ROTTEN TOMATOES: Cannes 2009: The Battle for Terminator 5 Comments

Cannes 2009: The Battle for Terminator 5

by Orlando Parfitt | May 14, 2009

Summary

The Terminator franchise faces a potentially rocky future, according to a report published by Variety that predicts a bidding war for the rights to future installments. Terminator Salvation - which hits our screens in the coming weeks - is distributed by Warner Bros. in the US and Sony for international territories. However production company Halcyon owns the rights themselves and, according to the trades, they have a deal in place with rival studio MGM that gives them a 30-day right to first refusal to finance and distribute a Salvation sequel. Back to Article

(1-47 of 47 posts) | Reply

thereign writes:
on May 14 2009 05:44 AM

Here we go with another Fox-Warner Bros. type dispute! This is soooo stupid! Can't producers get their heads out of their butts long enough to be able to lock down ONE studio to a project without turning everything into a bidding war that could potentially delay a film?

F.u.ck, dude.......

(Reply to this)

oddjob323 writes:
on May 14 2009 05:52 AM

Yeah, this movie is guaranteed to rake in tons of money. Then everyone will want a piece of the action.

(Reply to this)

Gerant K. writes:
on May 14 2009 05:56 AM

Money, money, money... it's all fair enough to a certain extent. Considering these companies risk their cash for our entertainment, there is nothing really worth debating. This IS the film INDUSTRY!

Anyhouses, what's the rush? We've got four damn Terminator films already. Is there any need to rush into another sequel of another film franchise? Maybe while they fight it out in the court of contract law an original film script might slip through for a fresh director!?

(Reply to this)

Wade F. writes:
on May 14 2009 05:59 AM

They don't care if the film gets delayed if that means they will get more money.

(Reply to this)

Shatter24 writes:
on May 14 2009 06:53 AM

In reply to this comment (#2475253)
The point is that MGM wasn't willing to risk money on this film when T4 needed it but now, if it turns a substantial profit, they'll want a piece of a "proven" franchise. That doesn't sound fair to me but it does sound like Hollywood.

(Reply to this)

BUCK69 writes:
on May 14 2009 07:26 AM

In reply to this comment (#2475293)
Sounds very similar to the situation with Fox, Warner Bros, and Watchmen. Fox washed it's hands of the whole thing [like MGM here] until it the work was done and it looked like there might be some subtantial money to be made. It may not seem fair, but that's the way that things work [not just in Hollywood, but in the business world]. The real difference is that MGM was smart here. When they released their rights, they kept a few options open that might result in major dollars.

(Reply to this)

DullMentalRacket writes:
on May 14 2009 07:33 AM

Mental.

(Reply to this)

kiddo writes:
on May 14 2009 07:35 AM

There's no problem at all. This film will underperform anyway.

(Reply to this)

stevegilpin writes:
on May 14 2009 08:00 AM

I'm boycotting this movie. I recently watched The Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgment Day....those are easily two of the best Sci-Fi Action movies ever made.....as James Cameron said, the story really ended with the second film.....let's just stop making Terminator sequels, okay? Oh, I forgot.....all the studios care about is making money, regardless of the integrity of the product....nevermind....I'll just shut up now.

(Reply to this)

Hans B. writes:
on May 14 2009 09:38 AM

You're "boycotting" this movie? Don't be ridiculous. You miss the point when Cameron says "the story ended with T2".
The 'story' may have ENDED there, but only chronologically. That doesn't mean that there aren't large parts of the story which were never filled in. Like oh say.......the ENTIRE MACHINE WARS. How they came about, how the resistence came to be, how John Connor led it, what happened etc...
All we've ever had are brief flashbacks to the machine wars. And everyone wants to know how they went down, especially me.
And seriously, the trailers look AMAZING. Don't be a snob. You could come up with reasons to boycott anything in the world.

(Reply to this)

deadlysquirrel writes:
on May 14 2009 09:49 AM

Who put this up in the first place??? Kinda stupid....Who wants to hear about this right now? Let the movie come out in peace...We dont need to worry about no sequels...Hollywood and their damn sequels...Let us enjoy the film...Movie hasnt come out for 10 mins and their already trying to hammer us with the next sequel...mumbo jumbo....

