My wife wouldn't have lasted past the opening sequence.
Perhaps they will delve into this 1973 story in a sequel. Looks like one may get a green-light. The movie only did $90 million domestically, but it made that in the first 8 days in China - it took nine weeks to do that in North America. Worldwide BO was over $440 million.
My wife wouldn't have lasted past the opening sequence.
Perhaps they will delve into this 1973 story in a sequel. Looks like one may get a green-light. The movie only did $90 million domestically, but it made that in the first 8 days in China - it took nine weeks to do that in North America. Worldwide BO was over $440 million.
That would be interesting. We've been to the current date & future dates, now a movie in the past. The more I think about this movie, the more it reminds me of what Superman Returns was supposed to be; a continuation of the original concept & whiteout the sequels. I read a couple of the ideas used were Cameron's. Supposedly, he approved & liked the movie.
I wish the "Salvation trilogy" would've been given a chance. Since they (thankfully) changed the original ending to that movie, I thought there was some real potential.
My wife wouldn't have lasted past the opening sequence.
Perhaps they will delve into this 1973 story in a sequel. Looks like one may get a green-light. The movie only did $90 million domestically, but it made that in the first 8 days in China - it took nine weeks to do that in North America. Worldwide BO was over $440 million.
That would be interesting. We've been to the current date & future dates, now a movie in the past. The more I think about this movie, the more it reminds me of what Superman Returns was supposed to be; a continuation of the original concept & whiteout the sequels. I read a couple of the ideas used were Cameron's. Supposedly, he approved & liked the movie.
I wish the "Salvation trilogy" would've been given a chance. Since they (thankfully) changed the original ending to that movie, I thought there was some real potential.
I liked (some of ) Salvation too, but I've never cared much for Sam Worthington. What was the ending change you speak about?
I agree, the next movies need to go back to a much earlier past. Skipping ahead and showing the future has been done to death in this franchise. In fact, I don't think Salvation had ANY time travel, did it?
My wife wouldn't have lasted past the opening sequence.
Perhaps they will delve into this 1973 story in a sequel. Looks like one may get a green-light. The movie only did $90 million domestically, but it made that in the first 8 days in China - it took nine weeks to do that in North America. Worldwide BO was over $440 million.
That would be interesting. We've been to the current date & future dates, now a movie in the past. The more I think about this movie, the more it reminds me of what Superman Returns was supposed to be; a continuation of the original concept & whiteout the sequels. I read a couple of the ideas used were Cameron's. Supposedly, he approved & liked the movie.
I wish the "Salvation trilogy" would've been given a chance. Since they (thankfully) changed the original ending to that movie, I thought there was some real potential.
I liked (some of ) Salvation too, but I've never cared much for Sam Worthington. What was the ending change you speak about?
I agree, the next movies need to go back to a much earlier past. Skipping ahead and showing the future has been done to death in this franchise. In fact, I don't think Salvation had ANY time travel, did it?
I believe the altered ending is John Connor becoming a terminator?
This has been on FX recently. I’ll admit, I liked it; much more then T3. I like how they tried to mirror aspects of the original & T2. Unfortunately, like Salvation, this is going nowhere with sequels. Still wonder who sent back “pops” to protect a 9yo Sarah.
This has been on FX recently. I’ll admit, I liked it; much more then T3. I like how they tried to mirror aspects of the original & T2. Unfortunately, like Salvation, this is going nowhere with sequels. Still wonder who sent back “pops” to protect a 9yo Sarah.
We will never find out. For me, it’s a shame, because I totally would have watched the sequel.
People want to give Wonder Woman praise for being the needed strong female leading character, but I always thought that was filled by both Sarah (specifically in T2) & Ellen Ripley (specifically Aliens). Is it a coincidence both are by James Cameron?
One of my favorite bits in Luke Cage S2 was a one-armed Misty cocking her sidearm in front of Luke. He said (paraphrasing) “that’s some Ripley shit”. Misty responded “I was thinking more Sarah Connor.”
@Matt, thank you for pointing that out! There have been plenty of action/sci-fi/superhero films starring a strong female lead for decades now, but dozens of (presumably "feminist") writers seem to have come down with collective amnesia as they bemoaned the lack of such before Wonder Woman. Ripley and Sarah Conner are great examples. Of course there was also the Underworld films, the Resident Evil films, the Hunger Games which was massively successful, etc etc. And we had just recently gotten Force Awakens with Rey and Rogue One with Jynn Erso!
But plenty of writers continued to write as if the lack of a WW films was evidence of some kind of overall misogynist streak in society/Hollywood, as opposed to studio heads making too broad/misguided assumptions about the lack of success of previous films (as studio heads tend to do). Ignoring that there have also been a whole bunch of films with strong female leads that just didn't do very well (or well enough) at the box office to justify more than one sequel like Salt, the Tomb Raider films, Haywire (great fight scenes if you haven't seen it!), the Charlie's Angels films, La Femme Nikita (and its American remake), the Kill Bill films, and I have no doubt I'm leaving stuff out. You can't even argue that WW was the first female superhero movie as we had Supergirl, Catwoman and Elektra. All of those movies were enormous flops but you can't pretend they weren't made and didn't exist and continue to pound the "misogynist" narrative.
