Geekery: The Terminator Will Be Back – Three More Times

Probably more because it’s James Cameron, but 3 have been confirmed.

The first of the trilogy will premiere July 26, 2019 and will star Arnold Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton. Deadpool’s Tim Miller will be in the director’s chair; he also co-wrote the story with Cameron. The script is being developed by David Goyer (the Dark Knight trilogy) and Josh Friedman (The Sarah Connor Chronicles). Cameron has stated that this will be ignoring the existence of Rise of the Machines, Salvation, and Genisys – which most of us do anyway.

I’ll let the T-1000 explain how I feel about this…

We don’t need this. Just like we don’t need his 4 Avatar sequels, or Battle Angel movie. Speaking of… how is he managing all of this? He told the Hollywood Reporter:

The way I look at it is, I’m doing Avatar by day, Battle Angel by night and Terminator on the weekend.

WHAT!?

James Cameron needs to be stopped – in the same way that Michael Bay and Ridley Scott need to be stopped. Gentlemen, you made some great movies, classics even. Stop ruining them with endless, unneeded sequels that don’t pass muster. Please? James, take your own advice:

A lot of the good writing is now in television, and I think that feature films could benefit from better writing and better character work in general and a little less spectacle. Not that I don’t like spectacle, but I like it at the right moment. You just have to make good movies. Pretty simple.

This is from the mouth of the man that made Avatar. A Ferngully/Dances with Wolves mashup that required so much spectacle that it was shot almost entirely like this:

So it could look like a video game in magical 3D on screen: 

I’ll let that idea sit for a little while longer.

Ok – so, back to the point. This kind of project is why the industry had one of its worst years ever this year. Studios are offering up big budget sequels, re-makes, and crappy franchise films. It seems that nothing is being learned from that. Paramount is betting their survival as a big budget production studio on the Terminator, the Transformers, Spongebob Squarepants, and a sequel to Top Gun (no, really, that’s a thing).

I’ve been enjoying a lot of the small studio and not intended to be blockbuster releases this year – like Dunkirk, Get Out, The Girl with All the Gifts, and the Trainspotting sequel (that we didn’t deserve, but got anyway). Blockbuster movies need help, though. They have a place, they don’t need to go away… they just need to be better.

Better than James Cameron.

 

What are your thoughts on all of this?

  • Commissar Molotov

    Schwarzenegger? He’s gonna be the saggiest android ever.

    • treadhead2

      Arnie will be playing the cyberdyne model 104 designed by skynet especially to infiltrate nursing homes

      • He’ll be 73 in 2019 when this movie is scheduled to hit theaters.

      • euansmith

        The 401k Series Terminator; designed to keep Skynet’s lawns darn kid free.

      • Evil Otto

        “Come with me if you want to get your medication.”

    • lmn118

      They did say the flesh over the endo skeleton ages, although a terminator in a nursing home doesn’t have much going for it in terms of infiltration or intelligence gathering.

  • Valeli

    I mean, I’m a bit skeptical too, but I’d hold up on the hate until we’ve seen more.

    I mean, T2 was a sequel and that was pretty great. Same for Aliens. Different directors and everything but we have sequels to thank for The Empire Strikes Back too.

    Sequels don’t /have/ to be bad, and if these directors are that invested in their work more power to them. With many of these guys, I know that I’ll probably get great camera work and scenes even if the film itself doesn’t hold up. That’s more than I can say for a lot of other people’s films.

    They’ve earned the right to have their pet projects.

    • Carey_Mahoney

      The examples of good sequels that you’ve cited are from way back in the days of old. Nowadays, sequels etc. will extremely unlikely be good, partly for reasons given in this article.

      • Valeli

        That’s true… but Cameron’s also an old director now (as Haakon points out above, he’ll be 73 in 2019, and has been around the block plenty of times).

        The whole sequel and big budget spectacle thing is (definitely) a trap you can fall into. And I won’t be shocked if these do. But even nowadays that doesn’t (always) happen.

        I guess…. I enjoyed the subsequent entry in Nolan’s Batman Begins more than the first for example (subjective opinion of course, but I don’t think I’m the only one). My only real complaints with any of that was the gravely Batman Voice honestly, but I had fun with them all.

        Anyways. I get the skepticism. I think it’ll probably flop too, and signing up for 3 right off is a bit crazy. But I also think that Cameron is a pretty amazing director who’s at a point in his life where he doesn’t really need to just do a sequel for the money. I think he generally enjoys what he’s doing, and I think he’s fairly good at it. So…. I just feel that the article is piling on a bit more than it should I guess. He’s earned his right to give this a shot.

        • To clarify: Schwarzenegger will be 73 in 2019 not Cameron – who will be 65 in 2019.