(Reply to this)

Theduckmancometh writes:
on May 14 2009 09:52 AM

I do love the comments on the evils of making money on this site. The studios are evil for trying to make as much money as possible, the actors/actresses are evil for wanting to make as much money as possible. My favorite is when someone asks, how much money do they actually need? I'll tell you how much, every friggin dime they can make, or exactly the same response any of us would make if we had the chance to make this type of income. There is no such thing as making "too" much money, plain and simple. If you do wish the studio/actor to not make this type of income, then do not support the entertainment industry. But it certain comes across as sour grapes for the most part on here.

(Reply to this)

deadlysquirrel writes:
on May 14 2009 09:54 AM

James Cameron was just scared of messing up his perfectly done 1st two terminator films...its all ego...T3 wasnt that bad at all, and if Cameron would of did it, it probably would of been that good....I put my every penny that T:Salvation is gonna be bananas....And by the way T2 was good, but a bit overrated...Terminator was a friggin classic...Its all about Reese....lol...

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on May 14 2009 09:56 AM

...Deja vu...Watchmen...

(Reply to this)

chille writes:
on May 14 2009 10:05 AM

No, the story did end with T2. Yes, we missed out on the Machine Wars and how the resistance came about but it didn't matter. The whole point of T2 was that if John Conner survived, the resistance couldn't lose. Then T3 comes along and says, "No, just kidding Judgment Day is inevitable, sorry."

(Reply to this)

chille writes:
on May 14 2009 10:08 AM

In reply to this comment (#2475472)
Whoops, meant to say that in T2 they stopped Judgment day from ever happening, so there was no need to continue the story.

(Reply to this)

Dave D. writes:
on May 14 2009 10:22 AM

Im just glad Arnolds NOT in it

(Reply to this)

Dave J. writes:
on May 14 2009 11:16 AM

Behind the scenes seems to be just as entertaining as the movie itself, a movie or a documentay should be made out of it. I sure as hell would pay money to see this squabble.

(Reply to this)

chewie louie writes:
on May 14 2009 11:26 AM

It's not a big deal, relax.

(Reply to this)

matt d. writes:
on May 14 2009 11:40 AM

whatever happens i hope they lose mcg and get alfonso cauron

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on May 14 2009 11:56 AM

In reply to this comment (#2475481)
What?!?!? He IS the series!

(Reply to this)

willywonkanobi writes:
on May 14 2009 01:05 PM

I just hope McG doesn't do his idea for the sequel. It defies all logic

(Reply to this)

JAKEofMIDWORLD writes:
on May 14 2009 01:30 PM

**** this ****. Let's enjoy T4. If they McG made a good movie and they never make another, at least the series can go out strong.

(Reply to this)

David A. writes:
on May 14 2009 01:34 PM

Being a fan of the Terminator franchise...by that, I mean the two James Cameron movies...this is welcome news...no really, I'm onboard with anything that delays the inevitable sequels that will continue to ruin this beloved franchise...

Keep at it studios.

(Reply to this)

lestatthevampire writes:
on May 14 2009 01:53 PM

does anyone watch sarah connor chronicles or.....

(Reply to this)

Jeff I. writes:
on May 14 2009 03:46 PM

Hoping it's a great film, but with such winners as "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" under his belt, I don't have a ton of faith in McG.

(Reply to this)

MadMan23 writes:
on May 14 2009 04:05 PM

In reply to this comment (#2475637)
i agree lose mcg and get cuaron.

(Reply to this)

ZigBallistic writes:
on May 14 2009 05:10 PM

MGM Before: "ZOMG No Arnold! This movie will fail so no help from us."
MGM After: "ZOMG they pulled it off without Arnie, we want in on this again, give us now please."

(Reply to this)

kally l. writes:
on May 14 2009 08:26 PM

My friend recommended me a very interesting place *** W e a l t h yF i n d e r COM ****It's where wealthy singles and celebrities looking for someone to enjoy their wealthy lifestyle with.

(Reply to this)

screwhead100 writes:
on May 14 2009 08:38 PM

Hans B. i agree with u all the way, i know so many people that wanted to see the future war and john connor leadin that war.....cameron can be bitter all he wants for T3 not living up to the hype but he shoulda kept making them himself like Lucas did with star wars even tho those didnt turn out so well....

i cant wait for may 21st......

(Reply to this)

Bob S. writes:
on May 14 2009 11:43 PM

I think there's potential for Terminator: Salvation to be an entertaining action movie, but I can understand the reasons that Cameron didn't want a sequel and has distanced himself from them. The ending of TERMINATOR 2 was one of the best I've ever seen, and the story should have ended with the dark road and humankind saved from untold destruction. The message of that movie was, "Our choices determine our future."

