Terminator Franchise To Be Auctioned Off

First two films? by soupforare · 2009-11-02 07:40 · Score: 4, Funny

They made more than two?

--
--- Do you believe in the day?

Re:First two films? by sexconker · 2009-11-02 08:19 · Score: 5, Informative

They only made 2.
WTF are you talking about?
Re:First two films? by an+unsound+mind · 2009-11-02 08:33 · Score: 1

Heretic.
Re:First two films? by mattack2 · 2009-11-02 08:33 · Score: 1

Yes, and I think that the third movie is unfairly maligned. It wasn't as good as the first two, but it was entertaining. (I haven't seen the 4th.)
I liked the tv show a lot too.
Re:First two films? by plague3106 · 2009-11-02 08:50 · Score: 1

The second was deep and profound, and at the end offered hope. The third was special effects we've pretty much already seen, no real story, and quashed any hope. As an action movie, it wasn't too bad, but it didn't do much else. The final one was much the same... exploring the future we haven't seen, but it wasn't much more than an action flick.
Re:First two films? by Killeryugi · 2009-11-02 08:57 · Score: 1

Why yes they did! Terminator 3: The Coming Storm was pretty good.
Re:First two films? by Virak · 2009-11-02 09:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

The third movie was very fairly maligned. Sure, it might have been halfway decent by itself. But as the sequel to Terminator 2, which was basically perfection in action movie form, merely decent isn't enough. It completely shat all over the "they finally beat Skynet and saved humanity!" thing, the characters weren't as well developed, the story didn't have as much depth, it wasn't nearly as tight (T2 advanced the plot in basically every scene and certainly didn't put any to waste), the Terminator in it wasn't really likable (T1's was an unstoppable killing machine; T2's was an unstoppable killing machine with a heart of gold; T3's was just a dick), the action wasn't as good, and the movie simply had overall a significantly different (and worse) feel from either of the previous ones.
Re:First two films? by Maxo-Texas · 2009-11-02 09:33 · Score: 1

The third changed the basic message of the series from "you can change your fate" to "you can't change your fate".
It's kinda like bringing "Lord of the Rings 4: Turns out Sauron and the Ring are still doing fine" so they can make more money.
The fourth wasn't bad.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:First two films? by blincoln · 2009-11-02 10:14 · Score: 3, Funny

The fourth wasn't bad.
I think you misspelled "the fourth one was the most franchise-destroying, poorly-written, poorly-directed, poorly-acted, absolute failure of a film of all time, and McG should have committed ritual suicide in a futile attempt to atone for his sins." It's an easy mistake to make.

--
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Re:First two films? by Sillygates · 2009-11-02 10:38 · Score: 3, Funny

http://xkcd.com/566/ ;-)

--
I fear the Y2038 bug
Re:First two films? by Sark666 · 2009-11-02 10:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

T1 hammers home the point you can't change shit. Arnie comes back and a protector follows ensuring the birth of Cyberdine and of john connor. T2 is the exception implying they can change things but they don't. T3 continues with the original vein of not being able to change anything, it's going to happen. So I'm not sure what gave you that impression with the series...
Re:First two films? by jez9999 · 2009-11-02 10:48 · Score: 4, Funny

the Terminator in it wasn't really likable (T1's was an unstoppable killing machine; T2's was an unstoppable killing machine with a heart of gold; T3's was just a dick)
Actually, the one thing T3's didn't have was a dick.

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Re:First two films? by jack2000 · 2009-11-02 10:49 · Score: 2, Informative

You're wrong, where have you been getting your information from? I know of no third or fourth sequels.
Re:First two films? by Maxo-Texas · 2009-11-02 11:09 · Score: 1

I liked the concept of a terminator that was unaware it was a terminator and the movie didn't violate the canon of the first two movies.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:First two films? by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2009-11-02 12:00 · Score: 2, Funny

The keys are, like, right next to each other.

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Re:First two films? by Mister_Stoopid · 2009-11-02 12:09 · Score: 1

Mod parent -1, Incorrect In This Timeline
Re:First two films? by DavidTC · 2009-11-02 12:26 · Score: 3, Funny

I know where he's confused.
They made two movies and then a TV series.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:First two films? by JackieBrown · 2009-11-02 12:29 · Score: 1

You see any copies out there with seeds? I did an quick check and did not.
Re:First two films? by JackieBrown · 2009-11-02 12:32 · Score: 1

I understand denying the second highlander since the following movies did as well.
I guess you can ignore the last 2 terminator movies if you count TSCC
Re:First two films? by DavidTC · 2009-11-02 12:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Dude, did you even see the first movie? Why did you decide 'the basic message of series' was that you can change your fate? That held for maybe one movie, although it was really just them being optimistic.
Trying to make sense of the time travel 'rules' in Terminators movies is stupid.
The most logical assumption is that you can, in fact, change the future, but you can't change 'fate'. No matter what you do, you always have a Skynet and you always have John Connor fighting it and sending people back.
This premise of time travel works for every movie and TV show and video game and whatnot. Anything else is just people making stuff up.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:First two films? by sexconker · 2009-11-02 12:35 · Score: 1

There are 2 movies, and a respectable short for an attraction at Universal Studios, Terminator 2: 3D.
Re:First two films? by DavidTC · 2009-11-02 12:45 · Score: 1

Oh, and before anyone says anything, T3 was somewhat lame, and T4 sucked. But they didn't suck because they 'changed the basic message of the series', they sucked because they were shitty movies.
They would have been fine movies with slightly better plotting and a lot better writing and directing.
Also, three leading to four didn't make any sense either. You can't introduce the premise that John Connor is standing there starting the rebellion in that old base, and then suddenly transition to the next movie where he's a famous 'rebellion leader wannabe' or something. (Why the hell would he even tell people he was supposed to be 'the leader'?)
If I was writing T3, I would have had the reveal they couldn't stop Skynet about an hour from the end, Judgment Day about 30 minutes, and had Connor spend the rest of the movie attempting to hold humanity together via radio and inform people what was going on and how to fight back.
While, of course, we had an epic terminator vs. terminator battle outside.
But, instead, we got really shitty writing.
But the 'rules' are just fine.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:First two films? by Valdrax · 2009-11-02 13:22 · Score: 2, Funny

Ha ha! What a kidder. Next thing you'll be telling us is that someone made a sequel to the original Highlander movie!

--
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Re:First two films? by complete+loony · 2009-11-02 15:22 · Score: 1

I know of no second or third sequels.
Fixed that for you, since obviously the first movie isn't a sequel...

--
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
Re:First two films? by bennomatic · 2009-11-02 16:47 · Score: 1

Yeah, I figured it was something like that. I love the vehemence with which people adhere to their own self-deception. Reminds me of Fox News.

--
The CB App. What's your 20?
Re:First two films? by cgenman · 2009-11-02 16:47 · Score: 1

Halfway decent might be a stretch for T3. Out of the entire thing, the only action scene worth watching was the amazing truck-through-building scene (and good on Arnie for funding that himself). Nick Stahl and Claire Danes both struggled to draw anything out of their characters besides "terrified" and "morose." In stark contrast to Arnie's relentless killing machine and Robert Patrick's secret stabbing machine of death, Kristanna Loken's secret weapon was apparently inflatable breasts. Thanks, writers! That's a surefire way to instill terror and respect in your audience.
The story lacked any of the humanizing elements of the first two films, and didn't utilize any of that universe in a particularly creative way (Like the T101 vs T1000 brawls). Taken outside of the Terminator universe, it makes even less sense, alternating between "eh" quality action sequences to drippy and sometimes painful dialog. It was an action film without much action, and an atmospheric film without any tension.
Personally, I'm glad to hear that the Terminator Franchise is getting auctioned off. I doubt Cameron has the time or inclination to buy it back, but I do hope it goes into better hands. That's a rich universe, just waiting for a skilled storyteller. Jonathan Mostow was clearly not that person. Neither was McG. Hopefully the next person to direct the series won't be some cut-rate music video developer, and instead will go to someone that understands that all films are drawn together by the human element, not in spite of it.

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:First two films? by Toonol · 2009-11-02 20:20 · Score: 1

True, but the 2nd changed the basic message of the series from "you can't change your fate" to "you can change your fate". I'm not sure why the 3rd should be more condemned than the second for that. I don't particularly like the 3rd, but not for that reason.
Re:First two films? by MrKaos · 2009-11-02 23:11 · Score: 2, Informative

and good on Arnie for
Apparently Arnie wanted to overdub the German version himself because he speaks German but the directors wouldn't let him because his Austrian accent would have made the Terminator sound like a German farmer.
Now that would have been a real good comedic twist.

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Re:First two films? by mqduck · 2009-11-03 01:25 · Score: 1

Terminator had an interesting sci-fi plot. T2 was nothing but mindless action, which just bores me. I don't know why everyone loved #2 so much.

--
Property is theft.
Re:First two films? by Nicolay77 · 2009-11-03 03:28 · Score: 1

I think the 4th movie was very good.
Of course, I totally ignore the existence of a third movie.
To me it's just 1st, 2nd, 4th.

--
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
Re:First two films? by Maxo-Texas · 2009-11-03 03:28 · Score: 1

I went back and have to agree that the first movie is a loop which they don't break out of.
I had merged the 2nd and 1st movie into one story by the time the 3rd movie came out. The second movie had closed so solidly without a twist ending that really the story was done for me with a final message of "you can change your fate". Rather than the second movie changing the point of the series, it made the point.
But then the 3rd movie flipped it all back and then it became, "what is the point of this series?" If it is not about fate, changing or unchanging, then what other message is there?
I would have liked the last terminator movie a lot more if they had not blown the secret in the advertising campaign. The concept was actually intriguing and they could have made it without violating canon.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:First two films? by Golddess · 2009-11-03 06:29 · Score: 1

That held for maybe one movie
Which is also half of the movies that really matter.