          • Valeli

            Ah. I retract my statement and replace the number with 65.

            But I stand by my whole “he’s been around plenty and earned the right to work on this” stance.

        • Tshiva keln

          Surely if you are going to complain about someone’s voice from those batman films it should be bane! Love the first two films but bane’s voice alone means I struggle to watch the third.

  • Drpx

    Guys? Guys? I know everything after 2 was a flop, but IT’LL WORK THIS TIME!

  • Carey_Mahoney

    Spot on.

  • Pat H

    I really don’t see why they just don’t make RoboCop vs Terminator. They have the rights to both. The comic was made by Dark horse not Marvel or DC so aquiring the movie rights shouldn’t be terribly expensive. You could get at least two movies out of it.

    The first one RoboCop fights terminators during modern day, and the sequel he fights them in the future after Judgement day. If you really wanted to milk it after the movies you could make a TV show about RoboCop fighting a Terminator of the week. Seriously it’s like Hollywood isn’t interested in making money anymore.

    • Sleeplessknight

      They already have something like that called Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future.

    • NNextremNN

      wow this sounds like the worst film ever … but yeah it probably would sell pretty good.

    • Carey_Mahoney

      For part three they should make it RoboCop vs Terminator vs Alien vs Predator to guarantee one-upping the action.

      • euansmith

        … vs Jason

        • Carey_Mahoney

          Maybe they’d add Freddy, Jason, Michael Myers and Leatherface in parts 4 – 7. Or just all at once for maximum spectacle.

  • georgelabour

    But I liked Salvation….

  • lmn118

    Sorry what?

    Yes stop James Cameron from making good films. We don’t want those. We need more dull films like “The girl with all the gifts” (another generic zombie movie) and trainspotting 2.

    Yes stop James Cameron from making the highest grossing films in history and simply put the best Science Fiction films period.

    While you are at stop Gale Ann Hurd as well.

    The only sequel I know of he has done and released to his own franchises would be Terminator 2 which was excellent (unless you count his Titanic documentary which was also excellent).

    This is from the guy that made Avatar, a movie filmed entirely on an alien planet, in the future, with aliens. One that moved film technology forward and was a good watch too.

    • Snord

      Fair points, but the counter-arguments are stronger. The track record for films that get down to their 3rd and 4th sequel (and I don’t mean films deliberately made in several parts, like LotR) is poor. The reference to Ridley Scott is particularly apt – his 2 last Alien sequels have shown little of the genius that he once displayed.

      • lmn118

        Unlike the other posts to my reply this I can agree with.

        I am not saying the sequels could/won’t be terrible, I don’t get hyped for things like this because generally, they do have a tendency to kill off things following the money chain.

        Marvel movies tend to have a good first release that steadily gets worse as the film moves on.

        The Alien prequels were terrible, bad scripts and movies that copied the Ripley character and the evil android verbatim. They also suffered from the Alien movie rewrite syndrome which leaves a complete mess of ideas. A shame, Blomkamp ideas would have been a much better idea.

        But, it is also worth pointing out, a lot of the time sequels are often not written, or directed, by the original guy, Dan O’Bannon has been gone for some time and that guy was a genius (he wrote Alien, worked on Dark Star, directed Return of the Living Dead etc).

        James Cameron has a strong track record however, and this article discounts him entirely. Unlike Scott, Cameron has much more input in his films. He is not just a director.

    • Ludwig Hesselbach

      Just because their some of the high grossing films doesn’t make them good. The plot to Avatar was Pocahontas in space. The same old rehashed story of the guy whom falls in love with a native girl and help fights his old society when they come to destroy hers. Whank.

      Also the whole helped moved film technology argument doesn’t hold up either. Because by that rationale the Star Wars prequels should be timeless classics, and they at least grain of originality to them.

      • lmn118

        It doesn’t matter if it just was “Pocahontas in Space”, there is nothing new under the sun with movies. The movie still had a good narrative, a good script, reasonably good acting and of course a special effects system that looked good.

        Yes, yes it does. It shows that people went to see them and continued to go see them over a long period of time. They also both (Avatar and Titanic) have fairly high critic and user metrics. Avatar was also nominated for 9 Oscars and won 3. Somewhat unusual for a science fiction film.Titanic was nominated for 12 and won 10.

        Star Wars prequels had no originality to them, and unlike Avatar they were terrible.

    • NNextremNN

      Avatar was just Pocahontas in Space if it wouldn’t have been for the 3D stuff none would care about this movie at all. And in what way did that film move technology forward?

