# New Terminator from Cameron will ignore all but T1 and T2



## Morrus (Sep 23, 2017)

So the _Terminator_ rights revert back to James Cameron next year and he's planning a new Terminator movie.

Not sure how I feel about this. I agree that T1 and T2 were the only two good _Terminator_ films (and T2 is one of the best sci-fi movies ever made), and ignoring the others is a wise decision.

However, I kinda feel there's nothing left to do with _Terminator_.  The story was told, and just adding in layers of time travel doesn't add to it. 

Then again, James Cameron. If anybody can do it, it's him. Reports that Linda Hamilton will be back, and Arnie will be involved in some way (though _Genisys_ revealed that an ageing Terminator isn't a great idea).

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/09/22/hasta-la-vista-new-terminator-sequels/

Dunno. Can they breathe life into this one, or should they just leave it alone?


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 23, 2017)

Good call IMO, though I don't think Terminator really needs a reboot.

Hollywood needs to find some original ideas.


----------



## ccs (Sep 23, 2017)

They should leave it alone.

Of course beating the well dead Terminator horse is still preferable to Cameron's other pet project - more installments of Avatar.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 23, 2017)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Good call IMO, though I don't think Terminator really needs a reboot.
> 
> Hollywood needs to find some original ideas.




I always wonder when I hear folks say that. Hollywood (not that that’s a single entity) produces hundreds of movies every year, many of them unique and original scripts. Problem is, people only go see the big blockbuster sequels.

So Hollywood has original ideas. People should go see them, and they’d make more! Problem is people dismiss the original stuff as pretentious without even seeing it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 23, 2017)

Part of that is the studios' own fault, though.  They'll dump $100M+ into a blockbuster and another $10M+ on advertising it, virtually ensuring a decent RoI, but small budget films are lucky if they get a flurry of ads in the 7 cities in which they're initially released.  You have to work to find the gems- if any- but the mainstream stuff is virtually shoved in your face.

There are sound business reasons for doing that, of course.  But it does ignore the fact that blockbusters- especially sequels- usually don't need a big push to sell them if they have any merit at all.  (And by merit, I don't mean _Citizen Kane_.  "Popcorn seller" escapist films have their own intrinsic value, as well.)

Thing is, films follow Sturgeon's Law just like everything else.  And that may be generous for Hollywood films.

I mean...anyone here see the ads for _Mother_ and think, "Now THERE'S a horror movie I want to see!"?  My personal reaction was "WTF?", and not in a "Now I gotta see that film to resolve the sense of intrigue I feel." kind of way...


----------



## Morrus (Sep 23, 2017)

I’m not talking tiny films released in 7 cinemas, though. I mean the easy ones - the sort of stuff that appears at the Oscars and which moviegoers sneer at. Those movies are often *really* good, and original. If people just watched the Oscar nominees every year, I reckon you’d see a groundshift. I mean the single entity known as “Hollywood” which apparently needs new ideas annually points at 10 original films and says “watch these ten, at least!”


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 23, 2017)

Define "not hard to find."

Personally, I like movies, though I rarely go out to see them anymore- long & complex reasons, not important- and I live in a major American population center.  And odds are good that I've heard of less than half of the Oscar nominees in a given year- usually only the major frontrunners to win Best Film, maaaaaybe one of the acting awards.  Especially if it's one of the tour de force years when one or two have double-digit nominations.

To be 100% clear, I admit I may have heard of some of those other films, but forgot them.  But so often, they have disappeared from theaters long before the incessant drumbeat of ads touting their nominee status makes a strong impact on my mind.

Whatever ad campaign they had was clearly overwhelmed by the commercials for the films about invading zebra mussels from space and ninjas seeking revenge on the guys who scuffed their Air Jordans.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 23, 2017)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Define "not hard to find."




It’s 2017. We have the internet, and Netflix, and iTunes, and IMDB, and Rotten Tomatoes, and Facebook, and ... its decades since you had to go to Blockbusters and browse the shelves. 

Not hard to find. 



> And odds are good that I've heard of less than half of the Oscar nominees in a given year- usually only the major frontrunners to win Best Film, maaaaaybe one of the acting awards.




That’s the *point*. We’re talking about finding new stuff. You can’t say it’s hard to find new stuff, then when presented with ten on silver platter, complain you haven’t heard of them before!


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Sep 24, 2017)

.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 24, 2017)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> One must remember, The Terminator Franchise deals heavily in time-travel, to alter the time line.




I remembered. That’s why my OP commented on that very point. I did not somehow forget that the Terminator movies are about time travel. That would incredibly odd of me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2017)

Morrus said:


> It’s 2017. We have the internet, and Netflix, and iTunes, and IMDB, and Rotten Tomatoes, and Facebook, and ... its decades since you had to go to Blockbusters and browse the shelves.
> 
> Not hard to find.




OK, I was _ONLY_ thinking in terms of first run theatrical release, not in the post-theatrical market.


----------



## ccs (Sep 24, 2017)

Morrus said:


> Problem is people dismiss the original stuff as pretentious without even seeing it.




Have you read the synopsis of the most recent Best Picture winner?