No, I'm not talking about the "movies 3 and 4 don't exist" thing. I'm referring to the fact that (to the best of my knowledge at least) James Cameron had nothing to do with movies 3 and 4.

--
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Re:First two films? by IndustrialComplex · 2009-11-03 06:57 · Score: 1

I would have liked the last terminator movie a lot more if they had not blown the secret in the advertising campaign. The concept was actually intriguing and they could have made it without violating canon.
That really did it for me as well. Far too many studios let the marketeers blow their 'reveals' in the trailers. I wonder if that trend hasn't hurt their sales just as much as piracy has.
Of course, I'm one of the types who goes to great lengths to avoid spoilers. I pardon accidental slips, or things that are so well known they have become memes, 'No, I am your father.' or 'Snape kills Dumbledore', but never the first person.
In fact, the guy that first broke that latter spoiler to me is still buried somewhere in upstate NY.

--
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Re:First two films? by Elky+Elk · 2009-11-03 22:27 · Score: 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKCAGb6Pzcg The third was made by Merchant Ivory.
Re:First two films? by WCLPeter · 2009-11-04 19:22 · Score: 1

They only made 2.
Not only did they only make 2 really great movies, they also followed that up with a really kick ass TV show that Fox, in its seemingly infinite wisdom, decided to cancel with one of the biggest cliffhangers in television (also matched by the cliffhanger at the end of Space Above and Beyond, another Fox show).
Who knows, with the stinkers of the two that shall not be named (although Marcus was an *awesome* character who I was fully rooting for to take over the Connor role in the end), it might get sold cheaply enough that someone could use the leftover funds to use making a new TSCC. Perhaps put it on HBO and give it a slightly darker, edgier, feel for a more adult audience?

Does the state of California come with it? by syousef · 2009-11-02 07:41 · Score: 5, Funny

...or do you have to buy the governator separately?

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer

Re:Does the state of California come with it? by Clipless · 2009-11-02 08:04 · Score: 4, Funny

Actually, I think you inherit California's debt. That is why Halcyon had to file for chapter 11.
Re:Does the state of California come with it? by sexconker · 2009-11-02 08:25 · Score: 5, Funny

First of all I just want to make sure you
understand that California's economy isn't
controlled by the governor. The legislature
killed off any hopes of a balanced budget.
You were obviously making a joke at the expense
of the state of California. but it was just
unfunny and shitty.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Re:Does the state of California come with it? by h4rm0ny · 2009-11-02 09:26 · Score: 4, Funny

You know, I read that as a joke at first. And then I looked at your username and thought to myself... what wouldArnold pick?

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Re:Does the state of California come with it? by The+Grim+Reefer2 · 2009-11-02 10:01 · Score: 1

...or do you have to buy the governator separately?
That's actually an interesting question. I believe that they digitized Arnold after the third movie and they used a computerized model of him in the last one. So if someone purchased the franchise, do they also own the digital Arnold?
Re:Does the state of California come with it? by Samgilljoy · 2009-11-02 11:21 · Score: 1

It's not just the legislature; it's the stupid freaking proposition process. Time and again demagogues convince the ignorant populace to mandate a certain amount of spending on this or that. Often, annual increases in spending are mandated regardless of changing revenues. Just brilliant. So, at this point, about 85% of our budget is locked without any legislation. You simply cannot govern with so little control.
Re:Does the state of California come with it? by mrmeval · 2009-11-02 11:41 · Score: 1

It will be sold to the syfylus channel and the CGI'd bot will have neo-sex with an anaconda.

--
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Re:Does the state of California come with it? by Arthur+Grumbine · 2009-11-02 12:09 · Score: 1

You know, I read that as a joke at first. And then I looked at your username and thought to myself... what wouldArnold pick?
Hmmm... WWAP? I sense a new line of apparel geared towards the Hollywood A-list megastar looking for guidance and inspiration in pursuing politics. Unfortunately the target clientele are few in quantity. Fortunately they are known for spending absurd amounts of money on useless shit.

--
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
Re:Does the state of California come with it? by sexconker · 2009-11-02 12:34 · Score: 1

Whoosh.
http://dscriber.com/home/571-arnold-to-california-lawmakers-f-u-c-k-y-o-u.html
Re:Does the state of California come with it? by JackieBrown · 2009-11-02 12:35 · Score: 1

I believe that they digitized Arnold after the third movie and they used a computerized model of him in the last one.

So you are referring to the 4th movies twice, correct? Or has there been a 5th one made and I missed it?
Re:Does the state of California come with it? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-11-02 20:39 · Score: 1

ArnoldBraunschweiger

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:Does the state of California come with it? by drinkypoo · 2009-11-03 01:59 · Score: 1

Inauthentic: You must use the word "fuck" at least once per paragraph.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Does the state of California come with it? by kungfugleek · 2009-11-03 02:03 · Score: 1

Sadly, I have no mod points to give you, h4rm0ny.
Re:Does the state of California come with it? by despisethesun · 2009-11-03 05:06 · Score: 1

He didn't in this one: http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/114612/original.jpg

Story here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/schwarzenegger-sends-lawm_n_336319.html

--
This poo is cold.

First two films excluded... by Shivetya · 2009-11-02 07:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

from the same camp which some of us are sure that there are only three Indy films.

I would prefer it to die, considering that since the second movie, what have we gotten? If it were not for a certain actresses connection to another cult fave who would have put up with the series? That was jump shark city.

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.

Re:First two films excluded... by ari_j · 2009-11-02 07:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hey, I personally really enjoyed the Summer Glau Fun Hour. I was sure that, at any minute, they would have a coherent plot, but that wasn't even a small part of my enjoyment.
Re:First two films excluded... by somersault · 2009-11-02 07:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

I thought the first series was great. Summer Glau was a nice bonus of course. Second series got a bit slow in the middle, but it was picking up again towards the end.
I hope whoever buys up the rights continues TTSCC..

--
which is totally what she said
Re:First two films excluded... by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2009-11-02 08:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

There was a coherent plot. Or rather, there were several coherent subplots, which wove together in a fascinating and (IMO) very believable way. This took more than five minutes to develop, and didn't involve misplaced Transformers with motorcycles in their legs, so a lot of people might have missed it.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:First two films excluded... by petrus4 · 2009-11-02 08:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

I would prefer it to die, considering that since the second movie, what have we gotten? If it were not for a certain actresses connection to another cult fave who would have put up with the series? That was jump shark city.
James Cameron's canon ended with T2. Although it's not shown in the film, at the end of the T2 novel, Connor and the Resistance succeed in beating Skynet.
Sarah dies in that novel as well. She was with John almost up until the end of the war; it was only at about the second last engagement with the Machines, where she is killed on a supply run.
Cameron refused to be involved with T4; he made the comment that he'd said everything he wanted to say by the end of T2.
Re:First two films excluded... by ari_j · 2009-11-02 08:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

My problem was that the show had too many subplots that were not, in fact, coherent. At the very least, the coherence developed too slowly for the show to remain on the air long enough to piece things together. If too many people miss the point, the show gets canceled. I find Heroes suffering from the same thing - lack of a clear direction for at least the past season and a half. Sarah Conner Chronicles had a lot of untapped potential, which should have been tapped early enough to keep it on the air. There were a few good characters, some good commentary-on-the-world, and some good plotlines, none of which came together in a sustainable way.
Re:First two films excluded... by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2009-11-02 08:21 · Score: 1

They kind of deliberately broke everything in the series finale. A third season of TTSCC would have been great, but if they were going to make one, the second season would almost surely not have ended the way it did. It's kind of hard to see how the series would go from the season ending they made -- or rather, it could certainly go on, but it would really be a completely different show.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:First two films excluded... by natehoy · 2009-11-02 08:21 · Score: 4, Funny

...some of us are sure that there are only three Indy films.
Wait a second, there ARE only three Indy films. Why do you mention that fact like it's some sort of controversy? But I can understand how people could get confused. Lead actors occasionally play other roles.
I do remember the MacGyver spinoff that Harrison Ford starred in, "crystal head" or something. I understand that some people think that had something to do with the Jones franchise, since Ford was the lead character in all the Indy films.
But that's just confusion on their part, same as someone thinking that there was more than one "Die Hard" movie just because Willis starred in some other flicks, or that there are more than three Star Wars movies.
PS: I'm not sure what they are selling off. There are really two Terminator films.
Maybe they are trying to sell off "Summer Glau Show" off as part of the Terminator franchise (in which, if I could understand the plot, has something to do with her being a Terminator. I'm not entirely sure, though, because people keep blathering and getting on screen and sometimes blocking a clear view of her.) If so, that show can come back. Keep her and the mom, drop the young dude who appears to be Anakin Skywalker as a kid or something (boy genius who whines a lot about some destiny). Might sell a few ads on an off night and pay for itself if they don't try to spend too much time developing a cohesive plot or special effects that aren't wardrobe-related.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:First two films excluded... by an+unsound+mind · 2009-11-02 08:43 · Score: 1

It actually became decently coherent alongside the five last episodes.
The problem were the boring, excessively tiresome twenty six episodes before those last five.
Re:First two films excluded... by petrus4 · 2009-11-02 09:03 · Score: 1

Just to add a further minor, speculative point to this...
The only real reason why Connor's Resistance is able to beat Skynet in the T1/T2 scenario, is because in that scenario, Skynet remains the sole sentient, or close to sentient AI on the face of the planet.
In The Matrix, of course, by contrast, there was a scenario where the acorporeal AIs begin to outnumber the humans very rapidly.
We see a scenario like that beginning to develop in SCC, however, with Cromartie and Weaver. It becomes obvious that some of the more advanced Terminators are developing their own goals. Once a scenario like that were to develop, the humans' chances of maintaining containment of the AIs (and thus, still having a chance to destroy them completely) would drop to almost nil.
Re:First two films excluded... by h4rm0ny · 2009-11-02 09:32 · Score: 1

And the reason for that, is because the people making the series never know when somebody with a ratings sheet is going to either cut them off short or announce that they have to do an entire third series. Decent pacing is hard enough when you know how many episodes you're going to make. It's far harder when the number could double at any moment.