When all that stuff happens anyway, as implied by T3, then it takes on a totally different message: "It doesn't matter what you do - it's all fated to happen anyway." TERMINATOR 3 rang sort of hollow for me, and was ultimately forgettable. They tried to parrot TERMINATOR 2 almost beat for beat with a lot of the action sequences, but in my mind, that made it even worse in terms of standing on its own legs. For me, there's a big divestment between the first two movies and anything that comes after. Cameron was right to not to ruin his legacy in the way that George Lucas did. He's going to give us AVATAR instead, and it's going to be amazing. I'd bet that it'll be a lot more memorable than McG's movie.

(Reply to this)

screwhead100 writes:
on May 15 2009 12:55 AM

Bob, i see where yur comin from and its hard to argue against it....however, cameron was the one that teased us with the footage of the future battle scenes in T1 and T2.....so how can u blame us for wanting to see this future?!!?

If cameron would have excluded those future battle scenes from T1 and T2 then i think i would agree with u 100% that it should have ended at 2.......

(Reply to this)

brandon s. writes:
on May 15 2009 02:15 AM

I'll agree that much of the mainstream film industry is more interested in making a buck than artistic integrity....and yes, of course making money is important and, yes, VITAL.....but artistic integrity is more important. Personally, I despise any human being who would waste money on that kind of garbage. Basically, it's the entertainment industry feeding off the idiocy of the American public and the fact that they will essentially "watch anything" as long as it has special effects. That being said, I'm still on the fence about this new Terminator film...the third film was total trash released for nothing more than publicity for Arnold....but this film seems, at least from an inspiration standpoint, genuine. The first couple trailers had me salivating at the mouth....but after seeing the multitude of clips released the last few days my expectations have dampened quite a bit. It's too difficult to tell and, truth be told, sometime clips that look horrible out of context end up working fine within the film. I'll wait for the Rotten Tomato score before I decide to see it. If it's over 60% then I'll shovel out the dough, if not.....I'll wait for DVD and be bummed that my favorite actor has put an end to his streak of great films.

(Reply to this)

TJIrish34 writes:
on May 15 2009 04:13 AM

Actually the idiots are MGM. Who didn't want to be involved because Arnold wasn't in film. Uh who cares? In fact I take that as a good thing today. As for Bales... He is big time now because of Batman but alot of other BIG action actors could have been brought in. So ses MDM passed because of Arnold. How stupid. Iron Man was not a hot comic but film was good and made big money. Make a good film in this vein and the audiences will come.

(Reply to this)

High School With Money writes:
on May 15 2009 05:21 AM

How is this similar to the Watchmen blue-cokcblock? MGM isn't making money from Salvation. This is just a bidding war for the next Franchisinator because the rights weren't secured with Warners. If this deal results in more back door rights issues, the whole franchise will have to endure this contestation over and over. Big whoop.

(Reply to this)

Yogi_Bare writes:
on May 15 2009 01:36 PM

T1 & T2; great films

T3 sucked

even if the story ended with T2; that doesn't mean T4 couldn't have been made. For all it's time jumping continuity, T4 would actually be the prequel.

(Reply to this)

Bob S. writes:
on May 15 2009 02:00 PM

In reply to this comment (#2476805)
Well, point needs to be made that THIS future of TERMINATOR: SALVATION is not THAT future. THAT future had humanity on the brink of total devastation, moving only at night, skulls being crushed, and a very bleak outlook. This movie looks like everything happens in the day. Obviously, this is earlier in the timeline than the clips that we saw in T1 and T2. I don't blame people for wanting to see more of it, but I really liked the message about us being able to take control of our future. Cameron said that the movie was born out of memories he had as a kid fearing nuclear holocaust. He lived for decades with the threat of nuclear war destroying Earth. His movie was saying, "We don't have to do that. It's not written in stone."

The franchise is eternally robbed of that powerful message. If they'd done it STAR TREK style and done a parallel universe, or something like that, maybe I could get on board a little bit easier. There are a lot of time paradoxes involved in the series, but the whole point is that the future shouldn't happen. There's no one to advance Cyberdyne's technology, no one to create Skynet - so Judgment Day shouldn't be happening at all. I love the endoskeletons and everything else as much as the next guy, though, so I will end up watching it. Only question is whether I'll pay for the theater experience or not.

