Next up... Terminator: Salvation, May 21 2009

I think FOX is going to learn that the ratings for Dollhouse were largely due to it's placement after SCC (which is the only reason I watched it). Without SCC, I predict that Dollhouse will lose ground.

Personally, I liked Dollhouse, but not nearly as much as SCC, and definitely not enough to set aside time for on Friday night (if SCC is not attracting me to the TV). I also like Joss Whedon's work, particularly Firefly and Serenity, but the concept behind Dollhouse is simply not as interesting as those other shows.

My viewing habits with regard to network programming are also changing. Rather than watch shows on TV, I now find that I prefer to download them for $2 from iTunes *IF* the show is very good, as was the case for SCC. Commercials detract from the show, so I'm willing to pay $2 to avoid the commercials completely (I don't even like to have to fast forward through them).

If the primary audience for shows like SCC are "techie" types who are early adopters of new technologies and methods, then shows like SCC may be more accurately measured by their value through other media such as the Internet. I wonder if FOX and other networks are correctly assessing their ROI based on the new distribution methods. And I wonder if their price points are correct for the other distribution methods.

I think you're right about "Dollhouse" and FOX has made about as many bad decisions as NBC. Watched two episodes and just didn't grab me.
Another network could pick-up SCC or another Terminator series but not if the movie doesn't do well.

"Firefly" is superior TV sci-fi and the movie "Serenity" opened to very good reviews but didn't even reach $ 40. M domestic and foreign box office.
But it cost about the same to make, before promotional costs. I think it just didn't have any big name stars which would have added considerably to the cost (and the gamble). The DVD, however, spend two weeks on the Billboard top ten, made money with its cable and satellite showings and has been sold to syndication on the Sci-Fi channel. It has made money along with the TV series making money, more in DVD sales than the original broadcast on FOX. Universal has remastered the entire series in 1080i 16:9 and has been showing it on its' Universal HD channel -- really spectacular.

Well, I've never watched this Dollhouse show, so I haven't a clue, but I wish the buggers nothing but hot molten lead down their shorts for cancelling the SCC series. I hope it bites them in the butt.


Interesting thought. I certainly hope so, although, traditionally it costs more to do a sci-fi series I understand? You can enlighten me on that point.

It seems that so many reality shows still dominate the tube these days. It's nice when there's something different.

I know there's still lots of cop shows out there (groan), but a least shows like 11th Hour and The Mentalist put a different spin on the usual tripe. Hopefully, they won't get cancelled, too.

"The Mentalist" is a big hit and will return. "Eleventh Hour" is in the limbo stage for renewal. I like both of those, also, as well as "Fringe" which is also returning -- the more bizarre that show gets, even if stretching credulity, the better I like it. It gets kind of satirical, even a bit tongue-in-cheek about itself.

Hmm, don't like the sound of that, at all! Keeping my fingers crossed!

I think name-brand stars are over rated. I wish more movies would go with new talent. If they can keep the cost down on the "stars" maybe they could put more into the writing talent.


The film industry seems ripe for a huge business restructuring. With all the new production technologies and most importantly, the distribution mechanisms, there must be a more competitive (and cost efficient) way to produce (and sell) decent film entertainment.

The brand name stars, even the top of the heap, doesn't always guarantee success. Example: "The Wild, Wild West" (a box office disaster) "Serenity" was a serious sci-fi theme that big name serious actors wouldn't consider. Yet George Clooney experimented with "Solaris," which was a good remake, just not of the caliber of the original.

from Entertainment Weekly

'Terminator Salvation': The shocking, bummer of an ending you didn't see!

May 26, 2009, 02:43 PM | by Chris Nashawaty

SPOILER ALERT: Do not read any further if you don't want to know plot details of Terminator Salvation. Seriously! You've been warned!

Two weeks before Terminator Salvation hit theaters, the film's director, McG, sat in his L.A. production office for an interview with EW. He was talking about the swirl of rumors and gossip surrounding the film -- about how bloggers had posted all kinds of far-fetched speculation during production and how it drove him nuts.

And then, out of nowhere, McG smiles and says, "Here's something I've never talked about before...".