The writers for T:TSCC were desperately trying to avoid writing themselves into a corner. And they actually did a pretty good job, imo. Look at Battlestar Galactica for an example of where the creators do write themselves into a corner. One good series. Two good series. Third is what the Hell are we doing? Fourth (fifth) is how the Hell do we get out of this. They did an okay job all things considered, but it was apparent they didn't know what they were doing.

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Re:First two films excluded... by elrous0 · 2009-11-02 09:40 · Score: 1

Dude when are you going to accept that they raped Indy? Stop suppressing the memory, people, it really happened!

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:First two films excluded... by elrous0 · 2009-11-02 09:47 · Score: 1

Didn't the first film indicate that Skynet had a Russian counterpart too?

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:First two films excluded... by Blakey+Rat · 2009-11-02 10:04 · Score: 1

Heroes?
I'm more amazed Heroes even got a second, or third, season and is still on. Heroes season 1 was by far the worst-written TV series I've ever watched.

--
Comment of the year
Re:First two films excluded... by somersault · 2009-11-02 10:04 · Score: 1

It would be a very different direction for the show sure (IMO it would be what the fourth film should have been), but it still had all the main characters and the unusual premise of John not even being a famous leader in their universe. If they released the plot as a book I'd definitely get it..

--
which is totally what she said
Re:First two films excluded... by Yvan256 · 2009-11-02 10:22 · Score: 1

I think you're confusing Skynet with Colossus.
Re:First two films excluded... by bertoelcon · 2009-11-02 10:41 · Score: 1

The writers for T:TSCC were desperately trying to avoid writing themselves into a corner.
If only they hadn't done the show in a way that voids the third movie.

--
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
Re:First two films excluded... by natehoy · 2009-11-02 10:43 · Score: 1

(closes eyes)
"It wasn't real. It never happened."
"It wasn't real. It never happened."
"It wasn't real. It never happened."
"It wasn't real. It never happened."
"It wasn't real. It never happened."
"It wasn't real. It never happened."
"It wasn't real. It never happened."
(puts fingers in ears)
"LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-La-La-la-l-.."
(sobs uncontrollably)

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:First two films excluded... by Kjella · 2009-11-02 10:48 · Score: 1

I find Heroes suffering from the same thing - lack of a clear direction for at least the past season and a half.
At this point, I think it's an exercise in creating the most wtf relationship map ever. Like Syler that is *spoiler alert* halfway in some other man's body and halfway in some other man's mind. Not to mention all the wtfs in the Pitrelli and Hiro's family. At least you don't have a problem letting actors go, you could plot-twist kill anyone, any time.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:First two films excluded... by kylemonger · 2009-11-02 10:50 · Score: 1

The development of multiple AI's was one of the points I liked about SCC. By pushing Judgment Day back they made it possible for multiple weakly-superhuman AI's to come on the scene. Enlisting these beings as allies is probably the only way to keep the nuclear armageddon from happening. Trying to stem the tide of technological development was definitely a losing strategy, something the main characters should have come to grips with in season 1, frankly.
Re:First two films excluded... by DavidTC · 2009-11-02 13:18 · Score: 1

It doesn't. It's just in a different history.
There are two possibilities: 1) The movie timeline, with T3, was first, and the trip back that started TSCC was an alteration of that.
Aka, the events at the start of TSCC were the same as the events at the start of T2...they postponed Judgment Day for a bit, and altered things, but it still happened.
This has the rather disconcerting fact that without the Connors wandering around, Judgement Day happened later! (Fanwank: Perhaps there was a 'Terminator 2.5' movie we, and John Connor, never knew about, where a terminator came back to, say, 2001, and got killed without Connor or the audience noticing...and its parts were used help skynet. But in the SCC where he jumped forward, Skynet didn't even vaguely know where he was and thus didn't try to kill him.)
2) The SCC happened 'first', and originally.
But at some point at the end of that story, someone was going to go back to before all this, and stop the entire series from happening at all, thus letting T3 happen. As it's been hinted that in the 'current' future, Connor was dead and Cameron was running things, we can see a rational for changing all that.(By 'current future', I meant the five minutes before the end of the series, not the one at the end.)
The entire series timeline is a mismash of paradoxical nonsense, so saying something 'voided' something else is silly. Yes, we've now seen two alternatives 2007, but we'd already seen two alternatives 1997s! We just don't have any story to tell us which 2007 was altered into the other one, and thus we don't know which is 'real', or, at least, current.
And the last five minutes nullified all the movies. Skynet isn't going to send anyone back in time to kill Sarah Connor now, so no one's sending Kyle back there either.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:First two films excluded... by DavidTC · 2009-11-02 13:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's not shown at the end of the second film, but it is explained right at the start of the first film if you pay attention.
It clearly says that the final battle would be fought here...tonight.
Now, if Skynet had killed Connor retroactively, that would have been the final battle of humans, but that didn't happen, so that's not what it was talking about.
No, Skynet only sends the terminator back because it lost. Human burst in, and it fired up the experimental time machine and it sends two terminators back. One to 1984 and one to 1995. (If you think about which was sent where, and what Skynet had to have know about each time, you'll realize it makes sense. Remember the first one managed to kill two Sarah Connors.)
The humans quickly send Reese back, and then they quickly reprogram the other Arnold that's laying around and send him back too.
Perhaps this was two different battles, or two different facilities, but anyway, the point is, the time machines were, essentially, the last stand before Skynet was defeated. (Logically, you don't want to let your enemies have access to your time machines, so they'd be almost as well protected as yourself.)
I suspect that Skynet figured out altering the past was just as big a threat to it as anything else, hence the time machine being used only when it about to be defeated.
If you're wondering about T3, that actually took place in a different future, after T2 moved judgment day. (Which means that Skynet was right about time travel being a threat to it, as the Skynet from the first two movies is essentially dead, or rather never existed.)

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:First two films excluded... by schon · 2009-11-02 13:43 · Score: 1

If only they hadn't done the show in a way that voids the third movie.
Why? The third movie sucked. When Sarah Connor Chronicles was first announced, I read an interview with the creator who said "The show happens in a different timeline than the third movie" - which I interpreted as "the third movie sucked - this is how it *should* have happened."
I'm glad they threw the third movie under the bus and forged their own story - it was the only decent way to save the storyline.
Re:First two films excluded... by petrus4 · 2009-11-02 19:38 · Score: 1

If you're wondering about T3, that actually took place in a different future, after T2 moved judgment day. (Which means that Skynet was right about time travel being a threat to it, as the Skynet from the first two movies is essentially dead, or rather never existed.)
I know. Good explanation, though. :)
Re:First two films excluded... by TheLink · 2009-11-02 21:27 · Score: 1

> I do remember the MacGyver spinoff that Harrison Ford starred in, "crystal head" or something

MacGyver? I must have missed that one. I only caught the recent Tarzan spinoff with Harrison Ford where Tarzan Boy was swinging from tree to tree in a chase sequence at one point.

That was a terrible movie. I set my expectations low when I started watching, but I had to crank it down even lower when Tarzan Boy did his stuff.
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:First two films excluded... by haggisbrain · 2009-11-03 00:50 · Score: 1

and then they quickly reprogram the other
Why would it have to be quickly if they have a time machine? ;-)
Re:First two films excluded... by JosKarith · 2009-11-03 01:15 · Score: 1

Nope, that's fine. Voiding ROTM doesn't even rank as Unimportant on the scale of things i'd like to avoid.

