Also, with Yann Demange a clear favorite and not officially declaring that he can´t/won´t do it I assume that his reps are working out the contract right now.
1 Like
Given its not exactly on a firm footing following 3…questionably received sequels, firing it out against series on a stronger footing is certainly brave.
This seems likely. Deadset and Top Boy where brilliantly directed, so he’s definitely a director I would trust to do a brilliant job despite the circumstances.
It’s clearly a reaction to bonds troubles, gambling that even if it does make the release slot the rush means it will be naff. Besides, this terminator sequel has far better selling points than the previous 3; Tim miller directing, hot off deadpools big success and Cameron producing. With the latter name steering the ship and it said to be ignoring all of the non-Cameron sequels I’m optimistic about the movie. If Bond is sub par, then terminator could clean up.
Demange is a gamble; top boy was very good, as was ‘71, though the latter was down to having jack o’connell In the lead. To be more certain of his chops I’d want to see how his new movie White Boy Rick has turned out.
My issue is these tactics to get good word of mouth where used on all its predecessors. The Cameron’s approval (Genisys rolled that line out) , the first in a new trilogy (again genisys), returning cast from 1\2 (Salvation), people riding on success of nerd friendly movie (Salvation and Genisys) the “its only in continuity with the original 2” (Salvation and Genisys not to mention the Sarah Connor Chronicles). All done before. Only ACTUAL difference so far is Cameron gets a pay check this time.
I don’t see the Cameron ego allowing his name to be attatched unless he’s controlling production.
It was fine to say positive things about Genisys before it’s release. Make no mistake, Cameron is a producer through and through with his whole idea being how to sell a product.
I also notice Top Gun: Maverick, also Skydance releasing through Paramount, and a film aiming to be riding the same wave of 80’s nostalgia as this Terminator, has moved release date as well (“look EVERYONES BACK! The midlife crisis you’re having getting you down? Look it’s a sequel to a film you loved as teenager! They aged well!!!”) I suspect that they want to use Terminator as a test for how well that market plays.
I guess they already know that market works - with the now 40-50-somethings who saw those films during their teenage/young adult years at least watching at home and their children now in the bigger target demo familiar with those original films.
But TERMINATOR, I believe, is a damaged brand. GENISYS should have brought it back but failed spectacularly. If Cameron had helmed the new film it probably would have had a decent chance. With Miller - the general audience won’t know who he is, nor care - and Hamilton and Schwarzenegger most probably only in supporting roles, it will be an uphill battle to create something that can be embraced by old and new fans.
Let’s face it: TERMINATOR 1 was great and original, TERMINATOR 2 was a replay which was still a great film, and then it all went downhill with minor variations to the basic idea which just isn’t that flexible. Machines send Terminators back in time, the resistance does so, too, they fight and win in the end.
Granted, the Bond formula is not the most complex either. But at least it offers much more chances within the stories.
So, with Cameron influencing this new film more or not (he should not have the time, actually, since he is doing his AVATAR movies), it does not take much to predict that it will be about the same sameness again, only with different action set pieces. The photos of an aged Schwarzenegger-Terminator make me think: they did that in GENISYS already, too.
Interesting, by the way, that they want to release this TERMINATOR in the winter - when this franchise was always a summer tentpole film before. Less confidence? Bond was a summer player until GE, as well, and then they sticked to it because it seemed to work. But still I get the feeling that at least in the US they don’t consider Bond an equal anymore with the big summer films.
They also show Bond films on tv more often in winter as well, just seems to be tradition that arose accidentally, it worked, so they stuck with it.
A random ponder… Ben Kingsley just got cast in a new MGM tv show
http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/tv/ben-kingsley/60162/ben-kingsley-signs-up-for-new-noir-tv-series
Sounds interesting - I love a little neo-noir
However, to the point: does working with MGM take Kingsley a little closer to being a Bond villain. Of course he’ll be busy a while doing this Epix show, but if Bond is delayed then maybe schedules will line up (or if Bond 25 shoots soon maybe he can fit it in before the tv show).
In fact might this already have happened… Boyle: “I want Kot!” MGM: “We want Kingsley” Boyle: “I quit”.
Either way having a relationship with MGM could definitely lead to their execs pushing him to be cast by Eon. I know it’s a ‘separate arm’ of MGM, but it’s under the same roof so to speak.
Kingsley an actor it’s hard to believe hasn’t already been a Bond villain. Some would say it’s too obvious, or he’s already done it too well with Don Logan and the Manderin. But Kingsley is a such a great, detailed performer that I’d bet he could well provide an amazing Bond villain; surely a shoe-in if they recast Blofeld, or he could head up SMERSH wonderfully.
EDIT: I also see that he just did the so-so looking thriller Operation Finale with MGM; not sure if that boost or undermines my theory tbh! But imo I’d love to see him as a Bond villain.
Who doesn’t!
As for Kingsley, it is odd his name hasn’t come up before given the amount of villains he’s played - something EON clearly doesn’t see as a negative going by other casting decisions they’ve made over the years. Personally wouldn’t complain if turned up, he is an incredible actor.
