A glaring problem with Terminator franchise for consideration

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

They try to redo T2 rather committedly. With Genisys it might have tried to bend things consideratively, but, why the hell do they need to do that same plot, in terms of the protector being sent to save the same figure over and over?

Again, there's room to cite variation maybe to an understandable extent, but they've given a good amount of attention to that specific plot formation, and it's not necessarily that great save for its dynamic with the first movie.

[phantom000]

The problem is that The Terminator was never meant to be a franchise. It was supposed to be a short, one shot science fiction film. Even T2 had to stretch things just get another movie and T3 stretched it to the breaking point. Salvation tried to do something different but people did not like it, for some reason, and so they only want to do a 'back to basics' approach. Only now there is not point to do anything before Judgement Day because you have established that it cannot be prevented anyway.

So at this point, what does Terminator have to offer? Action, of course that is all people really want to see right? Except today there are a lot of films that offer that and far more, so why even bother with Terminator anymore?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The problem is that The Terminator was never meant to be a franchise. It was supposed to be a short, one shot science fiction film. Even T2 had to stretch things just get another movie and T3 stretched it to the breaking point. Salvation tried to do something different but people did not like it, for some reason, and so they only want to do a 'back to basics' approach. Only now there is not point to do anything before Judgement Day because you have established that it cannot be prevented anyway.

That's a valid general overtake, but I'm talking about something specific.

And honestly I think it complements what I was thinking. T2 is good precisely as a complement to T1. But also, its very distinct take of making the robot the protector into a standard mold for possibly any other film is impractical. It's like if the Defiant from DS9 took on the role of the Enterprise for broad based exploration for extended periods of time.

The premise for the movie initially is a very strong and unique idea, but it is a one-trick pony for creative purposes, and became immediately redundant.

[MerelyAFan]

Honestly at this point there's only two Terminator stories I'd be interested in.

A Logan esque road movie with Sarah and John in what if timeline where Skynet was briefly active and attacks, but the Connors intervention essentially prevents an actual rise of the machines. Thus you have a devastated landscape but without the robot conflict, examining how both of them are trying to find their place in world that's neither at peace or war.

-A Gremlins 2 like wacky self parody of the entire franchise, making fun of all the plot holes and with various John Connor actors running into each other. All while various Arnold Terminators fight the T-1000 & TX before battling each other.

[Zargon]

This is the Hollywood problem. The franchise movie that was both popular and made money is the one they keep trying to remake. It's simple enough: they want to make a popular movie that makes them money. So they try and copy the one good one.

[phantom000]

This is the Hollywood problem. The franchise movie that was both popular and made money is the one they keep trying to remake. It's simple enough: they want to make a popular movie that makes them money. So they try and copy the one good one.

Yeah, there are a number of films that are not really bad in and of themselves, but you can tell its the studio trying to squeeze more money out of a franchise that has ran its course. Either the story is over , or else the premise has been exhausted either way there is nothing left to do.

I call it '3 syndrome' because a lot of '3' movies seem to have this problem, Robocop 3, Alien 3, Terminator 3, Jurassic Park 3, they are not bad films, but it is clear they were made just to bank on previous films' success.

[Zargon]

The big problem is Hollywood does not "get" why a movie is popular and in turn makes money, because they are so out of touch. When they watch the movie they see the most superficial thing and say "oh so this is why the dumb movie viewers like the movie".

Star Trek II is a great example. Many people, even more so Star Trek and Sci Fi haters will say that it's a "Good Movie". And it made enough money...so they want to copy that again and again and again. That is why, sadly, every Star Trek movie has a have an "insane bad character" as the big foe.

[phantom000]

The big problem is Hollywood does not "get" why a movie is popular and in turn makes money, because they are so out of touch. When they watch the movie they see the most superficial thing and say "oh so this is why the dumb movie viewers like the movie".

Star Trek II is a great example. Many people, even more so Star Trek and Sci Fi haters will say that it's a "Good Movie". And it made enough money...so they want to copy that again and again and again. That is why, sadly, every Star Trek movie has a have an "insane bad character" as the big foe.

I wonder how many studio executives actually watch movies these days?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The big problem is Hollywood does not "get" why a movie is popular and in turn makes money, because they are so out of touch. When they watch the movie they see the most superficial thing and say "oh so this is why the dumb movie viewers like the movie".

Star Trek II is a great example. Many people, even more so Star Trek and Sci Fi haters will say that it's a "Good Movie". And it made enough money...so they want to copy that again and again and again. That is why, sadly, every Star Trek movie has a have an "insane bad character" as the big foe.

I wonder how many studio executives actually watch movies these days?

Oh they watch them. Watch them on their marketing charts. Hey o