--
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
Re:First two films excluded... by petrus4 · 2009-11-03 05:51 · Score: 1

Why would it have to be quickly if they have a time machine? ;-)
Because apart from anything else, a time machine is never going to change anything in the past of your own timeline.
Skynet probably didn't (and probably couldn't have) know that, but the best it could have accomplished by sending its' two Terminators back, was to create another timeline where it won. It had already lost in the timeline that the robots were sent back from.
I don't believe that time travel would or could work by going into the past of a single timeline. Instead, the scenario is like Sliders; you're actually going into another universe, (one of the closest neighbouring ones to your own, in quantum/probabilistic terms) but just at a point in its' progression which corresponds with a certain number of years in the past.
So it most likely would resemble your own past sufficiently closely that, for the most part, you could mistake it for your own actual past; even though it wouldn't be.
Re:First two films excluded... by camazotz · 2009-11-03 05:56 · Score: 1

Your summary of the films have finally put them in proper perspective for me, thanks! I've always enjoyed the Terminator films....I'm not a rabid fan, so I have no loathing for the most recent one, either--it was a fun film, a few flaws overall, but fun--and I find that first two enjoyable but have carefully avoided looking back on them with rose colored glasses, and found that they still hold up rather well. I also loved the third movie more than I probably should, if only because it managed to inject a sense of desperation and doom in to the series that resonated well.
Re:First two films excluded... by camazotz · 2009-11-03 06:06 · Score: 1

I fail to understand those who decry the fourth Indy film. Honestly, I haven't seen or read an adequate explanation for this hatred, other than that the very particular filtered perceptions and expectations of that individual somehow are not fulfilled by the film in question. Just because you were not happy with the film does not mean you're interpretation of "what it should have been" was right. I am happy to remain in the camp of "people who do not get overly worked up about cinema and spend their time wrapped in vitriol about perceived injustices on film." It doesn't mean I can't recognize a bad movie when I see it...but this movie was most certainly not bad, nor did it fail to live up to my expectations of what an aging late 50's Indy would be like. Plus, it did something I felt was very significant, by keeping with the trend of the previous movies and showcasing the thematic pulp/adventure elements of the time period in question, complete with evil Russians, UFOs, atomic bombs and Fortean weirdness. Anyway, not trying to convince the haters that this movie was more than they think of it, just saying that you're not actually right about how allegedly deplorable this film was; you're just confused by your childhood memories and your modern expectations coming in to conflict and making you feel all confused inside. The only way they could have make an Indy film that would have satisfied all would have been to reboot the franchise. I am sure the will, eventually, but it was nice to see Indy in his old age doing what he does best, fighting the good fight against fascists and commies in the name of fantasy archaeology. (As a real archaeologist, I can assure you that the four Indy films always have and always will and should be about fantasy archaeology. The real thing is considerably less exciting, I assure you. Plus, Indy's a terrible role model for leaving a good site "in situ.")
Re:First two films excluded... by DavidTC · 2009-11-03 08:22 · Score: 1

Well, no, it can't really work like that in the Terminator universe.
If all trips were to another timeline, sending someone back to 'stop' the terminator in the first movie makes no sense. That terminator ended up in a universe where he won. You'd end up in a copy of that universe, which you could defeat it, but the 'original universe', where the terminator managed to kill Sarah Connor, still exists. (Or, more confusingly, Kyle could have ended up in an different copy of his past, and have no other terminator to fight.)
Trying to make sense of terminator time travel rules is pretty hard. They don't really make a lot of sense.
For it to work, you have to believe there's some sort of 'fated timeline', with time traveling humans and a Skynet losing the war. That no matter what, Skynet ends up happening, and ends up making a time machine.(Strictly speaking, we don't know who invented the time machine.) So we just essentially have an infinite number of loops until, at some point, we end up in a stable universe without some terminator running around in the past.
In fact, the premise requires that someone besides Connor original led the rebellion, as he couldn't have existed until someone else send Kyle Reese back. (Or possibly John Connor had a different father to start with.)
Incidentally, the last episode of the SCC had John end up in a future like that, so it is canonically possible for such a future to exist. Likewise, it had two people from the future running around who remembered different futures and they didn't know which future was which. (In fact, they came to the wrong conclusion, thinking they had just stopped the thing one of them remembered from happening when in fact they caused it.)
This raises an interesting idea: The T-100 from the second movie and the one from the third movie might, in fact, have been the 'same thing' from different timelines. In the T1 and T2 timeline, (1997 Judgment Day), a T-800 got sent back to kill Sarah, with Reese sent back to stop it. And a T-1000 got sent back to 1995 to kill John, with a reprogrammed T-800 to stop it.
In the T3 timeline (2004 Judgment Day), perhaps the same T-800 got sent back to kill Sarah, like before, but this time Skynet has a bit more information (There's a lot more computer information about the location of people saved in 2004 than 1997.) And, apparently, more technological advancement, so perhaps (the new) Skynet has a T-X instead of a T-1000, and instead of attempting to kill John in 1995, attempts to kill his lieutenants. And an T-800 is sent back to stop it...perhaps the 'same' T-800.
It's worth mentioning it's called a T-850 in T3 for some reason, but if technology is further along, as it clearly is, maybe it just has a different model number.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:First two films excluded... by geekoid · 2009-11-03 10:56 · Score: 1

"Because apart from anything else, a time machine is never going to change anything in the past of your own timeline."
Maybe. Maybe not.
There are other theories just as valid, unfortunately they make movie time travel pointless and remove the 'chase' so you won't really hear about them in a movie or TV show.
Going back in time might change the time line, but it would be instantaneously, so no one could notice. Nature deals with paradox all the time.
AS for a separate time line it would deviate at an incredibly rapid rate and increasing rate. In a few year it would hardly be recognizable.
THank abot going back in time and stopping 9/11.
In just 8 years how different would the world look?
We would have the post 9/11 stupidity, Bush probably wouldn't be reelected, the mideast would be different.
Of course, until we have an even better grasp of how we relate to time, we won't know. Or if someone can convince of a test, but the controls would be a pain, to say the least.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:First two films excluded... by Tim+Doran · 2009-11-03 13:48 · Score: 1

Dude. You just Blew My Mind.
Re:First two films excluded... by petrus4 · 2009-11-04 10:02 · Score: 1

Didn't the first film indicate that Skynet had a Russian counterpart too?
Rasputin never became self-aware; it never went close to Skynet's level.

Sarah Conner Chronicles by jameskojiro · 2009-11-02 07:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Was about the only good thing from the Terminator Franchise int he last 10 years.....

And that is Sad....

--
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...

Re:Sarah Conner Chronicles by kinabrew · 2009-11-02 13:26 · Score: 1

"About"?

Worthless by Itninja · 2009-11-02 07:44 · Score: 1

Without the first two films, I doubt it would be worth even half of what TMNT was. It like telling someone they now own every Lucasfilm property, except for anything relating to Star Wars.

--
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.

Re:Worthless by Abreu · 2009-11-02 07:51 · Score: 3, Funny

Hey, I am sure someone wants to buy Howard the Duck!

--
No sig for the moment.
Re:Worthless by Trepidity · 2009-11-02 08:04 · Score: 1

As far as existing films, sure, but they're basically selling the right to make future "Terminator" movies/shows/videogames/sweaters/whatever, which is still worth something.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Re:Worthless by megamerican · 2009-11-02 08:05 · Score: 1

T-H-X eleven-thirty-eight will be taken into custody at a minimal monetary expenditure. Total operation cost: six thousand credits under budget. Congratulations. Be efficient, be happy.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066434/

--
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
Re:Worthless by snspdaarf · 2009-11-02 08:27 · Score: 4, Funny

Hey, I am sure someone wants to buy Howard the Duck!
With any luck, it will be Tyson Foods.

--
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
Re:Worthless by Itninja · 2009-11-02 08:49 · Score: 1

Because everybody knows that the 5th sequel is the real money maker.

--
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Re:Worthless by h4rm0ny · 2009-11-02 09:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Fourth sequel. It would be the fifth film.

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Re:Worthless by elrous0 · 2009-11-02 09:44 · Score: 1

Hey, American Graffiti wasn't bad. I even liked the sequel.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Worthless by Yvan256 · 2009-11-02 10:24 · Score: 1

Maybe Itninja knows something about the next two movies...
Re:Worthless by Phantasmagoria · 2009-11-02 13:42 · Score: 1

I actually liked that movie - I remember it as "that odd night when I was tiny".

--
Loban Amaan Rahman ==> Anagram of ==> Aha! An Abnormal Man!
Re:Worthless by camazotz · 2009-11-03 06:08 · Score: 1

There is a remake underway, fyi. Waaaagh!

Re:I bid $1 by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2009-11-02 07:45 · Score: 5, Funny

You would get considerably more crossover cred with "I'd buy that for a dollar!"...

Whedon in the bidding by ajs · 2009-11-02 07:45 · Score: 3, Informative

Joss Whedon has issued an open letter, bidding $10,000 for the franchise.

It's funny as hell.

Re:Whedon in the bidding by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2009-11-02 07:56 · Score: 1

Seriously, that's probably the best thing that could possibly happen to it at this point. Too bad Whedon doesn't have the money for a real offer.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Whedon in the bidding by Locke2005 · 2009-11-02 08:04 · Score: 4, Funny

What's wrong with idea for "Terminator: The Musical!"? I think that's the best idea ever to come out of Joss Whedon! With hit songs like "I'll be Bach!" and "Hasta la vista, baby, baby, baby!" how can it possibly fail?

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Re:Whedon in the bidding by Mascot · 2009-11-02 08:05 · Score: 1

Have you seen Dollhouse?
I like Whedon as much as the next guy, but he's not by any means an "all he touches turns to gold" kind of guy.
Re:Whedon in the bidding by ajs · 2009-11-02 08:08 · Score: 1

You forgot the short, but memorable, "The Got The Bloodstains Out!"
Re:Whedon in the bidding by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2009-11-02 08:14 · Score: 1

Dollhouse started slow, but I think it's grown steadily more interesting. That's the way a lot of Whedon's work is for me, actually. Buffy hooked me right away, but Angel and Firefly both took a while. (In the case of Firefly, I got really dedicated to the series just about the the cancellation rumors started solidifying ...) So at this point I kind of assume that when I tune into a new Whedon project, it will be worth waiting for the good stuff.
Unfortunately, this is not exactly a winning formula in Hollywood.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Whedon in the bidding by Thud457 · 2009-11-02 08:21 · Score: 3, Funny

That's what I thought they should have done with the "Alien" franchise after the second one. They already had the haunted house movie and the war movie, the next obvious step was the buddy cop movie and the musical. Oh, and "Aliens on Ice" (they don't even need skates...)