Now, before we go any further, there's some backstory about the movie's plot you'll need to know if you haven't already seen it. Terminator Salvation is set in the year 2018 -- after the apocalyptic Judgment Day, which was prophesied in the earlier films. There are three main characters in the story: John Connor (Christian Bale), the son of Sarah Connor who will lead the resistance against the evil Skynet; Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin), the young resistance fighter who will grow up and eventually travel back in time (as seen in the 1984 original when Reese was played by Michael Biehn) to impregnate Sarah Connor with the young savior, John Connor; and Marcus Wright, a mysterious dude who's half human, half machine programmed by Skynet (the fact that he's unaware of this makes for some of the most poignant scenes in the film).

Okay, now back to McG's big, juicy secret. A secret, by the way, that Bale will back up as you read on.

"There was talk on the Internet about an alternate ending where Connor dies and they take Connor's likeness and put it on top of Marcus Wright's machine body. So that it's actually a machine that's leading the resistance! And the Internet caught wind of that and people went, 'That's bulls---! We don't want that!'"

McG grins. "Well, that's not really what the ending was."

Actually, the bloggers were on the right track. Except, McG adds, the original ending actually went even further.

"Connor dies, okay? He's dead," McG continues. "And Marcus offers his physical body, so Connor's exterior is put on top of his machine body. It looks like Connor, but it's really Marcus underneath. And all of the characters we care about (Kyle Reese, Connor's wife Kate, etc.) are brought into the room to see him and they think it's Connor. And Connor gets up and then there's a small flicker of red in his eyes and he shoots Kate, he shoots Kyle, he shoots everybody in the room. Fade to black. End of movie. Skynet wins. F--- you!"

F--- you, indeed.

We tell the director that this would be the darkest, bleakest summer blockbuster ending of all time. He agrees.

"It's the most nihilistic thing of all time. And Christian went f---ing crazy, of course. He was insistent that it be done that way! He wanted the bad guys to win! Can you imagine the oxygen going out of the theater?! What just happened! It would piss you off! But maybe two years from now, you'd think it was ballsy. But in the end, it just felt like too much of a bummer."

He pauses, thinking about the alternate ending that wasn't. "Maybe we blew it."

McG says the studio had signed off on this original dark-as-night ending. But something about it didn't smell right to him in the end. How could a movie with a reported budget of $200 million and a possible future of sequels possibly end that way?

EW sits down with Bale the next day and tells the star how McG let the cat out of the bag. Bale laughs. "There's not much McG can keep in, is there?"

Was he really, as McG says, gung-ho to shoot that everyone-dies ending?

"I'm not the director," says Bale. "There came to be a different option that almost everyone, except myself, felt was the better way to go. I took a bit of convincing, but you know, at the end of the day, you need a director to make that call."

But doesn't he think that his Salvation would have been a depressing bummer, not to mention suicide at the box office?

"Done the way I saw it? No. But am I disappointed with this one? No."

End of article

TS is now at about $ 72 million as of yesterday's box office. If it get's No. 2 over Disney/Pixar's "Up" this weekend and maintains a steady daily box office, it could make it. Well, at least we know the ending leaves it open for a sequel.

Probably won't get a true box office for TS until Sunday afternoon. Here's RTT Global Financial News:

RTT Box Office Estimates For May 29 - May 31 (In Millions):

1) Up (Buena Vista/Disney): $66

2) Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (FOX): $25

3) Drag Me To Hell (Universal): $24

4) Terminator Salvation (Warner Brothers): $21

5) Star Trek (Paramount): $13.5

6) Angels and Demons (Sony/Columbia): $11

If those estimates hold up, TS could end up being a flop and I think I know why. The gamer teens who have already saw it will buy the game (or will ride the coaster at Six Flags, which may end up with a name change -- it's a wooden coaster) and will not return to see it again.

this made me laugh out loud

Really funny.

"Transformers" is what the same PG-13 crowd who did see TS will flock to and it will be some tired old robots (the giant robot also without shame mimicking "Transformers") against new, already fantastically popular new robots. "Transformers" is also not a downer movie -- watch the news if you want to be depressed. Depressing movies have not done well at the box office, at least not without a really great script and some romance.

quite enjoyed transformers, not so sure i have any desire to see the sequel, although megan fox draped over a motorcycle is a sight to behold

I read the reviews and they were generally good -- almost 70% favorable and I was quite surprised that I liked the movie. Robots with personalities? Wonderful -- a very fun night out at the movies and I watched it again on HBO. Not sure they have enough there for a sequel that would not be a replay of the first one. James Cameron followed up the original Terminator with an even better movie -- the story expanded, he did the clever switcheroo on the Ahnold cyborg and just generally polished up the storyline, not to mention the state-of-the-arts CGI. He tossed the ball without even writing the script to a colleague Jonathan Mostow who's only previous film was "U-571" and he managed to make that film look better than it was in comparison by fumbling the ball. He tried to pick the ball up several times during the The Rise of the Machines and then ended by running towards the wrong goal post.

