Jules Winnfield
Footballguy
As it should because this movie sucked. Sorry, but Mackenzie Davis as an enhanced human? This movie was garbage
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Terminator 6 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter simsarge
- Start date
Insein
Footballguy
She actually wasn't the worst part of this. She did what she could with the part but it was an awful part.
Jules Winnfield
Footballguy
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
How was T3 not a direct sequel? It had the same characters and referenced the events of T2 regularly.
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.
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.
BroncoFreak_2K3
sucker for Orange
Insein
Footballguy
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Insein
Footballguy
Jules Winnfield
Footballguy
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Insein
Footballguy
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.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Insein
Footballguy
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.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
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??
Insein
Footballguy
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.
Insein
Footballguy
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.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
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!
)
Insein
Footballguy
I think the others broke even at least. This was a total failure.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!
ghostguy123
Footballguy
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.
Insein
Footballguy
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."
Insein
Footballguy
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
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.
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.
whoknew
Footballguy
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.
Cold Dead Hands
Footballguy
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.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Seems like it is the complete opposite of what you are suggesting it is.Insein said:
Did the same people produce all those sequels that are producing these new movies?Insein said:
Jules Winnfield
Footballguy
If you thought you knew how bad Terminator:The Last Ditch Effort was, Charlie’s Angels only made $8 million
Last edited by a moderator:
Insein
Footballguy
Well obviously it was men's fault as the director stated. Men just don't watch female action movies
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Yeah, that's it.Well obviously it was men's fault as the director stated. Men just don't watch female action movies
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
The director of Charlie's Angels said that? Or of Terminator?Well obviously it was men's fault as the director stated. Men just don't watch female action movies
Insein
Footballguy
Tom Servo
Nittany Beavers
TLEF316
Footballguy
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.
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.
Todem
Footballguy
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
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.
Green and Gold
Footballguy
I don't understand how this movie is supposed to be losing $100 million. How on earth do you figure that? Only looking at the domestic gross?
Green and Gold
Footballguy
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.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
TLEF316
Footballguy
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.
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.
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.
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.