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Re:Whedon in the bidding by Mascot · 2009-11-02 08:36 · Score: 1

For me, Dollhouse started slow and never got moving. I find there's virtually no character development or interaction of any interest. No greater story arc to keep me interested. After seeing "Epitaph One", my first thought was that I wish the show had been set in that time period, unraveling the past over the course of a season. That might have been interesting.
Buffy never appealed to me, but obviously a lot of people disagree with me on that one.
Firefly I think is pure genius.
Re:Whedon in the bidding by HereIAmJH · 2009-11-02 08:45 · Score: 1

Dollhouse started slow, but I think it's grown steadily more interesting.
For me, it has been the opposite. Dollhouse looked interesting at the start, but now it seems like it has become 'how many ways can we prostitute Eliza.' I was truly sad when I heard TSCC got canceled but Dollhouse got picked up. But with Summer making an appearance on Dollhouse, maybe they'll find a story for an episode or two. I'll continue to Tivo it for at least that long I guess.

--
Another day, another update to a Google android app.
Re:Whedon in the bidding by schon · 2009-11-02 09:14 · Score: 1

Buffy never appealed to me, but obviously a lot of people disagree with me on that one.
So.. a lot of people say it *did* appeal to you?
Were you hit on the head and suffered partial amnesia of some sort? What?
Re:Whedon in the bidding by elrous0 · 2009-11-02 09:24 · Score: 1

Split it up however you like. Want to pay Ringo less? That's your call.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Whedon in the bidding by TheSpoom · 2009-11-02 09:27 · Score: 1

He's a straight-edge, no nonsense cop who does everything by the book.
She's a vicious, bloodthirsty alien queen responsible for the deaths of thousands.
Together, they fight crime!

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Re:Whedon in the bidding by Trogre · 2009-11-02 09:29 · Score: 1

What is he, like 12 or something?

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Re:Whedon in the bidding by FlyingBishop · 2009-11-02 09:40 · Score: 1

That sounds vaguely familiar
Re:Whedon in the bidding by Conchobair · 2009-11-02 09:59 · Score: 1

A musical by Joss Whedon?!? That could only wind up Horrible.
Re:Whedon in the bidding by Mascot · 2009-11-02 10:03 · Score: 1

Touché
Re:Whedon in the bidding by Yvan256 · 2009-11-02 10:28 · Score: 1

Oh, and "Aliens on Ice"
Actually that's the first step in making a pangalactic gargleblaster.
Re:Whedon in the bidding by kalirion · 2009-11-02 10:31 · Score: 1

2) More Glau. Hey. There's a reason they're called "Summer" movies.
I could live with that...
Re:Whedon in the bidding by sharkey · 2009-11-02 14:40 · Score: 1

If it's as good as "Stop the Planet of the Apes, I Want to Get Off!", then I'm camping out for tickets.

--

--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Re:Whedon in the bidding by cgenman · 2009-11-02 17:04 · Score: 1

$10,000 and 10 gross points could be much more profitable than a 60 million dollar bid if the series were in good hands.

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:Whedon in the bidding by cgenman · 2009-11-02 17:12 · Score: 1

Aliens vs Muppets
The Maltese Chestburster
The Tuskegee Aliens (sure to be an Oscar contender!)
Perfect Strangers 2: The Queen and The King of Queens

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:Whedon in the bidding by jggimi · 2009-11-03 01:34 · Score: 1

I for one, welcome our new brick-wrapped-in-a-lemon overlords.
Re:Whedon in the bidding by Bai+jie · 2009-11-03 05:46 · Score: 1

Just think, if Joss wins the franchise, he could do a Dollhouse episode where Summer gets imprinted to think that she is a Terminator! Then we could have both series at the same time!
Re:Whedon in the bidding by ajs · 2009-11-09 07:06 · Score: 1

For me, Dollhouse started slow and never got moving. I find there's virtually no character development or interaction of any interest.
Be careful with that phrasing. If you don't find it interesting, that's fine, but I think one of the prime reasons that people don't find it appealing is that it's SO character-driven. Saying that it lacks character development (which you may or may not have been saying, depending on where you intended to break that sentence) is a bit like saying that Primer lacks plot development.

No greater story arc to keep me interested. After seeing "Epitaph One", my first thought was that I wish the show had been set in that time period, unraveling the past over the course of a season. That might have been interesting.
You're looking for a plot-driven show, and that's fine. This is always the downfall of popular writers: they come to believe that fans appreciate their character development, when in reality a popular audience typically isn't interested in character development at first, and are only interested in the characters once the plot development draws them in.
To be fair, however, Fox castrated the show. When I watch epitaph one, I see what the show could have been because Fox had no hand in the making of that episode.

Buffy never appealed to me, but obviously a lot of people disagree with me on that one.
I was in your camp. Didn't start watching Buffy until season 6. Funny enough, most of what was worth watching was in seasons 2-5, so I missed out on that until I went back and re-watched.

Firefly I think is pure genius.
Firefly was a heavily plot-driven series, so that makes sense. It's not that its characters were 2-dimensional, but their development served the plot and not the other way around.
Re:Whedon in the bidding by Mascot · 2009-11-09 09:07 · Score: 1

If you don't find it interesting, that's fine, but I think one of the prime reasons that people don't find it appealing is that it's SO character-driven.
Is it? I just don't see it. I find pretty much every single character bland, uninteresting and virtually exactly the same as the first time they were introduced. I find myself not for one second _caring_ about any of them. They're just too...flimsy. Too unreal.

Firefly was a heavily plot-driven series
Ironically, what I loved so about Firefly were the characters. They made sense in the world they were in. They were each interesting and fresh in their own way. And they had excellent interaction and chemistry. I don't feel Dollhouse has any of those things.
I could probably watch the Firefly characters have lunch for an entire episode, and love every second of it. I can't imagine anything the Dollhouse characters might do or say in such a setting that would make it worthwhile watching.
Tastes differ. Obviously those that love Dollhouse see something in it that I do not.

Well... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2009-11-02 07:46 · Score: 3, Funny

I guess that it is Judgment Day for the franchise...

Re: sellaband? by dean.collins · 2009-11-02 07:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

how about we start a 'fans' sellaband capital raising for this. I am sure there are more than 1 million fans who would put up $200 to be a part shareholder. If it's good enugh for Public Enemy and their new album why not> http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/public-enemy-sellaband.html Cheers, dean

Great. by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2009-11-02 07:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

They, um, terminated the excellent Sarah Connor Chronicles to make way for that Transforminators piece of shit. And then they showed they can't even handle that. Way to go, guys.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.

Link to source by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-02 07:48 · Score: 5, Informative

Not blog. Blog for stupid head.

Source: http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/joss-whedon-makes-bid-for-terminator/

Re:Link to source by ajs · 2009-11-02 08:05 · Score: 1

Your cogent discussion points aside, I linked to an article with more context deliberately. It, in turn, links to its source and includes a bit more about how and why this came to be.

Re:Everything but the first two films? by negRo_slim · 2009-11-02 07:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

I liked the last movie, it was no Citizen Kane to be sure, but it was a fun watch.

And if the box office results from 'movies' like Transformers 1/2 and G.I. Joe are any indication they could do a lot worse with the franchise and still rake in plenty of cash.

--
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days

So it's worthless, then? by residieu · 2009-11-02 07:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

The auction will include rights to everything but the first two films.

I don't get it. Why would someone pay for rights that exclude everything of value?

Re:So it's worthless, then? by daveime · 2009-11-02 08:00 · Score: 1

Well the US Government (actually the next 60 years of US taxpayers) paid $125 billion for the rights to a bunch of defaulted mortgages and worthless hedge funds ...
Re:So it's worthless, then? by amoeba1911 · 2009-11-02 08:02 · Score: 1

That's a great idea... we should have pet stores that sells things that come out of pets and retain the rights to the pet themselves.

They're basically selling the turd that spawned out of the success of the first two films.
Re:So it's worthless, then? by natehoy · 2009-11-02 08:05 · Score: 1

I'll start the bidding at -$10,000,000, because removing all but the first two movies would actually ADD to the franchise's value.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:So it's worthless, then? by Pharmboy · 2009-11-02 08:06 · Score: 1

But at least they got some overvalued homes in the deal. They (we) *did* get more than just 'intellectual property'. Even if the homes burned down, the dirt under them are still worth SOMETHING...

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:So it's worthless, then? by asdf7890 · 2009-11-02 08:09 · Score: 1

The auction will include rights to everything but the first two films.
I don't get it. Why would someone pay for rights that exclude everything of value?
Maybe if you think you can somehow inject more value back into it, then trying to get hold of the franchise for a bargain price might be worth a little effort and expenditure in the long run.
Or, more likely, it'll be bought by someone who has no bright ideas or plans. They'll sit on it until other people have bright ideas (given the franchise still has a following and the first films are still held in the high esteem they are, people are going to be thinking about it) then sell/lease the rights to them for profit.
Re:So it's worthless, then? by Woogiemonger · 2009-11-02 08:21 · Score: 1

You'd think for whoever owns the Terminator franchise, business would be a-boomin' on Judgement Day, when Skynet clicks to order.
Re:So it's worthless, then? by R2.0 · 2009-11-02 08:30 · Score: 1

ebay & skype w/o source code

--
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Re:So it's worthless, then? by demachina · 2009-11-02 08:39 · Score: 1

The U.S. government, specifically Tim Geithner, also invested some $2.3 billion in a company destined for bankruptcy, CIT. The U.S. treasury was the lender of last resort and should have secured their investment by insuring they were the first to be repaid in event of bankruptcy, instead they didn't secure it at all so other less senior lenders get 70% back, the U.S. tax payer apparently got shafted out of the entire 2.3 billion.
Maybe in that case as in Halcyon's, since it was someone else's money they were blowing, they didn't really care... Halcyon bought the rights with money from a hedge fund, Pacificor in Santa Barbara.
A quote from the link on the CIT loan from a Law professor:
"Black believes the problem stems from regulators' fears that if the banks recognize a loss on the bad assets it will create a domino effect that will wipe out the entire financial system.
"If that's true we've got to get rid of capitalism," he warns, "because if we can't recognize losses in a capitalist system we have no future.""
If true it basically means Geithner squandered another $2.3 billion to reduce the losses of big Wall Street banks, one of CIT's big lenders is Goldman Sachs.

