New "Terminator" Trilogy Planned

Ant writes "Dark Horizons reports after much talk and posturing over the future of "The Terminator" franchise/series in recent years, something surprising has happened: The Halcyon Company has acquired the franchise rights to the popular movie series and intends to make a new trilogy that would anchor their movie company..."

Enough

[escay]

Enough with the trilogies already. why can't we have a single good movie and just let that be?

That would anchor their company...

[solios]

.... in POO.

After repeated viewings, I'm of the opinion that Cameron's what makes the franchise. We didn't need a third movie (what the hell was up with that, anyway?) - much like we didn't need a Highlander 2 (or 3, etc).

If they're good, that's one thing - but Terminator without Cameron is like, say... The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen without Allen Moore. Or Watchmen if it were written by Rob Liefeld.

The only upcoming "sequel" sci-fi I'm looking forward to is Babylon 5 : The Lost Tales. It's more B5, and most importantly, it's still under the control of Straczynski.

I trust in creators, not franchises.

Re:Enough

[solios]

Because trilogies make more money, duh.

Hollywood only cares about quality product to the extent that they need the occasional quality product in order to keep the cash pouring in.

Re:Who needs Arnold?

[Intron]

"Neither creator James Cameron or original star Arnold Schwarzenegger will be involved in the project"

I can predict the future on this one without time travel.

Re:Enough

[hoggoth]

> Hollywood only cares about quality product to the extent that they need the occasional quality product in order to keep the cash pouring in.

Even further, Hollywood is compelled to continue making sequels until they are so bad they stop making money. It is the only way to insure they have extracted all the money possible from a franchise.

Re:Enough

[radarsat1]

Books are the one thing I have not seen the phenomenon in however. The reason may be that there is already so much variety, and that the major book readers don't purchase such worthless media.

Hm.. I'm sorry, maybe it's because I just rolled out of bed and I'm a bit tired, but I can't tell if you're trying to be sarcastic or not... *books* don't have trilogies??? When was the last time you went to a book store my friend?

Where is the new SciFi?

[bhima]

Fuck, this is dreary. Even if it isn't that good can we have some new Sci-Fi?

Something that isn't a "franchise". Some that is not Star Wars? Or Star Trek

Or whatever it is Hollywood has already made dozens of movies of?

Fuck ANY thing without a number at the end!

Re:OMG is the George Lucas Effect!

[Architect_sasyr]

Slashdot V: A new hope
Slashdot VI: Death of the AC

We were all thinking it... I'm just saying it ;)

Re:Where is the new SciFi?

[mblase]

Even if it isn't that good can we have some new Sci-Fi? Something that isn't a "franchise".

We have lots. "The Last Mimzy", most recently. "Pan's Labyrinth" was a terrific fantasy work, too, and "Stardust" is on the way in August.

The problem is that unless it's an action blockbuster, sci-fi and fantasy are tough sells -- partly because they have a special effects budget, but mostly because they have a small audience. My wife has a hard time enjoying any story that isn't rooted in the reality she lives every day, and most moviegoers are of the same mind. (That's a big part of why Spider-Man is always a bigger seller than the Fantastic Four.)

The best way to sell sci-fi and fantasy in Hollywood is to make it a mega-summer blockbuster, and the best kind of blockbuster is one that Hollywood KNOWS will sell tickets, and that means sequels to previous hits.

It's not as if literature is that much different. Many successful fantasy and sci-fi authors operate franchises of their own -- J.K. Rowling, George R.R. Martin, Jim Butcher, Terry Pratchett, and Tolkien Jr. and Herbert Jr. all spring immediately to mind.

Book readers and moviegoers always SAY they want something new, but what they really want most of the time is something old.

Re:Great

[drsquare]

The Hollywood trend is to secure money by rehashing proven hits of the past

The trend of any business is to make the most of your successful products. After all, you never know when you'll need the money, your next product might bomb and cost you millions.

I don't see how film franchises are any worse than TV shows that drag on for years and years, or comics that go on for decades. Just because a film uses old characters and an old premise doesn't mean it can't be entertaining.

Re:Enough

[bazorg]

There should have been only one.

Hollywood is an investment system

[chocolatetrumpet]

I think it was an episode of this week in media [pixelcorps.tv] where someone said something like,

~"People think Hollywood is about creativity and artistic expression. It's not - it's actually a very strange investment system. You put some money in, and hopefully, get more money out. An established franchise is a form of hedging."

However, fear not, movie fans - the tools coming out will allow anyone with talent to produce a film with production values as high as any, and it's getting cheaper all the time. The red [red.com] camera, increased competition in computer software [apple.com], more powerful hardware, &c., and not to mention the internet as a distribution mechanism.

The future is bright for creativity and expression through film; the antithesis of Hollywood.

Re:Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Admittedly, Aliens and T2 were fantastic sequels -- a rarity. Is Cameron just lucky or what?

Re:Great

[Coryoth]

I don't see how film franchises are any worse than TV shows that drag on for years and years, or comics that go on for decades. Just because a film uses old characters and an old premise doesn't mean it can't be entertaining.

I agree. Some great films have been sequels. On the other hand TV shows that drag on for years and years (hell, many get tired after only a season or two) are indeed just as bad as many sequels. Think of how many TV shows are ruined as they run on: the characters become caricatures of their original selves, and everything has to become "more" and "better" season after season till things are bordering on the truly absurd. The same is often true for movies -- just consider the previews for the new Die Hard movie. Fresh ideas an fresh starts have a lot to offer.

the wachowskis already did it

[rubberbandball]

"which picks up with John Connor in his 30s leading what's left of the human race against the machines." Read: The Matrix.

Re:Great

[Drooling Iguana]

On the plus side, the Terminator franchise wrapped itself up pretty cleanly with T2, so if you don't like the new movies you can just ignore them. It's not like, say, the X-Men movie series, in which the first two movies set left a lot of plot threads unresolved only to be completely shit on with the third movie.