@Matt, thank you for pointing that out! There have been plenty of action/sci-fi/superhero films starring a strong female lead for decades now, but dozens of (presumably "feminist") writers seem to have come down with collective amnesia as they bemoaned the lack of such before Wonder Woman. Ripley and Sarah Conner are great examples. Of course there was also the Underworld films, the Resident Evil films, the Hunger Games which was massively successful, etc etc. And we had just recently gotten Force Awakens with Rey and Rogue One with Jynn Erso!
But plenty of writers continued to write as if the lack of a WW films was evidence of some kind of overall misogynist streak in society/Hollywood, as opposed to studio heads making too broad/misguided assumptions about the lack of success of previous films (as studio heads tend to do). Ignoring that there have also been a whole bunch of films with strong female leads that just didn't do very well (or well enough) at the box office to justify more than one sequel like Salt, the Tomb Raider films, Haywire (great fight scenes if you haven't seen it!), the Charlie's Angels films, La Femme Nikita (and its American remake), the Kill Bill films, and I have no doubt I'm leaving stuff out. You can't even argue that WW was the first female superhero movie as we had Supergirl, Catwoman and Elektra. All of those movies were enormous flops but you can't pretend they weren't made and didn't exist and continue to pound the "misogynist" narrative.
I can name EIGHTY superhero movies where the lead is a man and that character is also in the title.
I can name you SEVEN superhero movies where the same is true of a woman. And one of those isn't even her name, just a description her in relation to the male lead (My Super Ex-Girlfriend).
Not to mention some of those 80(!) male-led superhero movies were just as bad as Supergirl, Catwoman and Elektra AND GOT SEQUELS.
There are TWO Ghost Rider films! TWO! And after Wolverine Origins we got TWO MORE SOLO WOLVERINE FILMS!
So let's keep pounding that misogynist narrative, until film-making stops being misogynist.
@Matt, thank you for pointing that out! There have been plenty of action/sci-fi/superhero films starring a strong female lead for decades now, but dozens of (presumably "feminist") writers seem to have come down with collective amnesia as they bemoaned the lack of such before Wonder Woman. Ripley and Sarah Conner are great examples. Of course there was also the Underworld films, the Resident Evil films, the Hunger Games which was massively successful, etc etc. And we had just recently gotten Force Awakens with Rey and Rogue One with Jynn Erso!
But plenty of writers continued to write as if the lack of a WW films was evidence of some kind of overall misogynist streak in society/Hollywood, as opposed to studio heads making too broad/misguided assumptions about the lack of success of previous films (as studio heads tend to do). Ignoring that there have also been a whole bunch of films with strong female leads that just didn't do very well (or well enough) at the box office to justify more than one sequel like Salt, the Tomb Raider films, Haywire (great fight scenes if you haven't seen it!), the Charlie's Angels films, La Femme Nikita (and its American remake), the Kill Bill films, and I have no doubt I'm leaving stuff out. You can't even argue that WW was the first female superhero movie as we had Supergirl, Catwoman and Elektra. All of those movies were enormous flops but you can't pretend they weren't made and didn't exist and continue to pound the "misogynist" narrative.
I can name EIGHTY superhero movies where the lead is a man and that character is also in the title.
I can name you SEVEN superhero movies where the same is true of a woman. And one of those isn't even her name, just a description her in relation to the male lead (My Super Ex-Girlfriend).
Not to mention some of those 80(!) male-led superhero movies were just as bad as Supergirl, Catwoman and Elektra AND GOT SEQUELS.
There are TWO Ghost Rider films! TWO! And after Wolverine Origins we got TWO MORE SOLO WOLVERINE FILMS!
So let's keep pounding that misogynist narrative, until film-making stops being misogynist.
I can name EIGHTY superhero movies where the lead is a man and that character is also in the title.
I can name you SEVEN superhero movies where the same is true of a woman. And one of those isn't even her name, just a description her in relation to the male lead (My Super Ex-Girlfriend).
Not to mention some of those 80(!) male-led superhero movies were just as bad as Supergirl, Catwoman and Elektra AND GOT SEQUELS.
There are TWO Ghost Rider films! TWO! And after Wolverine Origins we got TWO MORE SOLO WOLVERINE FILMS!
So let's keep pounding that misogynist narrative, until film-making stops being misogynist.
I also would argue that, Sarah Connor is an excellent female action character, and Cameron and Hamilton deserve due credit for her, and her place in film history.
But by no means did the studio at the time promote Terminator or T2: Judgment Day as if she was the lead of those movie. Or is if they were Sarah Connor movies. That character and performance stand out, rightly so, and make us remember how much those movies were hers. But for context, of course, the movies are called Terminator. And here is the one-sheet for Terminator
Here is the original trailer, in which the battle is clearly between the title character and Reese, and Connor does a lot of damsel running and hiding. She is portrayed as what she was- third billed. She is not the star of this movie.