Now to be fair, I have seen most of the rest of the recent BP list.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 24, 2017)

Hm. So you need to do a threequel to T2 20+ years after it came out. How about you say screw this 'save the world' stuff? It's been done. Skynet is beaten. You tried a few times to send Terminators back to prevent Judgment Day but it never worked, just rejiggered reality a bit. Now it's 20X6, and you're John Connor, hero of Mankind.

And you have a time machine.

Well, you've figured out you cannot _alter_ history, but you want to fix the future, right, and allow Mankind to rebuild? Plus, just because the central computer running the Terminators is defeated, that doesn't mean all the free-roaming murderbots just shut down. You've still got to purge the world of these robots before they build a new manufacturing infrastructure and build a new Skynet. 

Okay, how about you figure out where all the clusters of modern Terminators are, and then send a Terminator back to acquire some explosives, bury them in those locations, and set them to detonate today. You send another one to collect as much of humanity's knowledge as possible, store it in digital form, and then march to the top of Mount Everest until the machine war is over, then come down to deliver troves of lost knowledge. You send one to attend medical school, then hide itself in a cave for 30 years, then come out and teach a new generation of doctors.

And then, in the midst of rebuilding human civilization . . . a cyborg appears, from the future, sent back in time to stop you.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 24, 2017)

Morrus said:


> It’s 2017. We have the internet, and Netflix, and iTunes, and IMDB, and Rotten Tomatoes, and Facebook, and ... its decades since you had to go to Blockbusters and browse the shelves.
> 
> Not hard to find.




Actually, that's the problem -- so much noise, so little actual signal in it. The things that get heard are those that are shouted loudest, and most of the shouting seems to be drivel.  The real quality stuff is just drowned out.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 24, 2017)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Actually, that's the problem -- so much noise, so little actual signal in it. The things that get heard are those that are shouted loudest, and most of the shouting seems to be drivel.  The real quality stuff is just drowned out.




Summer blockbusters having high ad budgets is a far cry from your initial proposition that Hollywood simply isn't making original movies, though. 

I agree, it would be nice if they advertised them a little more. I still dispute that they're hard to find in this day and age though.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2017)

Morrus said:


> Summer blockbusters having high ad budgets is a far cry from your initial proposition that Hollywood simply isn't making original movies, though.
> 
> I agree, it would be nice if they advertised them a little more. I still dispute that they're hard to find in this day and age though.




And I'll still assert that it _is_ the case on first theatrical runs.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 24, 2017)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And I'll still assert that it _is_ the case on first theatrical runs.




I’m sure your cinema has signs and a website telling you what’s on?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2017)

Morrus said:


> I’m sure your cinema has signs and a website telling you what’s on?




I'm sure you'll get a kick out of this...

The small suburb in which I live has no movie theaters.  The closest one in the suburb to my north is a "Dollar Theater", which shows secondary run movies only, for $1 admission.

The closest one to my south is a nice 10-screen one that used to be run by AMC.  It is now owned by a local Indian family, and specializes in foreign- mostly Indian- films.  No marquee.

There is a movie house to the north not much farther away than those that is kind of a "dinner theater" place.  Younget restaurant food as opposed to typical movie fare, your seat has a foldaway tabletop, etc.  Nice place.  No marquee.  And again, they skew towards the bigger films.

The closest 2 in Dallas are an IMAX- which shows primarily blockbusters and the odd left-field success like _March of the Penguins_- and a huge multiplex I used to go to a lot.  (Saw _The Avengers _there.)  But the area is isolated and crime ridden since many of the nearby restaurants closed down.  Good place for a drug deal; bad place for an evening of film fun.

Now, as for me personally, I don't go looking for movie ads online.  If I don't hear about a film via word of mouth, TV (or rarely) radio buys, or some kind of online ad banner, I don't hear about them.  Why?

_It isn't my job to do the movie studio's publicity arm's work for them._

And here's the thing: I'm the same way with music, but I have a 5000+ CD collection.  I listen to and buy some pretty obscure stuff.  And despite not being an active, website-scouring consumer, and with the decline of CDs in favor of downloaded media, I still manage to find and buy as many as 100 CDs per year.  The music companies- and sometimes the artists themselves- simply do a much better job of promoting their less mainstream releases.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 24, 2017)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> _It isn't my job to do the movie studio's publicity arm's work for them._




Well, OK then. I don’t know what to say to that. If I’m interested in something, I look for it. I don’t consider it a job. If I want Italian, I’ll google Italian restaurants. If I want a chair, I’ll look for one. 

If you aren’t interested enough to look for a certain type of thing, that’s cool. I’m not sure why one would then complain that said type of thing isn’t there for your consumption, though. Seems kinda self-sabotaging.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2017)

Searching for commodities, foods, services, etc. is a little different.

Unlike the theaters around here, I can actually drive around and see find what I want from a moving car.  Unlike the movies, those businesses- even the tiny ones- still put ads in media. 

If I want Italian food, the signage is visible wherever I go.  Every once in a while, I'll even go to one that is so small, the signs for it are barely noticeable.

