Jump to content

Terminator 6: Dark Fate - Cameron to oversee - November 2019


Goose
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 03/11/2019 at 20:36, Down by Law said:

I hope Disney are shitting their pants. Nobodies gonna give a fuck about Avatar 2


I don’t doubt Avatar isn’t as big a deal as Fox thinks it is. (Especially now they’ve lost so much momentum). But I’m not really seeing much of a connect between this film and Avatar 2. Certainly not in the eyes of the public?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Loik V credern said:

Has anyone come into recent contact with these so called 'Young People' that can attest to their indifference? 

 

When the Total Recall remake/reimagining came out, there were young persons laughing at the original as unbelievably naff. somehow

 

Went to see the Shining and we sitting behind some teenage girls talking throughout the film. Making snide comments about Shelly Devuall being ugly, sniggering constantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be honest this film is a 5/10 at best. The last half an hour is just garbage Michael Bay level action. Some of the plot exposition is as clumsy as Genisys. Nothing will ever capture the feeling of menace that T1 provided. 

I feel the one film left to make is a proper film set in the future war that looked so awesome in T1. But to be honest I'm not even that bothered about seeing that. (Salvation absolutely was not that film).

On a sidenote Linda Hamilton was great. Some clunky lines that she made better than they warranted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Down by Law said:

I think Arnies career is over. 

 

At 72 I wouldn't be surprised if he'd intended this to be his action swan song anyway. He's only got some voice over work and Triplets in the pipe line and Conan has been stuck in the announced phase for over a decade now.

 

I can't work out if it would be fitting or sad if this was his final action film. On the one hand it's a proper sequel to the franchise which made him a household name, on the other, I'd be sad to see him go out on a box office flop. I think he's owed his Unforgiven, given his stature in the industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mawdlin said:

Ridiculous! A few weeks ago someone did a running donkey kick into Arnie's back and bounced off.

 

I guarantee he'll still be making films in his 80s (though perhaps of a more sedate nature).

 

I hope so! To be fair, hasn't he recently been saying he'd be up for doing sequels to The Last Action Hero and True Lies. I'm just not sure what sort of a box office draw he is these days, hopefully the right project will spark an Arnie revival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eddie Murphy says he's done with movies. Arnies been talking about Triplets for years and nothings happened. Conan 3 should have been his post governator role, it's too late now. 

 

In the last 7 years he's done two terrible Terminator films, a trio of straight to video clunkers, and some minor Expendables cameos. The Last Stand and Escape Plan were good and they were 5 and 6 years ago respectively. 

 

I love the guy, I take no pleasure in saying it, hell I went to see him in September, I've got this silly expensive sideshow bust from T2, but his careers over. 

 

wIH9Wd5.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Down by Law said:

On track for a 120million loss. 


Very few studio films fail to break even. Infamous flop Waterworld eventually turned a profit.

 

This will make $50m+ in the US, which initially will mean it’s sold to broadcasters as a ‘category B’ film, if memory of Paramount’s pricing serves me well (category A films for most studios is anything making $100m+)

 

So it will be sold in the second most expensive tier when it comes to TV companies buying films, with pricing from anything from a few thousand dollars to six-figure sums depending on PPV / rental revenue share. In isolation that’s not much, but worldwide across multiple territories it’s a fair old chunk of change. Digital / DVD purchases will add more, as will merchandise or any tie-ins (probably less of them given the film’s R rating; there’s no Happy Meal for this as far as I’m aware)

 

In the long run, it’ll make money but obviously not the immediate success for which execs would have hoped. If they attempt another film, which they almost will in a few years because Hollywood, the budget will likely be at least halved.

 

I enjoyed Dark Fate to a point but quite how it cost $185m is anyone’s guess (hint: creative accounting, something Hollywood is adept at - search out how Harry Potter apparently made a ‘loss’)

 

Personally, think any future attempt should be a grubby body horror, something like the recent Upgrade (brilliant, cost $5m). Accept the franchise is not mainstream and certainly never going to muster much more than a $30m opening, then budget it to match expectations. Go low-key, properly R-rated without quite so many convoluted bells and whistles. Make it 90 minutes, stripped back and grimy.
 

Studios have continually tried to match T2 in scale but often overlooked just how terrifying and tightly made the original film is. Capture that horror and the franchise might finally get a sequel worthy of the name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know what they really expected from this film though. Terminator isn’t a hot property in this world of superheroes and live-action Disney remakes, and Arnie isn’t the star he once was.

 

To do big business it would need to be a complete reboot/pseudo-sequel like Jurassic World, with a couple of big stars and a 12A rating. The Rock as a Terminator, or Jason Statham as a resistance soldier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or cut it to the bone and get an up-and-coming thriller/horror director to revisit the original Lance Henriksen everyman robot stalker idea for little money. Go for "purist" cred and try to earn back a bit of credibility like that Halloween reboot that I haven't seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alex W. said:

Or cut it to the bone and get an up-and-coming thriller/horror director to revisit the original Lance Henriksen everyman robot stalker idea for little money. Go for "purist" cred and try to earn back a bit of credibility like that Halloween reboot that I haven't seen.

 

This would obviously be the preference. Keep it cheap, make it great. But for something that (reportedly) cost close to £200mil, there's no way this was going to turn a profit in its current form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alex W. said:

Or cut it to the bone and get an up-and-coming thriller/horror director to revisit the original Lance Henriksen everyman robot stalker idea for little money. Go for "purist" cred and try to earn back a bit of credibility like that Halloween reboot that I haven't seen.

I've been saying this for ages. They keep rebooting it in the wrong genre. 

