Terminator Dark Fate bombs

As the neckbeards say go woke go broke.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2019/11/02/box-office-james-cameron-and-tim-millers-terminator-dark-fate-starring-linda-hamilton-and-arnold-schwarzenegger-bombs-with-apocalyptic-11-million-friday/#3fdec2625a3e

People are going to be harping on saying "go woke go broke", but this was a female led franchise from the start. Remember that.

We've just had so many Terminator movies of the exact same shit where it's just the template from 2 done inferior.

Reception of this does seem better than it originally seemed, but it's still not a movie i'd pay money see, when I can just watch T2, a bar that will never be beaten.

Watched the movie and its ok but the action scenes lacks punch. Could work great with 3D no non of that option at my local cinema.

Btw I remember terminator for Arnold and the lore, not specifically for Sarah Connor unfortunately.

Pop Culture wise yes, Arnold is very distinct and (as James Cameron said correctly) one of a kind, but she is the heart and soul of the movie.

One of the things you notice as well with these T2 clones (3/Genysis/DF) is how flat and uninteresting they are, bordering on "made for tv".

Even a featureless corridor in T2 was brimming with life, cool hues, hard shadows, spot-lights, the camera not just static with boring composition.

@warmblur:

I dunno why people are acting like the Terminator movies never had female protagonists before. Terminator 1 and 2 were all about Sarah Connor. What's the difference? The main villain was still a male Terminator and Arnold's T800 did most of the real asskicking. As strong as Grace was, she couldn't actually beat Legion by herself.

I swear: people are too sensitive these days. Cons get just as whiny as they claim Liberals do.

But that aside, Dark Fate was pretty fun to watch. It doesn't really feel any different from the earlier movies, for better or worse. But DOES keep you entertained the entire time. I just saw this on Friday. Solid 7/10 from me.

To be fair, they already done the whole female cast lead back in Terminator: Sarah Conner Chronicles on Fox and I can tell you now, that Terminator TV series had a great story and it's still amazes me Hollywood can't replicate why the TV series did well before Fox got stupid to cancelled the series and Dark Fate was late to the party with this Woke.

The Sarah Conner Chronicles was so good shame that it got cancelled.

@uninspiredcup: Not like this it wasn't. You always had Linda Hamilton as sarah Connor and that was fine. But then they made the protector( who was Arnold) and the future of the series( who was john connor) both women. And you basically make Arnold a background character. Sorry this was trash and I'm glad it flopped.

False.

Terminator 3 two of the leads are female.

Terminator: Genisys John Conner was both the antagonist and killed.

I have absolutely 0 problem with a movie having a female cast, as long as the movie itself was 1) Good 2) Wasn't just a rehash

This is a rehash, which people will misguidedly blame "wokness" on.

Of course the director didn't do himself any favours with his woke "misogynist" comment, once you start talking like a pleb implying the audience as assholes, it's an automatic turn-off and actively turns people against a product.

@uninspiredcup: Terminator 3 still had Arnold as the premier ass kicker. So yea sorry not the same. And it doesn't really help your argument since every one of these movies has flopped with the exception of the first two. Female cast can be fine untill it reeks of pandering ( ala Ghosbusters) and that's exactly what this did. When they released the first poster Arnold wasn't even on it. Which was a massive mistake.

None of these argument make sense.

Arnold "kicking more ass" (whatever that means) doesn't change that the movie had two female leads, with a female taking over the role of the antagonist and John Conner already killed in the previous (deleted) entry.

These are just simple facts being stated, and that's excluding the (well liked) TV series that also had two strong female protagonists, again, the cyborg replaced by a female.

Arnold shows in each and everyone of these movies, not because his character is vital, but because he's probably the most well known action-movie actor in existence, which means money bags. That's what they call pandering.

What's changed isn't the movies, but the culture around them, where before no one would blink twice, we have all this SJW, woke, gamergate, twump badh, left-media bias nonsense bullshittery.

This movie will do badly, not because of "woman", but because, as simply stated, it's a rehash coming off 3 inferior movies, with the last one being a mediocre rehash itself.

Audiences are burnt out and just not that interested in Terminator anymore.

@r-gamer:

Basically you disliked the entire movie just because of a female cast? How the hell is that even fair? Women can kick ass too! And Sarah Connor was the original asskicker in the series! The T800 only joined the fight in part 2!

@nepu7supastar7: "Women can kick ass too! "

lol

Original ass kicker? She ran the whole first movie while Reese protected her lol.

@nepu7supastar7: Apparently you missed the first Terminator.

@uninspiredcup: Ahhh ok, so they are just burned out on it now? Was that the case for Ghostbusters as well? What about BF5?

Lol it's pandering to an audience who doesn't give a shit about your product which is an automatic fail.