But films?  Unless I know what a studio is releasing via their advertising, its detective work to get that info.  There are precious few pastimes I enjoy enough to work that hard for.  RPG gaming is one.  Guitar playing is another.  Books are a third.  Gems for jewelry design- simply by necessity- are a fourth.  That's about it.

I don't have to work to hear about blockbusters.  I see ads on TV and in print media, or hear them when I (rarely) listen to radio.  I even get ads for them in pop ups on YouTube or in games which use ads to lower their prices or even make them free.

But no such effort is done for the "quality" films.  They're pretty much left to fend for themselves.  I'm not saying that merely as relative to their blockbuster studio mates.  I'm saying that as someone who has actually looked at studio contracts, where you can see in black & white & $$$ what resources will be allocated to films at a certain level.  Studios simply don't allocate the same resources to those projects, not even proportionally.

To clarify, if a $100M film gets a $10M promotions budget, that will be spread over all kinds of methods.  If the same studio releases a $10M film, it _won't _have a $1M promo budget, and some resources will simply not be offered to promoting it.

_There are valid business reasons for this._. That doesn't make it any easier for the film in question, though.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 24, 2017)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But films?  Unless I know what a studio is releasing via their advertising, its detective work to get that info.  There are precious few pastimes I enjoy enough to work that hard for.  RPG gaming is one.  Guitar playing is another.




I think we live in different worlds. I don’t characterise that as either “detective work” or “working hard”.  This is a trivially easy task; heck, it’s just a bookmark in your browser. You don’t need to be Batman!

There is stuff in this world you have to work hard to find. Movie releases aren’t one of those things. 

I mean, if you’re not that interested in movies, that’s fine. Just say that. Why then are we even having this conversation?

It’s the putting the blame on the filmmakers whose films you don’t watch is the bit I can’t grok. My brain just fizzles out at the concept that that you’d place the onus of your own entertainment on someone else. 

Different worlds, I guess. I like movies, so I keep a lazy eye on what’s out.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2017)

I _am_ interested in film.

Just went to Universal's website.  They made a big fuss about their "Dark Universe" line of films, of which _The Mummy_ with Tom Cruise was the first release.  Of the projects mentioned in their announcement, only one was listed as having a release date in the next several years.  There were also no easily visible links to _any_ of Universal's subsidiary studios.  If they existed at all, I didn't see them.

That's _lazy_.

By way of comparison, if I go to the websites of guitar makers which have subsidiaries, almost all of them provide easy and obvious links to the websites of those subsidiaries.  Those that don't mostly sell & promote those products on the main website instead of maintaining a distinct website.

Or look at ENWorld: you maintain a clear and obvious link to CM.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 24, 2017)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I _am_ interested in film.
> 
> Just went to Universal's website.  They made a big fuss about their "Dark Universe" line of films, of which _The Mummy_ with Tom Cruise was the first release.  Of the projects mentioned in their announcement, only one was listed as having a release date in the next several years.  There were also no easily visible links to _any_ of Universal's subsidiary studios.  If they existed at all, I didn't see them.
> 
> That's _lazy_.




I dunno what to tell you, man. It's not a thing I have difficulty with.


----------



## ccs (Sep 24, 2017)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I _am_ interested in film.
> 
> Just went to Universal's website.  They made a big fuss about their "Dark Universe" line of films, of which _The Mummy_ with Tom Cruise was the first release.  Of the projects mentioned in their announcement, only one was listed as having a release date in the next several years.  There were also no easily visible links to _any_ of Universal's subsidiary studios.  If they existed at all, I didn't see them.
> 
> ...





So you yourself said that you are interested in films.  But typing "Films being released in Oct. 2017" or such into your search bar, or bookmarking IMDB, & reading a synopsis/watching a trailer is being rejected as too much work on your end.
Yet you'll search out, in your own words, obscure music. 

As for your lack of local theatre options?  Make a list of whatever you think your interested in seeing.  Wait 6 months.  Log onto Netflix/Amazon/Hulu/etc & enjoy.  And if you find something is Bleh?  Close it out & move onto the next thing on the list.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 24, 2017)

Anyway. TERMINATOR!


Sent from my iPhone using EN World


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 24, 2017)

Morrus said:


> Anyway. TERMINATOR!




What - where?

*ducks*


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2017)

ccs said:


> So you yourself said that you are interested in films.  But typing "Films being released in Oct. 2017" or such into your search bar, or bookmarking IMDB, & reading a synopsis/watching a trailer is being rejected as too much work on your end.
> Yet you'll search out, in your own words, obscure music.
> 
> As for your lack of local theatre options?  *Make a list of whatever you think your interested in seeing. * Wait 6 months.  Log onto Netflix/Amazon/Hulu/etc & enjoy.  And if you find something is Bleh?  Close it out & move onto the next thing on the list.



1) I have IMDB bookmarked.  Don't do Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime.  _Occasionally _use my on demand options- that's how I caught _Cabin in the Woods_.  CitW, however, had significant buzz during its initial theatrical run.

As for the part of your post I bolded: _I can't make that list if I haven't heard of the films._. And that's what I keep harping on.  I see ads for the big-budget stuff, but anything less than that is virtually invisible.