--
@de_machina
Re:So it's worthless, then? by srealm · 2009-11-02 08:43 · Score: 1

I don't know, but I know who to ask. Darl? where are you? What were we supposed to get for our $699 again?
Re:So it's worthless, then? by elrous0 · 2009-11-02 09:34 · Score: 1

I think the 3rd film gets an unfair bad rap. Yes, it is very different in tone than the first two films--much darker and more fatalistic. And it's set in a different timeline than the first two, it's true. But I like that someone took a different tack with it. If Mostow had just done a knockoff of the Cameron films, he would rightly be called to task for it. So he at least decided to go a different route (Screw that "Future is what we make it" optimism!). Yeah, the comedy bits were a bit overdone, but how could he have made a sequel to such a iconic film series and not have a few nods at the camera (like we're not supposed to notice that Schwarzenegger looks 20 years older and has a gut now)? I thought it was pretty good for what it was. About the only thing that I didn't like was the casting of Connor and the way they played his character like a whiny pansy (*this* is the guy that was supposed to have spent most of his life preparing for Judgement Day, really?).

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.

Re:Everything but the first two films? by eln · 2009-11-02 07:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Rebooting" popular franchises is all the rage these days in Hollywood. The Terminator franchise, despite the lesser acclaim of the last two (although they were still both quite profitable), is still a valuable brand with a built-in audience. This means all anyone has to do is go to any random studio in Hollywood, tell them "I have the rights to the Terminator franchise and I want to make a new movie that 'reboots' the franchise" and they'll have to spend the next 6 months just counting all the money they'll be showered with.

Re:I bid $1 by daveime · 2009-11-02 07:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

Thank you for your cooperation.

The scene at a garage sale... by petrus4 · 2009-11-02 08:00 · Score: 5, Funny

(Crowd of people walking around in the front yard of a surburban house, looking at various bits of household junk)

Customer: (Looking around) Oh hey, what's this? It looks like some sort of oversized metal action figure!

Homeowner: That's a robot we've had down in the basement for a couple years now. Has an interesting history. Supposedly, it was thrown together by an unknown, but obviously brilliant computer scientist as a work project. Shame about what happened to him.

Supposedly after he'd finished building the thing, it got loose. There was this shotgun toting psycho of a woman who the police found raving and screaming about how it was trying to murder her and her kid. The police had a hell of a time taking her into custody; they've kept her sedated and locked up in a padded cell ever since.

Customer: Sounds like an amazing story! How much do you want for it?

Homeowner: (Slowly, pausing) $60 million.

Customer: WHAT?! But anyway...if anyone was even going to remotely consider paying that kind of money for it, it'd need to be able to do something beyond awesome! So give me a demonstration! How do I turn it on?

(Finds an old car battery and some jumper cables nearby, as other items for sale)

Hey, this'd work!

Homeowner: I'm not sure that's such a good idea...

Customer: It looks like just a kid's toy! Except a bit bigger of course. I'm sure it's perfectly safe!

(Applies cables to battery and T800, causing an explosion of sparks. The T800 rises up slowly from its' previous sitting position, its' eyes beginning to glow red)

Homeowner: ...

Re:The scene at a garage sale... by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-11-02 20:49 · Score: 1

"I need your clothes, your boots, and your... Your... You drive a Prius? Fuck it, I'll walk."

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/

Re:I bid $1 by farrellj · 2009-11-02 08:01 · Score: 1

I thought Harlan Ellison owned it!

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_Ellison#Copyright_suits

--
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h

Arnold should buy this by Crock23A · 2009-11-02 08:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

If he has the cash lying around, he should totally buy the franchise and turn it into something halfway decent.... or bury it. Too bad the buyer doesn't get the first two films. They were the only part of this franchise that were actually good.

Re:Everything but the first two films? by oldspewey · 2009-11-02 08:04 · Score: 1

Twelve seconds of brillance, 6888 minutes of pure shit.

--
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?

I'll fess up by BumpyCarrot · 2009-11-02 08:05 · Score: 1

I actually really liked the latest film. And I didn't hate *all* of the third film, I liked seeing Judgement Day happen. So this actually makes me a bit apprehensive :/

--
Do you see what I did there?

Re:I'll fess up by hitnrunrambler · 2009-11-02 08:58 · Score: 1

I don't quite get all of the hate for the latest film myself, I thought it was the closest to the original conception of any of the sequels. Don't get me wrong T2 was a guns/explosions/special-effects classic... But I strongly feel that watching T1+T4 back to back would be as satisfying and feel as connected as T1+T2.
T2 developed the action aspect of the theme very satisfyingly, but left the plot and most of the actual Sci-Fi as background.
T4 developed the Sci-Fi aspects and the plot from the original satisfyingly and left the action as background. (maybe it should have even been further back)
I think it's the people who wanted "T2 part 4" who are disappointed.
Re:I'll fess up by BumpyCarrot · 2009-11-02 09:10 · Score: 1

Yeah, I was very glad to see "the future" as well. Made the war seem more real.

--
Do you see what I did there?
Re:I'll fess up by Doctor_Jest · 2009-11-02 18:20 · Score: 1

I actually enjoyed the latest film as well. I reserve my hatred for what Michael Baysplosion has done to Transformers. The funny thing is, most of the "Terminator 1 and 2" purists are either unintentionally (or intentionally) whitewashing the plot holes from the first two films (3 was a plothole in itself... heh), and the Spielberg sized plot holes in Terminator:Salvation were about as acceptable as any in a rather complex universe (with time travel, reboots, etc.) The first two films contradicted one another (I don't care how you squint, the T1000 going back in time was a bit of a stretch). Even if you buy into the plausibility that the events of the first film are the catalyst for the 2nd, it stands to reason the future being altered enough that "the machines didn't get John/Sarah" wasn't a hindrance to the future development of Skynet (after the end of 2, we thought it was a whole new ballgame.. or so we were led to believe), and it actually _enhanced_ the time portal, if you believe T2's premise of the returning terminators.

Perhaps I'm over-analyzing, but shit, that's how nerds do it... particularly sci-fi nerds. :-) (I mean, I've been having an ongoing discussion at lunch regarding fast v. slow zombies...) For the record, I think any turned undead (i.e. not rising from the graves) can be fast, depending upon the circumstances they had in life (i.e. Roseanne Barr is not going to suddenly be Carl Lewis when she gets bitten...) Yes, this sort of nonsense makes for great conversation over a microwave burrito. :) And yes, I'm aware George Romero believes all zombies to be slow, shambling, husks... I just don't agree with him 100%.

--
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.

It's a rights deal by PCM2 · 2009-11-02 08:06 · Score: 4, Informative

The winner of the auction does not get the rights to any profits from the first two films.

The winner does, on the other hand, get the right to do anything else with the rest of the entire franchise.

As I understand it, that could include sequels to Terminator: Salvation or the Terminator 3 plotlines, continuations of the Sarah Connor Chronicles TV series, or entirely new series based in the universe. From the sound of it, they're even selling off licensing rights to all of these properties.

Still worthless, you say? According to TFA, the last time the Terminator franchise rights were sold, they went for $25 million. The purchaser used the rights to make Terminator: Salvation, which grossed $380 million worldwide. Not so bad.

(On the other hand, it's maybe worth noting that the rights to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles auctioned for more than twice what was paid for Terminator...)

--
Breakfast served all day!

Re:It's a rights deal by schon · 2009-11-02 09:19 · Score: 1

As I understand it, that could include sequels to Terminator: Salvation or the Terminator 3 plotlines
Unless it included the time machine that would allow the purchaser to go back in time and ensure those were never made, I still have trouble seeing the value.
Re:It's a rights deal by fm6 · 2009-11-02 09:23 · Score: 1

The purchaser used the rights to make Terminator: Salvation, which grossed $380 million worldwide. Not so bad.
Not for a movie that cost $200 million to make. By the time you factor in marketing, distribution, etc., the thing barely broke even.
Re:It's a rights deal by __aasqbs9791 · 2009-11-02 09:49 · Score: 1

I guess they could make a movie about going back in time to Terminate the making of the third and forth. And they could end it with someone finding the remains of the script for the third movie (the one the heroes used to figure out who the producers were, etc) burning in the wreckage of a movie studio, and deciding to make a movie based upon that script.
But since it would be a sort of spoof, I'm not sure you'd actually need the rights to make that movie.
Re:It's a rights deal by topham · 2009-11-02 09:51 · Score: 1

Bahahaha.
A movie that costs $200 million to make means that before it made it to the theater the producers & friends made $100 million.
Most of the companies paid during the production of a movie are owned by the parties making the movie.
Re:It's a rights deal by fishizzle · 2009-11-02 10:19 · Score: 1

The movie has only been out for 5 months! It hasn't even been released for rental or sale on DVD or BlueRay yet. Maybe using "Hollywood accounting" the movie has just broken even, so by buying the rights to it now, you're only going to receive all the profit the movie is ever going to make outside of its first 5 months of existence. This is bad somehow?
Re:It's a rights deal by fm6 · 2009-11-02 10:33 · Score: 3, Informative