(Reply to this)

Bob S. writes:
on May 15 2009 02:10 PM

In reply to this comment (#2476834)
Terminator: SALIVATION? Ha. No, I agree completely - my interest was definitely piqued when Christian Bale got involved. This is a guy who began a brilliant career with EMPIRE OF THE SUN, and instead of milking it and fading out like the vast majority of child stars, he went into smaller time acting, refining his craft and becoming a real actor before emerging to be the beast that is today. I mean this is a guy who lost 62 pounds to play the lead in THE MACHINIST, then gained 100 pounds to be Batman for BATMAN BEGINS. He's made excellent choices in the past, and when he got on board, and Jonathan Nolan was brought in to redo some parts of the script, I was definitely getting excited. McG is a pretty pedestrian director and has precious little talent, so that had me nervous, but the early trailers and promo material had me thinking that it could be quite good. Then came the barrage of clips and my enthusiasm really died. There might be a chance it'll be good, but I agree with you about artistic integrity. There is NO reason - NONE - that an effects-laden summer blockbuster cannot have a genuinely great, compelling story. Heck, look at the first two films in this franchise! If it's just a crappy eye candy movie, I'll pass and wait for it on DVD.

(Reply to this)

Yogi_Bare writes:
on May 15 2009 02:17 PM

The irony is that Judgement Day had to happen so that it wouldn't have to happen.

Without the occurrence of JD, there would never have been a send back and the Sarah and John Conner, in which we are familiar with, wouldn't have existed nor would the circumstances leading to JCs birth.

What appears to have happened is the creation of a new timeline in which JD didn't happen; but runs parallel to the timeline in which it does occur.

As far as the details of the future war; Reeses' descrip moreso cover the late and end portions of the war while T4 covers the beginning and early parts. So it wouldn't be accurate to confine the whole of the war to a description of it's state near it's end.

(Reply to this)

Yogi_Bare writes:
on May 15 2009 02:31 PM

then again, i could be wrong about the timing

(Reply to this)

Bob S. writes:
on May 15 2009 03:10 PM

In reply to this comment (#2477852)
Well, this is my understanding of the timeline from TERMINATOR 1/2:

Kyle Reese is sent back in time by John Connor to prevent the Terminator from killing his mother. John Connor is the human resistance's one hope for success (TIME PARADOX ALERT), and as it turns out, Kyle Reese is actually his father. John Connor is ultimately saved, able to continue his future to save humanity, and the Terminator is destroyed, except for a chip that is somehow recovered, and the arm of an endoskeleton.

From the advanced chip, and the mechanics of the arm, Cyberdyne is able to create Skynet. At this point, the future war is still on. The only thing that has been accomplished is that John Connor is going to be able to lead the resistance. The machines send back the T1000 to kill John Connor himself, and Connor sends back a reprogrammed Terminator to save him (TIME PARADOX AGAIN). They break into Cyberdyne, destroy the research that has been done there, and escape with the chip and the arm (which are later destroyed). In a scene that made me cry as a kid when I saw it, Arnold sacrifices himself because he is the only existing copy of the technology that will permit Cyberdyne to create Skynet. This act of self-sacrifice will prevent Skynet from ever existing, from starting Judgment Day, and the entire future war. Sarah Connor's monologue proves that point - that humanity is saved because a machine learned to love and to care for human life.

That's the whole point of everything that happens, and that's why James Cameron himself said that for him, the Terminator story ended with T2. Now, if the future war never occurs and Kyle Reese isn't John Connor's friend and doesn't go back in time, how does John Connor exist? It's a time paradox. Who cares? You have to suspend your disbelief to appreciate the story, and it's a powerful, emotionally compelling story at that. As for the point about the future war aesthetic, I was responding to an earlier post about wanting to see more of that Cameron future war stuff. I was saying that TERMINATOR: SALVATION is not that Jim Cameron future. Will the sequels be closer to that? Probably. Hopefully. But I also hope that they'll dump McG by the wayside for those.

(Reply to this)

Brian R. writes:
on May 15 2009 05:18 PM

The way they have advertised this movie, how could someone not think it will make money? My bet is not as high as The Dark Knight, but still damn high. I am just worried to find out production of Terminator 5 is already in the discussion. I must say that after this long, I was simply hoping for an amazing movie that would make up for the disaster of the Third one and finish the series the right way with a bang. Now, I am worried we are get some bull**** cliff hanger ending that keeps us waiting another 4 years for the conclusion of the story that started before I was even born with terminator 1. PLEASE LET THEM NOT F UP THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!