2) I didn't say I'd research obscure music. I said:


> There are precious few pastimes I enjoy enough to work that hard for. RPG gaming is one. Guitar playing is another. Books are a third. Gems for jewelry design- simply by necessity- are a fourth. That's about it.




Of obscure music, I said:



> Now, as for me personally, I don't go looking for movie ads online.  If I don't hear about a film via word of mouth, TV (or rarely) radio buys, or some kind of online ad banner, I don't hear about them.  Why?
> 
> _It isn't my job to do the movie studio's publicity arm's work for them._
> 
> And here's the thing: I'm the same way with music, but I have a 5000+ CD collection.  I listen to and buy some pretty obscure stuff.  And despite not being an active, website-scouring consumer, and with the decline of CDs in favor of downloaded media, I still manage to find and buy as many as 100 CDs per year.  The music companies- and sometimes the artists themselves- simply do a much better job of promoting their less mainstream releases.




IOW, I put comparable effort into music shopping and movie searching.

I _hate_ opera.  I go only if I have to.  I attend some kind of theatrical dance performance once every 2 years or so.

But I know more about the schedule of the local opera houses and dance shows than I do about the existence of movies below "blockbuster" denomination because those organizations do a FAR better job of advertising their products.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 24, 2017)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I see ads for the big-budget stuff, but anything less than that is virtually invisible.




And yet, somehow, people manage to watch them. 

They’re not invisible, Danny. It honestly just requires one bookmark. The effort required is astonishingly trivial. Honestly, man, you can’t blame this on Hollywood. It’s a choice.

It’s not a wrong choice, but let’s acknowledge that it is a choice. 

I make similar choices about fashion, and music. I could find the latest stuff with a truly insignificant effort. I just choose not to. I don’t blame the music industry and the fashion industry for that though - it’s my choice.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2017)

Morrus said:


> And yet, somehow, people manage to watch them.
> 
> They’re not invisible, Danny. It honestly just requires one bookmark. The effort required is astonishingly trivial. Honestly, man, you can’t blame this on Hollywood. It’s a choice.
> 
> ...



"One bookmark" is clearly hyperbole.



I reiterate: there's a huge difference between the way "big" movies are marketed in first runs vs small ones.  Those differences exist at every stage, from simple advertising to number of screens in a given market, and they affect awareness and the box office.  Most other entertainment markets do a better job getting the word out about "smaller budget" options.

Which is why I know that Shen Yun (Korean dance troupe) is on its third pass through the Dallas area in the past 24 months, but couldn't name half of the major category Oscar film nominees, despite not being a big dance fan.  (Shen Yun posters are all over the damn place...just like the previous two tours.)

Edit: just checked
Of the 51 movies listed online as being showing in my general area, I didn't now of 11 of them.  _Neither_ number includes those showing at the Indian movie theater.  Not that I watch Indian cinema, but if I did, I'd clearly need to do a bit more work.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 24, 2017)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> "One bookmark" is clearly hyperbole.




Sure. And so is “invisible”. 



> I reiterate: there's a huge difference between the way "big" movies are marketed in first runs vs small ones.




Sure. Nobody has disagreed with that. It’s not really the topic at hand. 


> Which is why I know that Shen Yun (Korean dance troupe) is on its third pass through the Dallas area in the past 24 months, but couldn't name half of the major category Oscar film nominees, despite not being a big dance fan.  (Shen Yun posters are all over the damn place...just like the previous two tours.)




But Oscar nominees are *literally* one bookmark. No hyperbole, one actual literal bookmark. The only reason you don’t know who the Oscar nominees are is because you’ve chosen not to look. 

That’s the opposite example of what you mean.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2017)

Morrus said:


> Sure. And so is “invisible”.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Let me clarify: yes, once a film gets an Oscar nod, I will hear of it.  One can't help but to.

What I am saying is that before that point, I hear of @50% of them, max on a good year.  If a small film gets that nod, that will generally mean either an extension of the run.  If it's initial theatrical run is over, it may or may not get a pre-Oscars secondary release based on that nod.

Without that nod?  Odds are good I'll never hear of them.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 24, 2017)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Let me clarify: yes, once a film gets an Oscar nod, I will hear of it.  One can't help but to.
> 
> What I am saying is that before that point, I hear of @50% of them, max on a good year.  If a small film gets that nod, that will generally mean either an extension of the run.  If it's initial theatrical run is over, it may or may not get a pre-Oscars secondary release based on that nod.
> 
> Without that nod?  Odds are good I'll never hear of them.




OK, but whether or not you’ve heard of them, surely you’d agree that their existence supports the proposition that Hollywood does make original movies?

Anyway... behind you! TERMINATOR!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2017)

Morrus said:


> OK, but whether or not you’ve heard of them, surely you’d agree that their existence supports the proposition that Hollywood does make original movies?




Absolutely!  They just let too many of them die on the vine.

Which then goes back into their greenlighting feedback loop as "Movie X was a flop, so we can never do another movie like that again!!!"

When I lived in Austin, I either attended or worked SXSW every year.  That mean I go to see all kinds of music and movies, some of which never got the break they needed.  At a time when punk/funk ruled with bands like Fishbone, RHCP, and Faith No More, i got to see an unsigned band that should have rivaled their successes.  They didn't as a solo act, but eventually became the backup band for Outkast.

