New Terminator from Cameron will ignore all but T1 and T2

[Morrus]

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]

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

Hollywood needs to find some original ideas.

 

[ccs]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.

 

[Morrus]

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.