      • euansmith

        I don’t know if my eyes are wonky, but I got nothing from the 3D effects, except for a 50% reduction in the brightness of the screen. I always try to watch movies in 2D to avoid the grey dingy look that 3D has. It is a shame, as the production design on the film was cool. I wish that they’d put some effort in to script writing on the film though.

        • I_am_Alpharius

          Rule of thumb. Always watch a film in the same format that the Studio does the press screening in. Studio’s always do press screening in the the format intended for the film to be watched in.

          • euansmith

            But, 3D was pretty much Avatar’s reason for existing 😀 I watched it and Alice in Wonderland in 3D and have avoided it at all costs ever since. I even put off watching “Dredd”, until I could see it in glorious 2D.

          • euansmith

            Actually, according to that logic, I guess I should watch all films in a pokey little Soho viewing screen at 10:30 on a Monday morning with an audience made up of grumpy old cinema critics 😀

      • lmn118

        The 3D stuff (generation etc), the creation of the fusion camera system, new work flows, virtual cameras, motion capture, facial capture etc etc.

        It doesn’t matter if it just was “Pocahontas in Space”, there is nothing new under the sun with movies. The movie still had a good narrative, a good script, reasonably good acting and of course a special effects system that looked good.

        • NNextremNN

          None of this was new and it didn’t move technology forward.

          The early Star Trek inspired actual technological advances.

          Avatar was just using what was already there and benefiting from better computer processing power.

          The script was really lame some primitive savages fighting back a space faring mankind. Who were too stupid to just bomb a tree from orbit.

          • lmn118

            Most of it was new, either new technology, the cameras, or new methods of utilising old technology. Developing new methods or new equipment is innovation. That is not debatable, its fact.

            How did TOS move technology forward? Nearly all the filming was using techniques in wide use, Thunderbirds etc.

            Well if they did bomb the planet from orbit it would have been a short film wouldn’t it.

    • I_am_Alpharius

      Maybe at odds with a lot of people….but Avatar was awful. Yeah it used a lot of innovative, ground breaking, technology for the time, but other than that its really poor. If I were to pick one word to sum the film up, it would be – Unobtainium.

      • lmn118

        Google unobtanium, its something that has been used for a long time. I would imagine Cameron knew what it was, and how it was used both in engineering and as a macguffin.

        • I_am_Alpharius

          Oh I know it is a real scientific/engineering term denoting something that is: usually fiction, extremely rare, costly, or impossible material. The term is actually use as joke in those communities and not seriously. Why on Earth they could not just the superconducting element logical or realistic name I really don’t know. Superconductivity was first observed by the Dutch scientist Heike Kamerlingh Onnes. So why not of called it Onnium?

  • Working on the set of Battle Angel was an interesting experience. The art direction was beautiful, and as someone who works in Vr film, having the entire project filmed with WETA capture is fascinating on such a large scale.

    I will have my fingers crossed for it to turn into a great finished project, but after many of the recent films to come out of these studios… I will not be holding my breath.

    • euansmith

      Alita is being directed by Robert Rodriguez? That could be cool.

  • Ludwig Hesselbach

    So right on. I can see the Terminator movies having somewhere to go at least. Avatar not so much. What Disney/public domain story is he going to set in space this time, Snow White? Cinderella? I know Little Mermaid! Because the first one was Pocahontas all the way baby, with the worst macguffin ever used in a movie. Unobtanium, really? Just call it doesntmatterium at least that would be funny. But, hey, he’s made billions with a big B on his movies and I’m writing this in a burned out car heating my beans in a can over a trash fire so don’t listen to me.

    • Inian

      Unobtanium was the thing that bothered me the most, it adds nothing to the film. They could just have said “this mineral” and it would have been fine.
      Then again, why are people who are on a planet for one reason (to get the mineral) reminding each other why they are there? That whole scene is clunky and that plot point should have been made obvious by more subtle means.

  • TonioMoblo

    But I liked Salvation….

  • I_am_Alpharius

    Please no. Just reboot from square one. Have a fresh new cast, have a new actor in the role of the Terminator (I like the idea of Dave Bautista) and have a clear plan for a trilogy (or multi film) story arc – it can be done! Marvel have proved, barring a couple of wobbly moment, but heck the MCU is 18+ movies in.

    The same can be said for other iconic franchises like Alien and Predator.

    I also really don’t understand how the studios have give Cameron $3 Billion (yes! billion with a B!) to film 4 Avatar films all in one go. Thats not $3B in installments, that $3B upfront. Insane. Avatar was a poor film at the time. Avatar‘s ticket sales benefited from rising ticket prices at the time, as well as surcharges associated with 3D and IMAX showings; the number of people who have actually visited the theater to see Avatar is still far less than the number who saw Titanic.

  • Evil Otto