@Chutebox: @r-gamer:

Kyle Reese protected her for most of the movie but she ended up having to save him at the end and Reese died. Then she became the protector alongside the T800 in part 2. But I guess we're going to forget that happened.

Wtf are you talking about. He got badly hurt by the Terminator, but stuck an explosive in the terminator and sacrificed himself to save her. She just crawls away and crushes the remainder of the Terminator.

She was not the original ass kicker, that was Reese and the terminator. Stop it.

After the events of the first movie she then becomes a good fighter.

I don't think any of the terminators have done well after two, no?

@Chutebox: None have done great since 2. But they have managed to do worse. This is on pace to the the biggest flop in franchise history and may be the only one that actually loses money.

@Chutebox:

Reese was practically dying at the last moments and Sarah had to push him to get back up, remember? Then she started talking like a drill Sargeant: "On your feet, soldier!" If it weren't for her they'd have both died.

You're funny lol. Reese protects her the whole movie. She pushes him once because he is hurt badly (you know, because he's protecting her) and talks like a Sergeant. He eventually puts explosive in the terminator and basically destroys it...and she's the original bad ass!

Yes at no.

At the start of Terminator she is working at tables living a mundane life, primarily scared and confused at events unfolding.

At the end of the the original movie she is carrying him and utters the semi-famous line "get up solider" and "your terminated fucker".

In the first movie her character developed into a strong willed woman from the passive character at the start.

In the second movie, while her will becomes practically indomitable her character becomes weaker as she loses sight of her humanity and eventually directly acts like like a Terminator trying to kill Miles Dyson, basically a nervous wreck as a unusually realistic consequence.

In Terminator 2 her son takes the place of her in the first movie, where much like her he developed from a mundane (in this case a lost-child-delinquent) into a leader, directly effecting those around him be the iron-giant relationship or injecting humanity into mother.

After the first two movies, people are paying tickets to see Arnold do things, with each successive movie, copying, but never really understanding why the characters where compelling in the first place.

@uninspiredcup: Not debating any of that, just her comment that she was the "original ass kicker," which is just not correct.

@Chutebox:

I'm not a he and I was right. Sarah Connor was the original asskicker. Kyle Reese might have been her protector but he was forgettable as an established character. No one even mentions the actor.

When did I say you're a dude? Genuinely don't know where I did nor does it matter. Edit: my comment to dude above. I'll fix it. Hope you feel better.

You've been proven wrong. Don't need to keep repeating why you're wrong if you're just going to be delusional.

@Chutebox:

I get what you were saying but does Kyle Reese even count? Yeah, he was Sarah's protector but he was kinda.....wimpy, I guess. Ok, new statement:

Sarah Connor was the first "memorable" asskicker.

I still don't agree, but this is a dumb thing to argue over anyways lol. So I'll leave it.

I want to see this, but I'll wait for video. Not sure how prominent the offensive vaginas are, but I'm sure I'll survive the experience.

Interesting to see so many guys want to see movies with women in them fail. They'll even go so far as to review bomb things that do have women in them. We've seen it happen with Wonder Woman, Star Wars, Captain Marvel, or this. But on the other side of things, I've never seen a bunch of women sit around and hope that movies with men in them bomb. Never.

Get woke, go broke. Will Hollywood learn? Nope. They seem to be fine putting out trash in order to fulfil some politically correct agenda very few care to be bludgeoned with.

Why didn't Terminator 1 and 2 go broke then? You do know "Get woke, go broke" is a meme that mocks people who cry about popular movies with girls in them, right? You're not supposed to use it unironically, you'd look embarrassing.

No. Not at all.

The first entry was Kyle Reese lead. Yes, Sarah was there but she wasn't leading. If anything she was in the supporting role. The second was more along the lines of having Sarah and the T-800 as "co" leaders if you will. After the second I'm not overtly familiar with the subsequent entries.

Fair point.

Bad wording on my part.

@Willy105: That’s not what the meme means, btw.

Also, 1 & 2 films were not social justice movies at all. They were action movies. Sara Conner was the ‘twist’ or gimmick if you will, not the main protagonist.

Terminator 2 is one of my most beloved childhood films, and even I don't want there to be any more Terminator movies.

So many things these days are just so unnecessary. It's not a question of quality, even, it's simply a question of do we want this? Did we ask for this? Who are they trying to sell to?

No one likes stagnation and taking advantage of nostalgia. Let's come up with something new.

The original Terminator movie was closer to a sci-fi, slasher movie, far lower budget than Terminator 2 where they shot it guerrilla style.

Terminator 2 was a blockbuster action movie, and all subsequent movies. Including Dark Fate. It still maintained the slasher archetype, but tonally was lighter with a focus on spectacle and pop corn entertainment first and foremost.