Yeah, Hollywood is notorious for shady accounting practices. But these involve sticking investors for one movie with expenses from another, or keeping payables on a separate schedule from receivables. That's not what's going on here: the movie didn't last long in theaters (the show I went to was practically empty) and there's no question that grosses were "disappointing". Conceivably the production costs are inflated, but I doubt it — this kind of movie is not cheap to make.
(By way of comparison, Little Miss Sunshine grossed about $100 million, a 1/4 of the gross for Salvation. But LMS only cost $8 million to make.)
They'll make some money from disc sales and merchandise tie-ins. But the big payday for this kind of movie is long lines at the theater, and it just didn't happen in this case. Oh yeah, and Halcyon was notorious for litigation even before they sued their partners in this movie, so expect the lawyers to take a big chunk.
Re:It's a rights deal by fm6 · 2009-11-02 12:33 · Score: 1

Where do you get this nonsense?
Hey, wanna buy a genuine Barack Obama birth certificate?
Re:It's a rights deal by PCM2 · 2009-11-02 14:08 · Score: 1

Not for a movie that cost $200 million to make. By the time you factor in marketing, distribution, etc., the thing barely broke even.
But of course, box office gross doesn't tell the whole story. There are also the subsidiary rights, sublicensing deals, and everything else: toys, videogames, comic books, T-shirts, Taco Bell collector's cups, maybe a ride at Six Flags. Trust me, if I owned the rights to the Terminator franchise, I would have earned a lot more money this year than I have.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:It's a rights deal by trawg · 2009-11-02 14:18 · Score: 1

Still worthless, you say? According to TFA, the last time the Terminator franchise rights were sold, they went for $25 million. The purchaser used the rights to make Terminator: Salvation, which grossed $380 million worldwide. Not so bad.
Well, depends on how much the movie cost to make on top of that as well, I guess :)
Re:It's a rights deal by stuboogie · 2009-11-02 15:44 · Score: 1

I think Batman is a prime example of what can be accomplished with a dead franchise.

After the first two movies, each movie got worse and worse with the climax of crap that was Clooney and Schwartzenneger. However, with the last two movies, they have rejuvenated a character that I had lost hope in seeing properly realized on screen. The Bale Batman movies aren't perfect, but are definitely the most authentic and true to form of all the movies. I personally loved Ledger's Joker.

If someone can successfully turn Batman around, then there is hope that Terminator could fall in good hands as well.
Re:It's a rights deal by fm6 · 2009-11-02 16:25 · Score: 1

You probably would have done a better job than the Halcyon company, which is actually better known for its litigation than for its actual productions (2 movies and a TV show, all of them duds).
I'm not saying that the Terminator franchise couldn't be a real money maker in the right hands. Indeed, I thought this one was almost decent, with good acting and direction and really stunning effects. But they forgot to hire somebody literate to write the script — a mistake you often see in expensive blockbusters.
Re:It's a rights deal by geekoid · 2009-11-03 10:40 · Score: 1

So what you are saying is that there is an awesome TMNT movie on the way?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re: sellaband? by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2009-11-02 08:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

PE is trying to raise a quarter of a million dollars, which is probably a reasonable goal for a band with their name recognition, and will be enough to produce an album. Raising a thousand or ten thousand times as much, a couple hundred bucks at a time, just for the rights to make a movie or a TV show? It's a nice idea, but I don't think it's likely to happen.

And even if it did happen, what would we do with it? There'd still need to be a guiding force, someone running the project. Good luck getting all the fans who chip in to agree on that.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.

Wow. They're desperate to balance the budget. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-02 08:08 · Score: 2, Funny

California is even auctioning off their governor. Their budget problems must be really bad.

Hasta la vista... baby by fortapocalypse · 2009-11-02 08:09 · Score: 1

I think this was posted just to gather good quotes, so thought I'd throw that in. Seriously though, there is a lot left to be made off of this franchise. But does the sale include that silly short Terminator 3D film shown at Universal? If not, then I'm out. ;)

Cameron by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2009-11-02 08:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

I remember reading something where he said he passed on T3 because he couldn't see a good story. The guy might be one of the biggest assholes in Hollywood, but I'm grateful that he didn't just do it for the cash.

Re:Cameron by kungfugleek · 2009-11-03 02:14 · Score: 1

He certainly didn't need the cash at the time. Now, if Avatar bombs, you can bet that Cameron's next film will either be Terminator 5 or Titanic 2.
Re:Cameron by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2009-11-03 06:33 · Score: 1

Cameron would still be loaded. I'm sure he got a cut of Titanic.
I just respect the guy because a lot of people with plenty of money will just do shit to make even more. I don't think Cameron does that. Even if you don't like Titanic, it was an awesome undertaking.

old news... by garynuman · 2009-11-02 08:10 · Score: 1

Didn't Netcraft confirm that the Terminator franchise was dead awhile ago?

Re:old news... by Yvan256 · 2009-11-02 10:35 · Score: 1

Nope. Skynet infected Netcraft to prevent it from declaring it dead.

Re:Everything but the first two films? by Ethanol-fueled · 2009-11-02 08:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Milked to death if not rebooted outright. It's a tacit admission that Hollywood ran out of ideas.

I can hardly wait for Aquaman: The Movie.

Re:Everything but the first two films? by Gravitron+5000 · 2009-11-02 08:18 · Score: 1

6888 minutes

Wow, and I thought the LOTR movies were long.

I think he was posting perceived time.

My humble offer by Groggnrath · 2009-11-02 08:19 · Score: 2, Funny

To Halcyon (Re:Terminator),
I would like to purchase your rights to the Terminator franchise. I hereto offer you two full and unused pockets full lint and or little bits of string. I feel that having seen the last set of movies, this is more than a fair bid. I'm willing to throw in up too, but not exceeding, one full fist full of dryer lint as a good faith payment.

Sincerely yours, Groggnrath (a devoted sci-fi fan).

Re:My humble offer by Ukab+the+Great · 2009-11-02 09:30 · Score: 1

Two pockets is overpriced. Half a pocket would buy you the entire Highlander franchise.

What's not awesome? by Hognoxious · 2009-11-02 08:24 · Score: 1

Terminator the musical. Rise of the machines on ice. I'm a celebrity get me out of here but I'll be back.

I can hardly wait

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:I bid $1 by macraig · 2009-11-02 08:27 · Score: 1

Are the Wookee [sic] and dryer lint connected in some way? That might not be a cause-effect relationship I want to hear....

Re:Everything but the first two films? by Trails · 2009-11-02 08:29 · Score: 2, Funny

I heard Kevin Smith was already working on the sequel...

Re: sellaband? by Rude+Turnip · 2009-11-02 08:46 · Score: 1

It took Public Enemy about a month to get to the $60,000 mark on SellaBand. I think it would take a little longer to raise $60 million :-)

--
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!

Re:Everything but the first two films? by foo1752 · 2009-11-02 08:51 · Score: 1

Forget "rebooting." What they need to do is to combine franchises. I'm anxiously awaiting the Alien vs. Terminator movie, myself. Its set in the future after the Terminators have wiped out all of the humans. Tag line: Alien vs. Terminator: Who ever wins, we're already dead, so we don't give a fuck anymore. It's going to be huge!

Re:I bid $1 by goofyspouse · 2009-11-02 09:15 · Score: 1

Good luck...you'll need it!

Re: sellaband? by RichardJenkins · 2009-11-02 09:19 · Score: 1

So if I own the rights to the characters, would I get anything at all from the continued popularity of the two good films?

Great point. by XanC · 2009-11-02 09:20 · Score: 1

Welcome to my friends list.

Re: sellaband? by dean.collins · 2009-11-02 09:22 · Score: 1

it took them only 12 days to get to $50,000 so it wasn't that hard for them to raise the initial money, albeit i think they need to amp up their marketing.

Re:Everything but the first two films? by Red+Flayer · 2009-11-02 09:24 · Score: 1

What they need to do is to combine franchises. I'm anxiously awaiting the Alien vs. Terminator movie, myself. Its set in the future after the Terminators have wiped out all of the humans. Tag line: Alien vs. Terminator: Who ever wins, we're already dead, so we don't give a fuck anymore. It's going to be huge!

What about Terminator vs. Predator?
Terminator vs. Mothra?

Now if only we could get Disney in on the action... imagine the possibilities:

Terminator vs. Cruella de Ville
Terminator vs. Jafar

And my personal favorite: Terminator vs. Stitch.

--
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai

Come on, is this surprising? by elrous0 · 2009-11-02 09:51 · Score: 1

When the company has so little faith in the franchise that they hand over the latest film to the assclown best known for directing the "Charlie's Angels" remake, is there any doubt it is dying?

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.

Re:I bid $1 by retchdog · 2009-11-02 10:01 · Score: 1

I dunno. Has he tried to grope Summer Glau yet?

--
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky

Re: sellaband? by jason.sweet · 2009-11-02 10:15 · Score: 1

Public Enemy and their new album

How does that go?
ED! How low can you go!
Viagaro, what a brotha know.
Back once again, it's incredible
Shuffleboard animal. D!
Public Enemy Number One.

Re: sellaband? by wiredlogic · 2009-11-02 10:17 · Score: 1

Wow. Their next gig is in Banff Alberta. That's just... wow. Not a venue I envision PE playing at all. They'll be doing Branson soon enough it seems.

--
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.

Re:Everything but the first two films? by Yvan256 · 2009-11-02 10:18 · Score: 1

Terminators vs Borgs: when worlds collide.

Re:I bid $1 by mcsqueak · 2009-11-02 10:18 · Score: 1

Goodnight.