Similarly, got to see a film called _The Making of...And God Spoke_ (also released without the first 3 words in the title)- a _Spinal Tap_-esque mocumentary on the making of an old-school bible epic.  Laughed my lungs out, as did most of the people in the cinema.  Recommended it to a buddy in Hollywood- one of the few cities that got a screening.  He saw it in a virtually empty theater- no advertising- and said it was "therapeutically hilarious".  That film probably should have been a hit.

And now for something completely different...


----------



## Eltab (Sep 25, 2017)

Tangent) 
The Oscars need to re-write their admission rules so that showing in two theaters (L.A. / NYC) on the last weekend before the yearly deadline does NOT make your movie qualified for any awards.  There should be a minimum number of tickets sold or something.  Unless they want to create categories for "Movies with High Technical Ability but No Marketing Whatsoever".

Real)
The presumed T3 replacement movie (T2.5?) could work like this:
An older Terminator appears to teenage John Connor and 'Survivalist' Sarah Connor, not long after the end of T2.  He tells the Connors that there has been a constant series of ownership changes around the future time machine.  He explains a little of the 'chess game' going on between Older John and Skynet / backup copies.  It just so happens that the critical experiments which allow the invention of the time machine are about to be conducted in present time.  John of course decides that they have to 'crash the party', much like the earlier trio did with the Skynet chip.  So they set off to utterly destroy the physical facilities, and (hopefully) persuade the most knowledgeable technicians to kill themselves heroically.  Or maybe the Old Terminator could beat the stuffing out of them, give them concussions and/or brain damage?  After the obligatory chase scenes they arrive at the facility - and find that some of the guards are in fact disguised Terminators.  The older Terminator hands over a map of the complex, with the time machine hardware clearly marked.  The various Terminators are drawn into a multifaceted hunt in the building while the Connors try to sneak around in the confusion.  The Connors end up with possession of a McGuffin that is going to take some serious pyrotechnics to destroy utterly - and another Skynet chip with ALL the data in it (lucky for us Skynet is so dumb).  We need some spectacular location where the McGuffin can be destroyed once and for all.  More chase scenes and pyrotechnics as the Connors and the older Terminator flee a squad of Guard Terminators.  All is almost lost at the last minute, but the older Terminator takes out most of their pursuers plus himself.  The Connors destroy the McGuffin.  To Sarah's surprise and shock, the remaining Terminators disappear - maybe they disintegrate into dust piles? - and she is now wearing a polka-dot dress.  The movie ends with her voiceover musing about the pernicious effects of technology for its own sake without a guiding purpose, as the center line of the highway passes into the rear-view mirror of her car.


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 25, 2017)

Hmm, reminds me of Ridley Scott ignoring any Alien movies not directed by him, i.e. everything after the first 'Alien' movie.
Before I read about this, I was pretty confused about Prometheus and the Covenant sequel.

Rebooting Terminator probably makes sense, since the storyline has become so convoluted, I could no longer follow it.
It's likely not something that will make me want to watch it in cinema, though. (unlike the Blade Runner sequel!)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 25, 2017)

For German moviegoers, it's really just one bookmark.
http://www.filmstarts.de/filme-imkino/neu/

For (US/UK mostly) TV shows, I use https://www.pogdesign.co.uk/cat/. It always announces when there are new things appearing in the "inventory", and they color-code new series and new season beginnings, too. Very convenient.

I don't really mind reusing existing franchies, or rebooting them, or creating something new. The important thing is that the individual film is entertaining, and if they can make an entertaining Terminator XIV, do it.

Cameron has made a few nice movies ,I think, so maybe his Terminator 3 wouldn't be a bad idea.

Maybe the general idea that his time, it could be about the time travel machine itself, might have merit. Though conceptually, I don't believe you can stop technological progress for good by killing a particular scientist or destroying one particular prototype. You can only delay things. Which would also explain why Skynet always appears at some point - until they actually think about how they can make a benevolent AI like The Machine from Person of Interest (and maybe the Liquid Metal Teminator from the Sarah Connor Chronicles), they will only get Skynets. Their problem is that of the AI's moral values, not that AI itself exists.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 27, 2017)

Well there's one thing that they haven't tried with the Terminator franchise; a movie WITHOUT time travel. 

I wonder if Cameron will include "We would like to recognize the works of Harlon Ellison" in the credits?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 27, 2017)

Or Phillip K. Dick.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 27, 2017)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Or Phillip K. Dick.




I don't recall Dick winning any suits against Cameron. Ellison did. Twice.


----------



## wicked cool (Sep 27, 2017)

they should do terminator vs aliens. the whole concept of Hamilton fighting a terminator's seems pointless. Its going to pickup right after 2 storyline but years later? maybe a terminator of her likeness is made to hunt her down?


----------



## Morrus (Sep 27, 2017)

wicked cool said:


> they should do terminator vs aliens. the whole concept of Hamilton fighting a terminator's seems pointless. Its going to pickup right after 2 storyline but years later? maybe a terminator of her likeness is made to hunt her down?