What you term "SJW" or progressive, as in female empowerment, was there from the start, and was there in Terminator 2, which was the exact intent of the original comment.

It was in Terminator 3, it was in The Sarah Conner Chronicles and it was in Genisys. Salvation I don't recall much of, but no doubt it will have had a strong female character.

Sarah Conner wasn't a "gimmick", she's practically the only character that has any major development. Kyle Reese is a flat character archetype, he exists to have an effect on the her.

Hating a movie, from a franchise that always had strong females, with the two ones people lawd coming from a director people would be labelled as liberally progressive, introducing multiple female leads is nonsensical and projects reactionary insecurity from the current climate than from the film itself.

And for the record, I can't stand Resetera, Polygon progressive wack jobs. But that's down to their personalities and attitude. It doesn't mean automatically being against anything positively progressive, that's just stupid.

-

Star Trek Discovery is another example where people label is "woke".

Star Trek was always progressive from the start. The difference is, it wasn't written by a radical-left-trump-hating 14 year old, trying to hide it's mediocrity with flashy-production values.

@Sevenizz:

" They were action movies. Sara Conner was the ‘twist’ or gimmick if you will, not the main protagonist."

How the hell was Sarah a gimmick? She was A MAIN PROTAGONIST. The movie of Terminator 1 was about keeping her safe. Terminator 2 was about her keeping her son safe, with the help of a T800. It wasn't considered sjw crap and no one complained about it.

I think it's a tad disingenuous to imply that this film wasn't built with a woke perspective and agenda. We got Grace, who looks like a poster child for LGBT representation if I've ever seen it.

Alongside a young Hispanic girl who's completely unconvincing to take place of the male savior of mankind (I'm also hearing the movie portrays immigration and BP in a bad light as well). Also alongside a T-Juan-thousand terminator, this movie reeks of wokeness. You then factor in the director's comments and it's not hard to connect the dots. I have no trouble with female leads either or minorities, I welcome them, but not when they're there not for the story, but instead to make a point or rectify an imbalance that doesn't hold relevance within it.

Make a good movie first and everything falls into place, regardless of sex, race, etc. People won't raise an eyebrow. But make a political statement masquerading as a movie and it will bomb. Good. It's the only way Hollywood will learn, but I doubt them blaming others for their own mistakes will stop, they'll never take responsibility and will continue to lay it all on that evil white straight male patriarchal scourge, source of all injustice and inequality in the world, alongside sexist, racist bigots that they lazily toss out.

What's changed isn't the movies, but the culture around them, where before no one would blink twice, we have all this SJW, woke, gamergate, twump badh, left-media bias nonsense bullshittery.

Also have to disagree here. The movies have changed, as movies are a product (and hence a reflection) of the culture and times in which they're produced. I think you're deluding yourself if you truly believe this Leftist culture (which Hollywood leans heavily to) isn't permeating into many films, and Dark Fate is one such example.

What you term "SJW" or progressive, as in female empowerment, was there from the start, and was there in Terminator 2, which was the exact intent of the original comment.

It was in Terminator 3, it was in The Sarah Conner Chronicles and it was in Genisys. Salvation I don't recall much of, but no doubt it will have had a strong female character.

Sarah Conner wasn't a "gimmick", she's practically the only character that has any major development. Kyle Reese is a flat character archetype, he exists to have an effect on the her.

Hating a movie, from a franchise that always had strong females, with the two ones people lawd coming from a director people would be labelled as liberally progressive, introducing multiple female leads is nonsensical and projects reactionary insecurity from the current climate than from the film itself.

EDIT: Sorry cup, man, I'm really on the opposite side of the fence with you. There's a difference between placing characters in films due to an agenda of "progressivism", opposed to one borne of genuine creative predilections.

Cameron has stated he's always tended towards writing strong female leads in his films, and this is evident in his work. That's borne of the creator's preferences within the film and not due to some misplaced sense of social justice representative metric that must be fulfilled outside of it. It was also necessitated that Sarah be a woman as the narrative demanded it due to her being the mother of the savior of humankind, as well as being able to build a strong maternal core throughout (a theme that extends past the Terminator franchise).

Cameron places women in his films because it's part of his creative bias. I highly, highly doubt Dark Fate's female leads came from the same place, but instead one more reflective of a toxic Leftist push for representation and equality at all costs.

I watched the movie thinking it would be really woke and shit.

Actually wasn't my issue at all finishing it. My issue being that the premise is exactly the same but just different timeline. It wasn't a terrible movie, just wasn't great either.

@MirkoS77: I couldn't agree with you more. I spit my drink up when you said T-Juan thousand. Lmao that's pure gold.

@nepu7supastar7: Not sure if you have seen the movie yet? But they take a giant shit on the entire premise of the original series.