Sexy Beast is in my top 3 and Don Logan is for me the finest written, directed and performed villain to grace a screen.
Any excuse to post some Logan (NSFW)
3 Likes
Kingsley, while overfamiliar, would be a great… Blofeld!
1 Like
I expect that they are going to HEAVILY market Cameron’s involvement in this one. You won’t hear Tim Miller’s name brought up hardly at all, other than referring to him as “The Director of DEADPOOL”, if he’s referred to at all. All of the marketing is going to state something to the effect of “From Producer James Cameron”.
Having seen a couple of interviews with Miller and Cameron, including one fairly lengthy sit down, I feel fairly confident in the new film. It sounds like Cameron’s involvement is more than just a nominal thing, it sounds like he’s been very much involved in hashing out the story and getting everything where it needs to be.
This will be, though, TERMINATOR’S last stand of sorts. If this film is bad, then that’s the end for the franchise. I do think it’ll be financially successful, though. Fans have been clamoring for the original team to get back together for one of these films (Cameron, Hamilton, and Schwarzenegger). I think that and a savvy marketing strategy will make this thing a financial success.
Then again, I was perfectly willing to see a GENISYS 2, so what do I know. 
1 Like
Genisys was fine until the villain twist; making you’re lead protagonist the villain is a very bad move for a franchise.
Worse still the marketing gave the ‘big twist’ away. The producers incompetence with that movie was off the scale. With Cameron it’s now in the safest possible hands.
We´ll probably see how much “producer James Cameron” is worth at the box office without directing when his “Battle Angle”-spectacle is released around Christmas.
For me, Cameron is hit and miss. Despite his problem-laden production stories he appears to have had extremely good luck catching the zeitgeist instead of making films that really deserve their massive success. I loved his two “Terminator”-films, “Aliens” and “The Abyss” (which was his sole unlucky film not to be there at the right time), but I hated “True Lies” and was lukewarm on “Titanic” and “Avatar” which should never have been as successful as they were. The trailer for “Battle Angel” left me as cold as the Peter Jackson-produced “The Mortal Engines”.
As for “Genisys”: I didn’t think it was bad, I even liked the villain-twist - but too much of it was like going through the motions again without one really exciting new idea.
Your response is more positive than mine on that. The point in both films where they start taking laps just for you to look at how pretty it all is makes my lip curl every time.
1 Like
I actually re-watched “Avatar” with my wife a few weeks ago because she had never seen it.
At first I thought it was better than I had imagined. But after the first hour with two more to go I only felt bored by the total lack of originality in the narrative. Sure, it looked very well. And at that time it probably was the best 3D yet, with CGI above average. Well, maybe it was the right film for the gamer generation who thrived more on visuals than on interesting stories.
As for “Titanic” - that one already had dodgy CGI back then, but I never bought the love story, and again I thought: Cameron can stage action and shoot it very well. The narrative he constructs, however, is just appealing to the broadest perspective one can have.
1 Like
I think T2 is the last Cameron film I enjoyed the story of, was after that Cameron seemed to give up on scripts and just made it as visual as he could. Yes, very pretty, but the script seems like the paper clip from Microsoft word wrote it.
3 Likes
Oh, I entirely agree with you on Cameron. I might even be more down on him than you. Hated AVATAR (it was much better the first time around when Kevin Costner made it as DANCES WITH WOLVES), and am pretty much not on board with anything he’s made other than T1 and T2, although I need to re-evaluate TITANIC at some point as 13-14 year old me wasn’t really ready for that when it came out the first time and haven’t seen it since.
But, I think the Cameron “brand” is extremely valuable to TERMINATOR, especially after the three non-Cameron films have been so reviled by the public. Just slap his name over the title, market as being from the guy who brought you T1 and T2, and I think the public will give the franchise this one last chance. If it’s bad, though, it’s game over.
4 Likes
He made 2 very successfaul and highly enjoyable sequels in T2 and Aliens; a rare thing in the whole of Hollywood history… The Godfather, Empire strikes Back and a couple others (I imagine), but the vast majority of sequels are pale comparisons.
But then the tech took his attention and he made movies that are more like fun park rides. It’s worth noting that it’s arguable that approach is is just as valid as any other in Cinema - perhaps more so; cinema’s origins are after all about spectacle and illusion; 19th century audiences fleeing their seats in fear of the train heading towards them onscreen…
I’m sure Cameron could argue spectacle’s merits and champion it’s purity all day long. He’ll probably prove he’s still the best at wowing the audience with his Avatar sequels and provide plenty of input to do so with the new Terminator.
I’ll enjoy the Avatar sequel once and like a fun park ride never feel the desire to try it again. But when Cameron really scores is by combining a great concept, theme and narrative with the spectacle and I’d suggest to anyone doubting he can do that with his baby - his terminator franchise that they’re a braver gambler than I.
Btw, while Titanic can work the viewer like a pro-grifter, I too think it sucks.