Because Predator v Alien was so good?


----------



## Morrus (Sep 27, 2017)

So Cameron has just confirmed only 1 & 2 will be be canon. He says to consider the others bad dreams.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World


----------



## trappedslider (Sep 28, 2017)

on Anrie's aging http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1707599/how-terminator-6-will-handle-arnold-schwarzeneggers-age


----------



## Eltab (Sep 28, 2017)

wicked cool said:


> maybe a terminator of -Sarah Connor's- likeness is made to hunt her down?



Skynet isn't this sophisticated, but a Sarah Terminator could:
Break many laws, destroy property, kill people.  (Would Skynet understand "flip off the cops"?)  Let human law enforcement gang up on her.  The disguised Terminator is really tough and will require use of overwhelming force.  Then the Sarah Terminator must disappear close to where the real Sarah Connor is.  The cops find unsuspecting real-Sarah and deploy overwhelming force ... which kills the real Sarah Connor dead.
Skynet's goal is achieved.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 28, 2017)

Eltab said:


> Skynet isn't this sophisticated, but a Sarah Terminator could:
> Break many laws, destroy property, kill people.  (Would Skynet understand "flip off the cops"?)  Let human law enforcement gang up on her.  The disguised Terminator is really tough and will require use of overwhelming force.  Then the Sarah Terminator must disappear close to where the real Sarah Connor is.  The cops find unsuspecting real-Sarah and deploy overwhelming force ... which kills the real Sarah Connor dead.
> Skynet's goal is achieved.




So, SWATing from the future?


----------



## Morrus (Sep 28, 2017)

Eltab said:


> Skynet isn't this sophisticated, but a Sarah Terminator could:
> Break many laws, destroy property, kill people.  (Would Skynet understand "flip off the cops"?)  Let human law enforcement gang up on her.  The disguised Terminator is really tough and will require use of overwhelming force.  Then the Sarah Terminator must disappear close to where the real Sarah Connor is.  The cops find unsuspecting real-Sarah and deploy overwhelming force ... which kills the real Sarah Connor dead.
> Skynet's goal is achieved.




It sounds like just shooting her would be a hell of a lot easier.


----------



## trappedslider (Sep 28, 2017)




----------



## Imaculata (Sep 29, 2017)

I really liked what Cameron did for the Terminator 3D attraction at Universal Studios (which is closed down now). It was like an unofficial sequel to T2, showing Skynet itself, and taking place during the future war. It would not surprise me that if he makes another film, it would take place during the future war as well.

[video=youtube;Wr5sPWy4eTs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr5sPWy4eTs[/video]


----------



## Morrus (Sep 29, 2017)

I hope not. That didn’t work for Terminator Salvation. 


Sent from my iPhone using EN World


----------



## MarkB (Sep 29, 2017)

Eltab said:


> Skynet isn't this sophisticated, but a Sarah Terminator could:
> Break many laws, destroy property, kill people.  (Would Skynet understand "flip off the cops"?)  Let human law enforcement gang up on her.  The disguised Terminator is really tough and will require use of overwhelming force.  Then the Sarah Terminator must disappear close to where the real Sarah Connor is.  The cops find unsuspecting real-Sarah and deploy overwhelming force ... which kills the real Sarah Connor dead.
> Skynet's goal is achieved.




Which would be tricky given that Skynet doesn't even know what she looks like.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 29, 2017)

...unless it has access to the DMV.

...or Facebook.

...or CCTVs.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 29, 2017)

The T1000 has to touch its target to mimic it. 


Sent from my iPhone using EN World


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 30, 2017)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...unless it has access to the DMV.
> 
> ...or Facebook.
> 
> ...or CCTVs.



Part of the canon is that Sarah Conner burned out all records of her existence.  CCTV might work if the machines knew which face to look for.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 30, 2017)

Ovinomancer said:


> Part of the canon is that Sarah Conner burned out all records of her existence.  CCTV might work if the machines knew which face to look for.



While true, we all know that it is a LOT harder to erase yourself from the electronic eyes of the world than a non-hacker is likely to be able to do.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 30, 2017)

Morrus said:


> The T1000 has to touch its target to mimic it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using EN World




I was just thinking in terms of target acquisition, not mimicry.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 30, 2017)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While true, we all know that it is a LOT harder to erase yourself from the electronic eyes of the world than a non-hacker is likely to be able to do.



She taught John to hack, and he seemed pretty good at it.  But, regardless of how hard it might be, it's established that it was done.  So, then, they did a hard thing.


----------



## Eltab (Sep 30, 2017)

Morrus said:


> It sounds like just shooting her would be a hell of a lot easier.



Yeah, but we know how THAT worked out.  It turned into a movie instead of a straightforward assassination.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 30, 2017)

Eltab said:


> Yeah, but we know how THAT worked out.  It turned into a movie instead of a straightforward assassination.




Well you make sure the resistance doesn’t send anyone/thing back too.


----------



## Eltab (Sep 30, 2017)

MarkB said:


> Which would be tricky given that Skynet doesn't even know what she looks like.




