I liked Terminator and Terminator 2, and stopped caring after that. So perhaps I am jaundiced, or cynical. But I still can’t quite grasp what the attraction is for this:
[James] Cameron is currently discussing the possibility of updating the franchise with a trio of films. “I am in discussions with David Ellison, who is the current rights holder globally for the Terminator franchise and the rights in the U.S. market revert to me under U.S. copyright law in a year and a half so he and I are talking about what we can do. Right now we are leaning toward doing a three-film arc and reinventing it.”
(H/T @DMC_Ryan) My problem here may be that the first and second Terminator movies were able to tell two different, but equally reasonable stories about destiny. The first one had the moral of Sometimes the things that you do to prevent an outcome make that outcome happen instead. The second one had the moral of Destiny is what you make of it. Which is great; only, every film since then seems determined to keep the timeline (and thus, destiny) locked to one where Skynet wakes up and kills humanity.
:shrug: Well, OK. Not interested in that story, sorry. But I guess the franchise plays well overseas? …Which I guess answers the question in the title.
That and Arnold probably likes getting the paychecks each new Terminator movie gets him.
Not really interested, no.
.
I take the position that the first Terminator is the only really good film in the series. T2 was good on its own terms, but made absolute hash of the philosophical underpinnings of T1, and my enjoyment of it is inversely proportional to my remembrance of that fact. T3 was a disappointment that only existed to get you to the final five minutes, which both underwhelmed on their own “merits,” and managed to undo everything good about T2. Salvation was a mess that would have been better if they’d had the courage to follow through with their original plan and kill John Connor.
.
And then there’s Genisys. God help me, I actually had a good time watching Genisys. Not because it’s a good film, oh no. Conceptually, it’s a fresh dog turd dipped in toxic waste. But I was pleased to see that the people writing the film were fully aware of how tortured the timeline was by that point, and said to themselves, “Selves,” they said, “F*** it, let’s just write whatever we want and have a blast.” Old Arnold fighting young Arnold? Great! John Connor as a Terminator? Cool, never been done, toss it in the stew. Sarah Connor saving Kyle Reese? Boom, baby, caught you with a reversal! And everything is justified by timeline changes, which can now be whatever, whenever, wherever, and to whichever level of severity we want! Plus, I actually thought Emilia Clarke did a decent job as Sarah Connor, and I’ll never complain about her being adorably “tough” while rocking an 80’s ponytail.
.
But now they want to reboot? Sorry, not on board. Why does everything need to be a three-film arc anyway? Anyway, you don’t have to reboot. Just follow Genisys up with a direct sequel that manages to change everything that you need changed because “timeline manipulation,” and I’ll probably watch that in hopes of having another few good chuckles.
I actually enjoyed Terminator Genisys, which was more a story that it’s really hard to defeat an enemy that can alter time.
.
That said, the Terminator franchise does suffer from the Gilligan’s Island Conundrum: what the heroes want more than anything, and are constantly working to achieve, is the one thing that can never, ever happen as long as people want to see more episodes.
I actually didn’t mind 3, but it was clear the tank was empty. Salvation was alright as a Terminator side story, as it more or less contributed nothing to the series but worked on its own in a limited fashion. That was the summer of “Sam Worthington is a star! No, really! Why doesn’t anyone believe me! Oh fine, have it your way.” Genisys… took a pass.
No love or even a mention of the series the Sarah Connor Chronicles? Cersei before Cersie? River Tam reincarnated as a friendly killer robot?
I really liked the series, even though by the second half of the season you started asking if anyone in Los Angeles was not a time traveller from the future. Was very pissed that it seemed a victim of Fox’s guilt over canceling Firefly too soon. In spring of 2009 both SCC and the piece of turd known as Joss Whedon’s dollhouse were both up for renewal by Fox with borderline ratings. Fox picked up Dollhouse for a second season and killed SCC, and the only plausible explanation was they did not want to be blamed for ruining another Joss Whedon thing. They kill it quickly in S2 anyway as it deserved.
Dollhouse is better than you’re giving it credit for. It is a fairly well-made series with a very ugly premise, and I’m not at all surprised that it didn’t catch on…but given the network interference that screwed with the (much better) original pilot, it was done about as well as it could have been.
.
As for SCC, the less said the better. Simply put, I love Summer Glau, and even SHE couldn’t induce me to continue watching.
“Fairly well-made” and “ugly premise” is not exactly praise. But in fact it was krep. SCC aside, it never would have or should have seen a second season except for the fear of a Firefly style backlash.
I wasn’t trying to praise it. It has an interesting near-future sci-fi concept that was rife with possibilities (too few of which were realized), and some very good supporting actors (particularly Dichen Lachman and Enver Gjokaj). It suffers from plot drag, especially in the first half-season, and a miscast lead — the show never would have been made without Eliza Dushku’s involvement, but she’s simply not versatile enough to sustain the variety of roles she would have been required to play. I am both more generous and more accurate than you in calling it an interesting misfire.
.
As for the ugliness of the premise, I stand by that. I don’t believe in slavery, consensual or otherwise — and consensual slavery is, even on the best possible terms, what the Dollhouse would amount to. But I also stand by my statement that it was done about as well as it could have been…because humans are fallen creatures, the ugliness of the premise is inevitable. In a world with a Dollhouse, where at least some of our fantasies could be made real, we would reveal to ourselves the darkest, most depraved, and most pathetic aspects of our natures. It doesn’t make for uplifting primetime TV.*
.
So no, I don’t agree with your completely unsupported statement that Dollhouse was “krep.” We do agree that the Firefly backlash was a factor in Dollhouse’s renewal; however, another factor you may not be considering is the production of Epitaph One, which convinced Fox execs that taking a flier on Dollhouse might be financially feasible even with low ratings. (Turns out it wasn’t. Still, without that episode, their accountants would never have let them consider a second season, backlash or no.)
.
* (It is interesting to chart the increasing disillusionment at the core of Joss Whedon’s works over the course of about 15 years. Buffy: We can make a difference in the world, with a little help from our friends. Angel: We probably can’t make a lasting difference in the world, but it doesn’t matter, because we save ourselves by saving others. Firefly: We can’t make a difference because the system is rigged against us, but we can still carve out a little piece of the ‘verse for ourselves and live on our own terms. Dollhouse: The system can make us into whatever it wants, and we will have to struggle even to recover our authentic selves from its clutches; anything more is flatly impossible without destroying the system before it destroys us. I like to think this devolution is a combination of his growing disenchantment with show business and his growing frustration with the direction of American politics over that period.)