Why do the terminators in this movie look like a tech support guy and a gender studies student? It's almost painful how uncool this movie looks compared to T1 and T2.

The action sequences are also ruined by CGI. CGI effects have no weight to them and it's so unsatisfying to watch. One of the reasons Mad Max: Fury Road was so good was it used a lot of practical effects and didn't just make everything CGI.

@Gaming-Planet:

"My issue being that the premise is exactly the same but just different timeline."

-This complaint is the only one that's made sense so far. And it's very true. Dark Fate is basically a reimagining of Terminator 1 with a bit of a twist. There was one message it made that I liked. And it's that humanity shouldn't be relying on just one person to save everyone. Everyone is capable of fighting for themselves.

At least that's the message I got from it. There's virtually nothing special about the new girl being protected. She was just a regular person caught in the middle of something bigger than her. (Forgot her name already! lol) That's something that always bothered me about Terminator's storyline. Why is humanity doomed if John Connor dies? The only advantage he had was information about the future thanks to his mother but all that only happened because of a time paradox.

To be fair, the direction Discovery has taken is so alienating, you can really only call it Trek by name.

It's not a bad show by any stretch of the imagination, but is in no way indicative of the legacy of quality that past shows have been a part of.

I'm hoping Picard does it better, but if the trailers are any indication, I'm not holding much hope.

As for Dark Fate, I have seen some of trailers, and I have to say I am not initially impressed.

I guess the full release may turn out completely different, but considering how the last two movies turned out, expectations are not super high.

This is really a bummer, because the franchise lore has so much potential.

I'll likely wait for it to hit a streaming platform and then give it a go.

I mean Deep Space 9 was alienating. Instead of a Trek universe where the Federation was a peak utopia judging aliens, it was as infallible and as culpable as the world around it. Instead of exploration, it remained static, like boat dock where the stories came to it. Instead of a largely independent set of stories, it had an over-arching narrative with action and reaction, the cultivates into a war story.

But, that show was excellent. And still managed to keep in-line with the ideas of Star Trek even though it was far darker and morally grey.

It might seem like an oversimplification, but Discovery is just shite.

The only thing worth complimenting IMO was the CGI effects. Literally, all that's good.

And really, what held Star Trek up was substance.

@uninspiredcup: @lucidique: Leave me out of your Star Wars love fest, nerds.

Terminator Dark Fate bombs

@MirkoS77:

"but not when they're there not for the story,"

- It's always there for the story. Everyone who says that so-and-so put such-and-such here just for political correctness completely undermines the entire point of a storyline in a movie. It's all about creative direction. Maybe it's to mock something or maybe it's for irony, the whole thing is limited to their imagination. Not some stupid agenda or whatever nonsense people wine about. Dark Fate was meant to continue the Terminator franchise. Nothing more, nothing less.

I wasn't alluding to the content, but the structure. Discovery is manufactured for a Tourette-inflicted, Chemicals-infected generation of viewers that needs every scene of every episode of every show to either depict life-ending drama, or limb-blowing action scenes at every turn.

DS9 was fine. It was a bit different in it's story-telling structure, but it was consistent with what the series was known for :

Solid acting, interesting locals and some sort of societal / philosophical message.

To bring the conversation back to the topic at hand : I really wish the series would pick up where Sarah Connor Chronicles left off.

Every movie released after the 90s have been a self-contained ****-fest.

That's naive. Any form of creative medium can hold an agenda influencing aspects that aren't there due to the creative impetus that drives it. What undermines the entire point of a story line in a movie aren't the ones who (rightly) point out the political correctness shoved into it, but those who actually do it.

If you're going to claim there's no agenda in films (really, explain to me how Lando's pan sexuality is there for the story?), evidence stands to the contrary. I tend to lean Left myself, but you'd have to be blind not to see what's going on here.

@PernicioEnigma: The action sequences are also ruined by CGI. CGI effects have no weight to them and it's so unsatisfying to watch. One of the reasons Mad Max: Fury Road was so good was it used a lot of practical effects and didn't just make everything CGI.

Agreed. I don't understand the Marvel-fication of this franchise. Terminator has always been very grounded in its fiction, which is what made the action so great. It placed normal people in extraordinary circumstances, but the universe they resided in was always wholly plausible. In real life, AI is progressing and robots are being worked on. Time travel is the only thing the franchise truly takes large liberties with and pushes believability, but it's simply an explanation, not a main focus, so the audience can accept it easier.

I mean seriously, what's up with these planes crashing out of the sky with people hanging to the outside like they're Ironman? It's absurd and betrays the grounded fiction that the best of the Terminator films relied on. This scene right here is far more thrilling than huge CGI plane crash spectacle they probably wasted $20 million on:

Minimalism was Terminator's strength, now they're going full on Marvel. It's ridiculous.