I enjoyed Transformers a lot. I thought it was a very creative "transformation" from a children's story to a more adult form. It retained the basic elements from the original idea, but wove them into modern culture. It had lots of references to Internet and www which hooked teens in as the transitional generation between children and adults. It also moved along quickly and poked fun at the right people (sector7 got skewered, but the military looked competent, and no women tripped over nothing and fell to the ground while running away screaming (I hate it when that happens)).

I'm hoping the new Transformers will provide the summer thrill that Terminator Salvation didn't (keeping hope alive that Hollywood will accidentally stumble onto another good sci-fi despite their best efforts).

Michael Bay redeemed himself as a director with "Transformers" having directed some real clunkers, The Island (2005), Bad Boys II (2003), Pearl Harbor (2001), Armageddon (1998), since "The Rock," his only previous good movie. It was the script that really made the movie great (besides the top notch CGI and some good human performances). The principal writer Roberto Orci also wrote "Fringe" (20 episodes, 2008-2009), Star Trek (2009) Mission: Impossible III (the only one of the three that was actually a very good flick).

The accountants at Warner Bros. are likely at the Beverly Hills Hotel Polo Lounge crying in their beer -- I think this is the end of the Terminator franchise and the end of MrG's directing career for now. The producers probably have a contract out on him. He's a joke, except he has another trick up his sleeve -- 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: Captain Nemo (2011) (pre-production) I wonder how well he will screw that one up.

'Up' soars at boxoffice on opening day
3-D animated film brings in $21.4 mil Friday

By Gregg Kilday

May 30, 2009, 02:24 PM ET

"Up"
Disney/Pixar's "Up," buoyed aloft by ecstatic reviews, lifted off Friday to an estimated opening-day take of $21.4 million. The PG-rated Disney release about a septuagenarian in search of adventure, directed by Pete Docter, benefited from playing on more than 1,500 3-D screens, commanding premium ticket prices, among the 3,766 locations in which it bowed.

"Up's" opening-day haul trailed slightly behind the $23.2 million that Pixar's most recent hit, "WALL-E," took in on its opening day last June. That movie went on to a $63.1 million opening weekend -- which "Up" could still surpass -- and a total domestic tally of $223.8 million.

While "Up" soared to the heavens, the weeeknd's other new wide opener, Universal's release of Sam Raimi's PG-13 horror tale "Drag Me to Hell," scared up solid genre numbers. Seizing the third-place spot for the day, it took in about $6.5 million in 2,508 locations, which should see it collect a figure in the high-teen millions for the weekend.

Ranked second, and competing with "Up" for the family audience, was the second weekend of Fox's "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian." Pulling in $7.3 million, it saw business decline by a little more than 50% from its opening Friday take of $15.6 million.

Warner's "Terminator: Salvation," checking in in fourth place with $5.1 million, registered a bigger decline. Its Friday gross was off about 65% from its previous Friday, which was its second day in theaters.

Paramount's space opera "Star Trek" and Sony's ecclesiastical thriller "Angels & Demons" were in close contention for the fifth place. "Trek" took in about $3.59 million for the day as its gross-to-date crossed the $200 million mark, while "Angels" collared $3.4 million, which puts it in a position to cross the $100 million mark Saturday.

I like both "The Mentalist" and "The Eleventh Hour," and I hope the latter is renewed, but I do find Rufus Sewell's character annoying, being yet another portrayal of smart as naive and unwordly.

I don't see the naive or unworldly nature in Prof. Ian Wood (I think the name came directly from the four part British series that spawned the US series). He is a scientist and so he is skeptical and analytical but forcing himself to participate in law enforcement along with firearms and criminals, which has been anathema to him because he realizes what good he can do. It's a delicate line to play the absent minded professor type and the resourceful sleuth. However, we no longer will have to worry about that -- it has been dropped:

http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/05/exclusive-witho.html

It may be the end of McG as a director, but Terminator Salvation seemed very much like a prequel to me. I bet they've already planned the next two Terminator movies (hopefully with a better director than McG).