Upon arrival in the past, look up her Facebook account.  (Presumably a computer would be good at algorithms to search the Web.)  Memorize her picture(s).  Head for a "New You Look" beauty salon.  Break in after business hours.  Arnold emerging attired in hair extenders, a blouse / jeans and some padding on his hips should provide the necessary element of comic relief in the movie.
IF the Sarah-Terminator survives real-Sarah's death, its programming is to then infect the Internet with disabling viruses, to prevent the humans from achieving the technological capability to sabotage future-Skynet ... and hope the virused Internet does not infect proto-Skynet itself (oops).  Or maybe Skynet's murderous streak is the product of the virusing?

As I said, Skynet isn't sophisticated enough for this - and is too busy trying to coordinate a war all by itself anyways - but how much fun we could have if Skynet WAS up to the task.


----------



## Eltab (Sep 30, 2017)

Morrus said:


> Well you make sure the resistance doesn’t send anyone/thing back too.



Room 222.  Contents: Time Machine.  
WARNING: Use once against your enemies then destroy immediately, so your enemies cannot capture it in your future and use it against YOU, in your present or the past.

I think there is an "If I Was the Evil Overlord" point that touches upon this, now I'll have to look it up.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 30, 2017)

You guys know Facebook didn’t exist in the 1980s, right? By the time Facebook exists, Judgement Day (1997) already happened. No Facebook at any point in the Terminator universe. The world ends before social media is even a concept.


----------



## Eltab (Sep 30, 2017)

Ovinomancer said:


> Part of the canon is that Sarah Conner burned out all records of her existence.  CCTV might work if the machines knew which face to look for.



In T1, Skynet had her name and sent the Terminator to find a phone book with ALL the Sarah Connors' locations listed, to kill ALL of them.
It just so happened that the human rescuer owned a photo so he knew which Sarah to seek out and protect.

The updated Terminator would know to search the present-day popular social media sites for "Sarah Connor" and build a target list from the search results.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 1, 2017)

Morrus said:


> You guys know Facebook didn’t exist in the 1980s, right? By the time Facebook exists, Judgement Day (1997) already happened. No Facebook at any point in the Terminator universe. The world ends before social media is even a concept.




As it is after T2, yes.  But we don't know what will change via temporal meddling/paradox, etc. between T2 and this new movie.  I_expect _ Cameron to keep the timeline hard and fast, given his rejection of all subsequent Terminator products.  But he could stil oil a George Lucas on us and mess things up.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 1, 2017)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As it is after T2, yes.  But we don't know what will change via temporal meddling/paradox, etc. between T2 and this new movie.  I_expect _ Cameron to keep the timeline hard and fast, given his rejection of all subsequent Terminator products.  But he could stil oil a George Lucas on us and mess things up.




I hope it’s a period piece. 90s, maybe. 

Though if Hamilton is in it, I guess they have to set it a similar number of years later. Unless they plan to digitally de-age her (which I hope they don’t). So it’ll be contemporary, either pre or post Judgement Day.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 1, 2017)

Eltab said:


> In T1, Skynet had her name and sent the Terminator to find a phone book with ALL the Sarah Connors' locations listed, to kill ALL of them.
> It just so happened that the human rescuer owned a photo so he knew which Sarah to seek out and protect.
> 
> The updated Terminator would know to search the present-day popular social media sites for "Sarah Connor" and build a target list from the search results.



The same hyper paranoid Sarah Connor from T2 just up and decides that Facebook is okay?


----------



## MarkB (Oct 1, 2017)

Morrus said:


> You guys know Facebook didn’t exist in the 1980s, right? By the time Facebook exists, Judgement Day (1997) already happened. No Facebook at any point in the Terminator universe. The world ends before social media is even a concept.




Also, I don't even have killer robots after me and I'm still paranoid enough about Facebook in terms of both account security and the general concept of posting one's entire life online that I only signed up to it last year, and still don't feel comfortable using it. Sarah Connor's social media footprint would be as close to non-existent as she could achieve.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 1, 2017)

MarkB said:


> Also, I don't even have killer robots after me




That's what you think.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 1, 2017)

Morrus said:


> That's what you think.




I'm not that spry. If I had killer robots after me, they'd have caught me by n- oh, excuse me, there's someone at the door.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 1, 2017)

"Candygram."


----------



## Eltab (Oct 1, 2017)

Ovinomancer said:


> The same hyper paranoid Sarah Connor from T2 just up and decides that Facebook is okay?



Her son is a hacker and seems to resent her (at the beginning of the movie), so he might post something of her, just to prove that 'Mom can't tell me what to do'.  
He will of course regret it later, but when will he have time to locate his original and every copy made by others to erase them?
(We do not know that the scene from _2010_ discussing erasing HAL's memories is valid in the T-universe.)

There is also the (un)lucky break when some guy with delusions of Hugh Hefner-ness sees her pass by and decides "That's one cute chick.  Watch me get her; she only thinks she's a tough cookie."


----------



## Eltab (Oct 1, 2017)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> "Candygram"



Knock knock
"Who's there?"
"Door shark."
Oh of course let me just open this door...


