to see.

It was pretty clear that Charlie's angels had nothing based on the commercials. The cuts were so quick (like twice as quick as a normal trailer) to hide that the movie has nothing going for it.  

Is there a place where you can place futures bets on the box office success/failure of movies? I feel like that would be such easy money. You can spot the bombs from a mile away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The movie business is dying a slow painful death. 

I am going to see Star Wars in December. I think I have gone to maybe 6 movies all year thus far and next year will probably be less. It's overpriced, I can't stand people and their ****ing phones and who needs it when you can stream it at home on your 60 or 70 inch with no annoying #######s around you. 

Yes the grandiose nature of the big screen is awesome for movies like Star Wars and Jurassic Park, The Lord of The Rings etc. 

Edited by Todem
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Insein said:

Charlie's Angels.

Oh shoot. That's Elizabeth Banks. I thought I liked her.

Share this post


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

Except for Wonder Woman, Lara Croft, Captain Marvel, etc.

Says Banks, "

They’ll go and see a comic book movie with Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel because that’s a male genre. So even though those are movies about women, they put them in the context of feeding the larger comic book world, so it’s all about, yes, you’re watching a Wonder Woman movie but we’re setting up three other characters or we’re setting up Justice League.”

 

So comic book movies are a "male" genre but action movies are...what exactly?

The justification is strong with this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

Says Banks, "

They’ll go and see a comic book movie with Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel because that’s a male genre. So even though those are movies about women, they put them in the context of feeding the larger comic book world, so it’s all about, yes, you’re watching a Wonder Woman movie but we’re setting up three other characters or we’re setting up Justice League.”

 

So comic book movies are a "male" genre but action movies are...what exactly?

The justification is strong with this one.

Plus, it's kind of wrong. Last real action movie with a female lead I saw was Atomic Blonde, and I thought it was pretty good. Made 100 mil at the box office, not huge but not embarrassing either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the movies with the small budgets make the huge profits.  They also usually tend to be better movies because they are character driven, and there isnt 100 things going on all the time on screen. 

How could Charlie's Angel's get the green light?  Anyone with half a brain could see that would be a flop.  

At least terminator had a chance based on reputation and the cast.  If anything Kristen Stewart would be a box office turn off for an action movie.

Charlie's angels had neither of those things.  Even if the movie was actually good it would probably still flop.

Edited by ghostguy123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. I dont HATE Stewart, but she's not a draw. The hoards of angsty teen girls that saw twilight did so in spite of her. And she's been off doing Indy movies ever since. 

Add in the fact that her lifestyle turns off large groups of people in certain parts of the country, and relying on her as the big draw (with 2 other actresses that basically nobody has heard of ) was a huge mistake.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killin' time at work I read an article (was link from a link in the LOTR thread) that kind of explained Charlie's Angels and how it could get greenlit and what went wrong. Sony got reboot happy after Jumanji and Spidey hit it big, resulting in finally a sequel to Zombieland and a Bad Boys 3 in the works for example. Angles supposedly had such bad script problems from the start that all the A-List actresses they approached like Jennifer Lawrence, Emma Stone and Margot Robbie turned it down so they went low-budget on the cast. Nevermind that probably the only reason the first two "worked" was because they had big stars at the time in Drew Barrymore, Lucy Lui, and Cameron Diaz. Movie's release date got pushed multiple times, always a bad sign.

Sony apparently won't be too hurt financially because they likely suspected it was likely to bomb and brought in partners to cover half the production costs and they slashed the advertising budget on it ahead of release as well. Banks comments sound like a poor attempt at damage control.

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.   Restore formatting

  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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.