 

But for now, it needs to be left alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Stoppy2000 said:

I hope it's not the last time I get to see Arnie on the big screen. The man is an actual real life legend. 

One last non-terminator hurrah would be nice. 

 

Not gonna happen. This was the end for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, glb said:


Very few studio films fail to break even. Infamous flop Waterworld eventually turned a profit.

 

This will make $50m+ in the US, which initially will mean it’s sold to broadcasters as a ‘category B’ film, if memory of Paramount’s pricing serves me well (category A films for most studios is anything making $100m+)

 

So it will be sold in the second most expensive tier when it comes to TV companies buying films, with pricing from anything from a few thousand dollars to six-figure sums depending on PPV / rental revenue share. In isolation that’s not much, but worldwide across multiple territories it’s a fair old chunk of change. Digital / DVD purchases will add more, as will merchandise or any tie-ins (probably less of them given the film’s R rating; there’s no Happy Meal for this as far as I’m aware)

 

In the long run, it’ll make money but obviously not the immediate success for which execs would have hoped. If they attempt another film, which they almost will in a few years because Hollywood, the budget will likely be at least halved.

 

I'm not sure it will eventually make money. You know more about the streaming side than me, so I'd be interested to know roughly how much the likes of Netflix and Amazon pay. In terms of Box Office though, the cost is far higher than the reported $185m, as I've mentioned a lot of times (and in my Box Office report threads, back in the day :)  ).

 

The rule of thumb is, for tentpole and major releases, the budget will be under-reported. Add at least 10% so we're up to somewhere around $200m.

 

Double the cost of the budget for P&A (prints and advertising) for major tentpole releases. For this one, it's not had the marketing push the likes of - say - Endgame had (that's what you'd call an AAA release, whereas this is AA I guess?!) so somewhere around $100m at a conservative estimate.

 

Returns from overseas distribution are far lower than in the domestic territory, due to complex rights agreements, so they look to US as the key profit maker. For releases of this sort of cost ($200m is the rough production cost of most action/sci-fi films these days) they look to make $200m domestically and about $300m from the rest of the world before they consider it profitable and a success.

 

So Paramount will have invested at least $300m in this project, will have wanted to see a global return of at least $500m, and it's currently made $129m. There's a chance it'll recoup quite a bit from sales to streaming, but i'd be amazed if it garnered the extra $200m+ it needs to be considered break-even, let alone the $250+ it'd need to be considered profitable :|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be surprised if this had even half that for marketing. The stars have done the junkets but it's not been anything like to the scale of, like you say, AAA films. There's also the creative accounting that goes into production costs e.g. renting studio space that the studio already owns is one such tactic and an easy way to write-off cost. So $185m is the budget, but likely not really the budget.

 

It will continue to make money for as long as TV / streaming services exist because someone, somewhere will want to watch Terminator: Dark Fate on a lonely Tuesday evening. The returns obviously won't be as instant or as sizeable as Paramount will have hoped, but eventually maybe after several years, if not longer, the film will be in the black. Probably around the time another exec decides to dust-off the rights and sink some more coin into another sequel. Or another studio picks them up along with a bright, 'fresh' idea for a script that will absolutely, definitely work this time (spoiler: it likely won't).

 

Here's the very interesting slashfilm article about Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, which Warner claimed lost $167m despite making $938m worldwide: link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it here or elsewhere where I read someone's suggestion that the next Terminator film - and there will be one guys - should reverse the standard plot and have human time traveller's being sent back to terminate a Skynet originator, like Miles Dyson - with Skynet sending Terminators back to protect him. I'd watch the shit out of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, glb said:

I would be surprised if this had even half that for marketing. The stars have done the junkets but it's not been anything like to the scale of, like you say, AAA films. There's also the creative accounting that goes into production costs e.g. renting studio space that the studio already owns is one such tactic and an easy way to write-off cost. So $185m is the budget, but likely not really the budget.

 

It will continue to make money for as long as TV / streaming services exist because someone, somewhere will want to watch Terminator: Dark Fate on a lonely Tuesday evening. The returns obviously won't be as instant or as sizeable as Paramount will have hoped, but eventually maybe after several years, if not longer, the film will be in the black. Probably around the time another exec decides to dust-off the rights and sink some more coin into another sequel. Or another studio picks them up along with a bright, 'fresh' idea for a script that will absolutely, definitely work this time (spoiler: it likely won't).

 

Here's the very interesting slashfilm article about Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, which Warner claimed lost $167m despite making $938m worldwide: link.

 

Yeah, the benefit of this type of 'franchise' failure is that it will never completely disappear.  There will be Terminator boxsets, TV screenings and good or bad it will be remembered as a terminator film. A one off flop like After Earth is much harder to leverage in the long run since it disappears from public awareness so quickly. 

 

The size of the interested audience pot may be decreasing but there is an awareness of the Terminator franchise so on a cold night in 2022 someone might plausible catch up with the 'latest' Terminator movie which is on Netflix.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Glasgowchivas said:

Was it here or elsewhere where I read someone's suggestion that the next Terminator film - and there will be one guys - should reverse the standard plot and have human time traveller's being sent back to terminate a Skynet originator, like Miles Dyson - with Skynet sending Terminators back to protect him. I'd watch the shit out of that.


This was posted in r/Movies a few days ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thwomp said:

I wonder why this flopped? Fast and Furious is successful and that's shite. I guess the Terminator lore isn't as appealing to most people as it is to me.

It's got to be in part because the preceding 2 films were shit. Also, at best, word of mouth is "it's alright actually".  That's not going to bring them into the multiplexs.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.