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 1, 2017)

Eltab said:


> Her son is a hacker and seems to resent her (at the beginning of the movie), so he might post something of her, just to prove that 'Mom can't tell me what to do'.
> He will of course regret it later, but when will he have time to locate his original and every copy made by others to erase them?
> (We do not know that the scene from _2010_ discussing erasing HAL's memories is valid in the T-universe.)
> 
> There is also the (un)lucky break when some guy with delusions of Hugh Hefner-ness sees her pass by and decides "That's one cute chick.  Watch me get her; she only thinks she's a tough cookie."



:blink:

You really think either of those makes for a plausible story?


----------



## Eltab (Oct 2, 2017)

Ovinomancer said:


> :blink:
> 
> You really think either of those makes for a plausible story?



Yes.  

The rebellious teen is so rooted in IRL that the audience will instantly identify with the situation.

The other character will be somebody the audience will cheer when the Terminator finds him on the way to its real target.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Oct 3, 2017)

Morrus said:


> You guys know Facebook didn’t exist in the 1980s, right? By the time Facebook exists, Judgement Day (1997) already happened. No Facebook at any point in the Terminator universe. The world ends before social media is even a concept.




Man, the people in the Terminator universe are so lucky. I mean, they're all pretty much dead, which sucks, but at least they don't have to put up with Facebook.


----------



## Random Bystander (Oct 4, 2017)

Michael Silverbane said:


> Man, the people in the Terminator universe are so lucky. I mean, they're all pretty much dead, which sucks, but at least they don't have to put up with Facebook.



Hmm...I believe the appropriate phase is "Time machine'd!", because I was set to comment on that very thing.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 5, 2017)

At this point I half expect someone to say "All this has happened before and it will happen again" or something to that effect...


----------



## Eltab (Oct 5, 2017)

trappedslider said:


> At this point I half expect someone to say "All this has happened before and it will happen again" or something to that effect...




Looking at this from the view of meta-physics...

So you are saying that Time is linear until somebody invents a "time machine" and bends it into cycles and loops and tangles and snarls?


----------



## MarkB (Oct 5, 2017)

Eltab said:


> Looking at this from the view of meta-physics...
> 
> So you are saying that Time is linear until somebody invents a "time machine" and bends it into cycles and loops and tangles and snarls?




"Until" is a problematic concept in this context.


----------



## Random Bystander (Oct 6, 2017)

Eltab said:


> Looking at this from the view of meta-physics...
> 
> So you are saying that Time is linear until somebody invents a "time machine" and bends it into cycles and loops and tangles and snarls?



You mean something that, perhaps, could be described as "wibbly-wobbly?" Maybe even "timey-wimey?"


----------



## Eltab (Oct 6, 2017)

Random Bystander said:


> You mean something that, perhaps, could be described as "wibbly-wobbly?" Maybe even "timey-wimey?"



Given how badly The Doctor has been fouled up the last few years, I'm not sure inserting him into the Terminator Universe would result in 'He's the Doctor and he's here to help'.

Although ... the new woman-Doctor could serve as a decoy for Sarah Connor ...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 6, 2017)

Eltab said:


> Given how badly The Doctor has been fouled up the last few years, I'm not sure inserting him into the Terminator Universe would result in 'He's the Doctor and he's here to help'.
> 
> Although ... the new woman-Doctor could serve as a decoy for Sarah Connor ...



We REALLY don't want or go down that road.  As bad as Terminators are, they really wouldn't stand up to Cybermen, Movellans, or Daleks.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 6, 2017)

I'm sure there exist a fanfic cross over.....and besides we could hope that this happens :


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 6, 2017)

I'd love _one_ Dalek do the same with "exterminate" and go all slacker/navelgazer.


----------



## Eltab (Oct 8, 2017)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> We REALLY don't want or go down that road.  As bad as Terminators are, they really wouldn't stand up to Cybermen, Movellans, or Daleks.




There might be a Dalek that wants to move in to a Terminator body instead.  

And I'd think the old clunky Cybermen would be jealous of the Arnold design.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 8, 2017)

Eltab said:


> There might be a Dalek that wants to move in to a Terminator body instead.




There isn’t really room in the Terminator design for the creature to sit.



> And I'd think the old clunky Cybermen would be jealous of the Arnold design.




The old ones were just humans with a lot of cybernetic surgery. They aren’t actually robots.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 8, 2017)

I think even the most recent ones are, also.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 8, 2017)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I think even the most recent ones are, also.




They don’t really go into it, but you do see Danny Pink’s face when they remove the faceplate, so at least the head remains. Dunno about the rest of the body.


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Oct 9, 2017)

.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 9, 2017)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> Please, no more movie cross-overs.
> 
> The Jason/Freddie/etc. was horrible.
> 
> ...




There's no danger or suggestion of a Doctor Who/Terminator movie. That was just some people in this thread joking around. You're quite safe.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 9, 2017)

...or IS he?


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Oct 10, 2017)

.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 11, 2017)

"...actually, one _wasn't _a soldier, but rather, an athlete turned action movie star turned politician.  In his acting roles and political life, he was always very pro-military.  We at The Program decided using his likeness for one of the models would _literally _put a relatable, charismatic face on the project, and go a long way towards bridging the uncanny valley."*








* yes, I just made that up.


----------