(Reply to this)

Bob S. writes:
on May 15 2009 05:24 PM

In reply to this comment (#2478102)
This film is planned as the first of a trilogy. They're not going to kill Skynet permanently by the end of the movie.

(Reply to this)

Eric G. writes:
on May 15 2009 10:40 PM

For everyone that said the movie ended with T2 needs to get over it. You could go on believing that Judgement day never happens because the chip and terminator are destroyed at the end, but this would create a huge paradox in the timeline.

Yes you could say; it's just a movie your taking it too literally, but if there was no terminator to send back in the 2nd one or even the first one, they never would have even achieved what they did in T2, nor would John have existed in the first place.

Cameron originally wanted T2 to be about the future war, but the studios shot that idea down before it could even take off.

I like many others have been looking forward to seeing the war with the machines ever since Cameron gave us those glimpses of the future in the first two films.

How can you knock something before you've even seen it anyways?

(Reply to this)

Bob S. writes:
on May 16 2009 04:31 PM

In reply to this comment (#2478576)
I'll answer your last accusation first. I'm not "knocking something" before I've seen it. I stated my objections to the conceptual basis of the film (which doesn't require having actually watched the movie), and I hold that those are valid. Secondly, I stated that my enthusiasm for this project had markedly dampened AFTER watching the 10 clips of the movie, one of the action scenes that was released by McG, and the 4 minute trailer that was released. That is knocking it based on what I've seen of it. The clips were largely character-driven pieces, and were rather weak. They showcased Bale doing his raspy voice again, which I could do without, some moments of over-acting coupled with some wooden acting, stiff dialog, some painfully bad characters (the mute kid Star), and a lot of the plotting, which was less-than-stellar (felt a bit like MATRIX rehash - again something I could do without). Between all of that, I've seen, I'd guess, about 15-20 minutes of movie footage. It'll have some big action scenes, and it might be worthwhile summer fun, but I have very strong doubts that it will be a great movie. The fact that Bale is involved, who usually has pretty good selection when choosing what movies to do, was enough to make me get over my distaste of McG, and I was honestly hoping that this was going to be a great movie before I'd seen so much of the available circulating footage.

Now, I believe I've answered your other points in prior posts, but either you weren't paying attention or I wasn't clear enough. TERMINATOR 2 could easily have been about future war - remember, as I pointed out in my Terminator timeline, at the end of the first movie, all that has happened is that John Connor is going to be able to lead the resistance. The war is still going to happen, and the events of the movie actually spur Judgment Day when Cyberdyne gets hold of an advanced microchip that is so far beyond anything that they've seen. However, when the story became ABOUT stopping Judgment Day, the idea was that mankind has the ability to control their own future - we are not slaves to fate. In case you missed this, it's rather obviously pointed out for you numerous times throughout the film. Sarah Connor actually carves the words "NO FATE" into a picnic table with a knife. Did you listen to the closing monologue? If you deny that the movie was about averting the inevitability of future war, you're being intentionally obtuse.

Again, as I acknowledged, avoidance of the future war creates a time paradox. So does every other major plot point in the series. John Connor's conception is a time paradox. Elimination of targets in the past (meaning that they wouldn't be there in the future, to become targets in the first place) is a time paradox. EVERYTHING about the movies is a time paradox, so don't throw it in my face that Judgment Day has to happen or else there's a time paradox. That's a completely bullcrap argument. The point is that Cameron told a great story in the first two Terminator films, and the reason that this movie exists is not because there has to be a depiction of Judgment Day - it exists because there's a studio that thinks it'll make a lot of money. Like I said, I like the mythology and the visual style of the Terminator universe, and I'm looking forward to seeing a hopefully good post-apocalyptic future war movie. As I said, I just wish that it had been a parallel timeline or something other than the universe that we've seen. I'll evaluate it on its own merits, but don't tell me I have to "get over it" when a great storyline is corrupted.

(Reply to this)

TomatoHunter writes:
on May 18 2009 06:04 PM

Hah, as if T4 will make money - more dark dreary depressing rubbish.

(Reply to this)

Kerry_RT writes:
on May 20 2009 10:48 AM

pointless note...at 24% yesterday, its not going to rake it in.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Cannes Film Festival 2009

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links