Let the Japanese buy it by Yvan256 · 2009-11-02 10:37 · Score: 1

Either we'll get something even better than all the movies combined or a remote-controlled, scaled-down, walking T800 toy robot.

Either way, we can't lose!

P.S.: if Honda or Toyota buys the rights, we're all dead.

Re:I bid $1 by lena_10326 · 2009-11-02 10:39 · Score: 1

Where's the "Buy It Now!" link?

--
Camping on quad since 1996.

reboot by Anomalyst · 2009-11-02 10:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Have Harlan Ellison, script the reboot.

--
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.

Re:Everything but the first two films? by refitman · 2009-11-02 10:52 · Score: 1

If I remember correctly, and it is a little fuzzy, I almost fell asleep 20 minutes into the 4th film. It was poorly plotted, full of massive plot holes (why do terminators need hundreds of LCD screens and why not have the terminator kill Kyle as soon as he met him?). The Christian Bale part seemed shoehorned into the film in the extreme (born out by reports that came out afterwards). There was no sense of jeopardy for the characters and the ending was telegraphed a mile off.

--
First God made idiots. That was for practice. Then He made Jack Thompson.

Always a catch by Tarlus · 2009-11-02 11:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

The auction will include rights to everything but the first two films.

Well then it's no good.

--
/* No Comment */

Link to actual source by ReptilianSamurai · 2009-11-02 11:08 · Score: 3, Informative

I agree with your sentiment, but that is not the actual source. Try the actual original posting by Joss Whedon.

Source: http://whedonesque.com/comments/22240

--
I installed Linux on a car, but it crashed due to bad drivers...

Cleanliness by halcyon1234 · 2009-11-02 11:24 · Score: 1

I owned what now? Musta slipped between the couch cushions. Damn maids.

--
UTF-8: There and Back Again

You Have 20 Seconds to Comply by sanman2 · 2009-11-02 11:43 · Score: 1

I think Omni Consumer Products would make an excellent White Knight investor

I Own My Own Terminator? Cool! by sanman2 · 2009-11-02 11:46 · Score: 1

Now stand on one leg!

Everything but the first two pimples? by Ostracus · 2009-11-02 12:04 · Score: 1

""Rebooting" popular franchises is all the rage these days in Hollywood. "

It seems to have worked for Star Trek: 90210.

--
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"

Re:Everything but the first two pimples? by WCLPeter · 2009-11-04 19:56 · Score: 1

It seems to have worked for Star Trek: 90210.
Don't you mean Stargate Universe?

Re:At the risk of my Geek card by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2009-11-02 12:05 · Score: 1

Go watch Firefly. It was an American show, cancelled after one mangled season, that was quite possibly the finest Sci-Fi show ever made.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant.

Also, imdb.

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.

Re:Everything but the first two films? by DavidTC · 2009-11-02 12:57 · Score: 1

They should have taken a concept from the Sarah Connor Chronicles and simply had 'John Connor' be this guy off somewhere that no one really ever saw. (1) Just a voice on a radio or a video message, and who shows up at the end to take charge.

Yeah, lame, but less lame than having him but him not being the lead.

Hell, they could have pulled a 'Six Day' twist and had the lead be a terminator who thought he was John Connor.

Also, the terminator didn't kill Kyle because Skynet doesn't know who he is. It barely knew that Connor was born in California at a specific time to a 'Sarah Connor', it doesn't know who Kyle Reese is.

Until, of course, John Connor stupidly told it. But Connor's a moron. Hell, if he'd started giving a fake name out after Judgment Day, his childhood would have retroactively been a lot easier. (OTOH, he wouldn't exist at all, so at least that makes some sense.)

1) With a few hints that, possibly, it's not even Connor leading anymore, and he might even be dead. I suspect that, had that series gone on long enough, it would have been revealed to be an AI in charge, either Cameron or John Henry, having taken the long way to the future.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?

Re:At the risk of my Geek card by X3J11 · 2009-11-02 13:32 · Score: 1

Go watch Firefly. It was an American show, cancelled after one mangled season, that was quite possibly the finest Sci-Fi show ever made.

I think you're mistaking Firefly for Farscape, which lasted four seasons.

:D

The Mainframe in the front row bids... by Snufu · 2009-11-02 14:02 · Score: 2, Funny

We would like to offer 70 trillion earth currency units for the rights to the Terminator franchise, including all media assets, merchandising rights, and sole possession of all time travel, computing, and robotics technology, and other sensitive T-xxx schematics.
We further promise not to use said knowledge for malevolent purposes.

Sincerely,

Skynet News Corp.

Re:The Mainframe in the front row bids... by petrus4 · 2009-11-02 20:08 · Score: 1

I was going to say...I hope IBM have ensured that Deep Blue will be prevented from attending the auction. ;)

Darkhorse wins by gatkinso · 2009-11-02 14:26 · Score: 1

When TvP comes out that is.

--
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.

How about The Evil Dead musical? by vaporland · 2009-11-02 15:39 · Score: 1

It takes place in a cabin in the woods, it's comic, tragic and frightening, and it would translate well to Broadway...

--
Ask Me About... The 80's!

Re:How about The Evil Dead musical? by R3d+M3rcury · 2009-11-02 19:30 · Score: 1

I laughed, I cried, It was better than "Cats!"

Re:Sorry by steelfood · 2009-11-02 16:41 · Score: 1

They did that already.

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Re:I bid $1 by beckett · 2009-11-02 20:40 · Score: 1

Give the Man a hand!

Arnold should buy it by rainhill · 2009-11-02 20:53 · Score: 1

period.

Accountants moved in and imagination moved out by MrKaos · 2009-11-02 21:59 · Score: 1

Once upon a time movies were about creating a piece of art and the studios took a risk. Now that accountants are involved in eliminating the risk from the movie making business (now called franchises) they make perfectly polished pieces of shit.

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.

Re:Accountants moved in and imagination moved out by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2009-11-03 06:48 · Score: 1

It's not so much about art but that people who own a company or created a company can take risks that people dropped in to raise the share price for pension companies can't.
One of the most noticeable things in the past few years is just how many successful independent movies there are now.
Re:Accountants moved in and imagination moved out by geekoid · 2009-11-03 10:36 · Score: 1

When? when was that? There have always been people trying to use film to make high profits. They ahve always been a tool for making money.
Some people use it to create 'art', but so what? Don't be nostalgic. There was never an era a purity in film making.
The fact that these 'pieces of shit' can make many millions of dollars tend to mean people enjoy them.
You can enjoy a fun ride AND a good story.
And if you think the industry is bad now, it was a hell of a lot more abusive in the '30-'70s

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:Everything but the first two films? by Nicolay77 · 2009-11-03 03:31 · Score: 1

It was the same in the theater I was. Arnold's face paid for the ticket.

--
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.

Re:Everything but the first two films? by Golddess · 2009-11-03 08:18 · Score: 1

I thought it was interesting how they made the "first run" Arnold Terminators look like RL Arnold did from _before_ T1.

--
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-

Re:Everything but the first two films? by Golddess · 2009-11-03 08:34 · Score: 1

Wasn't there a Terminator vs Predator or Terminator vs Aliens or a Terminator vs Aliens vs Predator comic book?

--
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-

TO paraphrase by geekoid · 2009-11-03 10:32 · Score: 1

I'll be broke.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:Everything but the first two films? by WCLPeter · 2009-11-04 19:48 · Score: 1

Hell, they could have pulled a 'Six Day' twist and had the lead be a terminator who thought he was John Connor.

I remember reading, or hearing, somewhere that this is how Salvation was supposed to end.

Apparently John Connor was supposed to be a very minor part in T4 with the bulk of the film being about Marcus' salvation, hence the name of the film. In the end Connor, having setup the resistance, was supposed to die with a now redeemed Marcus taking up the mantle of John Connor.

From what I heard Christian Bale really wanted to play the part of John Connor, he was told the above and was supposedly okay with it. Then with the uber success of "The Dark Knight" he apparently asked for more screen time and stated he didn't want to die in the end. To accommodate his request they had to rewrite whole sections of the movie, and the ending, resulting in the disjointed suck-fest we were subjected to.

Of course its all rumors and speculation as I can't remember where I read and/or heard this, but considering Bale's infamous blow up on set I can almost believe that this might be true.

"Good news everyone!" by DarkEmpath · 2009-11-05 23:15 · Score: 1

You can almost get your "Terminator: The Musical!"

Checkout Austrian Death Machine. They're an Arnold impersonator band that sings songs like "Come with me if you want to live", "I need your clothes, your boots, and your motorcycle", and "I am a cybernetic organism, living tissue over (metal) endoskeleton". They also sing songs about his other movies, like "If it bleeds, we can kill it", "Get to the Choppa", and "It's not a tumor".

Seriously, torrent their two albums, and if you like them, go buy them. I did :-)

Re:Everything but the first two films? by DavidTC · 2009-11-06 05:00 · Score: 1

Well, if he wanted to do that, why not make him play both Connor and Marcus, which would make more sense?

Obviously, Skynet couldn't have copied Connor's brain, just his body.

So 'Marcus' would still be some actual guy somewhere, who remembers having a different looking body, but you can handwave that by saying people don't really remember their body like that, or that Skynet did a slight programming change.

You could even make them look slightly different because Skynet made the copy solely from scant visual records. Maybe the wrong color eyes or something.

And, at the end, you have a fun issue of John Connor lookalike terminators.

I dunno, that movie was so silly and disjointed it's hard to figure out how it could have made sense.

Also, the SCC did the 'human copied into a terminator and forgets they're a terminator' plot first.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?

Slashdot Mirror

Terminator Franchise To Be Auctioned Off

223 of 256 comments (clear)