And, of course, we all know she kicks ass in T2, and she gets a lot of screen time and carries a lot of the plot. But they were by no means selling it as a Sarah Connor movie. She is not the star of this movie, either.
Here is that one-sheet
"It's nothing personal". Because, hey, it is a movie about him. It is not like the key art image is her, and the tag line is something about saving her son. THAT would be personal and full of feelings. But this is robot V. robot.
Other tag lines for this movie included:
"This time he's back...for good!"
"Same Make. Same Model. New Mission."
"This time there are two."
And here is that trailer, which, yes, does show some moments of her being a badass this time. But also makes it clear, as the copy in the trailer says, that this is a movie about:
"Two machines. One sent to destroy. The other to protect."
So what I am saying is that, yes, it is not like the Wonder Woman that we got last year was the first female action hero. There have been a number of really strong characters and performances, and Linda Hamilton/Sarah Connor and Sigourney Weaver/Ellen Ripley are great examples of those, and should not be overlooked.
BUT I also get why people got excited for Wonder Woman. Why a reportedly $150M budget summer tentpole female superhero movie named after the title character and directed by a woman mattered. Why it felt like, and was, a different thing. I get that.
Similarly, I love the Alien franchise, and Ripley. It was actually a really skillful use of subverting audience expectations that she emerged as the lead and sole survivor of the first one.
She would be the only character, other than the aliens themselves, to return in the sequel, Aliens.
Hey. Here's the studio one-sheet for Aliens, starring Sigourney Weaver returning as Ripley:
Hmm. I guess they really felt strongly about that font and tag line.
But, hey, she totally kicked ass in that. Was amazing. A new standard in female action hero.
And she's back for a third film! I mean, by the second Pitch Black movie they put Riddick's name in the title. No go here, we're still calling it Alien. That's fine. Alien is a strong title. Simple and clear. But the movie will be so much of her. More Ripley. The return of Ripley! Here's that poster:
Well. At least by the third poster of the trilogy she starred in, she finally had her name over the title. Even if they're only putting her face on it in the international one-sheets.
So, again, I am not saying anyone should pretend these characters didn't exist. But I think there were some real differences between how they were positioned and treated. How they were (and weren't) featured and promoted.
I can see why Wonder Woman felt like a difference.
People want to give Wonder Woman praise for being the needed strong female leading character, but I always thought that was filled by both Sarah (specifically in T2) & Ellen Ripley (specifically Aliens). Is it a coincidence both are by James Cameron?
One of my favorite bits in Luke Cage S2 was a one-armed Misty cocking her sidearm in front of Luke. He said (paraphrasing) “that’s some Ripley shit”. Misty responded “I was thinking more Sarah Connor.”
I believe these were the key words where my post was coming from. Not about posters or billing or marketing or who’s milkshake brought all the boys to the yard to warrant at least one sequel (I’d argue a 3rd Wolverine got made because of the success of #2), but what the characters were.
I could’ve thrown in Buffy:TVS, though I’ve come to only recognize the TV series, not the movie. Again, it has nothing to do with the series title or marketing focus, but the character.
Similarly, I love the Alien franchise, and Ripley. It was actually a really skillful use of subverting audience expectations that she emerged as the lead and sole survivor of the first one.
She would be the only character, other than the aliens themselves, to return in the sequel, Aliens.
Hey. Here's the studio one-sheet for Aliens, starring Sigourney Weaver returning as Ripley:
Hmm. I guess they really felt strongly about that font and tag line.
But, hey, she totally kicked ass in that. Was amazing. A new standard in female action hero.
And she's back for a third film! I mean, by the second Pitch Black movie they put Riddick's name in the title. No go here, we're still calling it Alien. That's fine. Alien is a strong title. Simple and clear. But the movie will be so much of her. More Ripley. The return of Ripley! Here's that poster:
Well. At least by the third poster of the trilogy she starred in, she finally had her name over the title. Even if they're only putting her face on it in the international one-sheets.
So, again, I am not saying anyone should pretend these characters didn't exist. But I think there were some real differences between how they were positioned and treated. How they were (and weren't) featured and promoted.
I can see why Wonder Woman felt like a difference.
Objectively, there are posters for both Aliens & Aliens3 that feature Weaver on them. Alien Resurrection has both Weaver & Ryder.
My favorite for Aliens has always been an armed Ripley holding Newt. It’s the definitive scene of the movie for me. It’s also the first image for the movie that I saw and intrigued me to want to see the movie (and series).
There wasn’t a Sarah Connors movie poster, but I saw T2 first and it was Sarah that intrigued me to see the original. I thought the following movies suffered by not having Sarah/Hamilton (though she recorded tapes for Terminator Salvation).
@Matt Yes. The international posters actually showed the character (and, I agree, were much better images overall). I wonder what that says about what the studios at that time thought about American audiences versus overseas (and what did or didn’t sell to the domestic audience.)
@Matt Yes. The international posters actually showed the character (and, I agree, were much better images overall). I wonder what that says about what the studios at that time thought about American audiences versus overseas (and what did or didn’t sell to the domestic audience.)
It says they were run by narrowminded individuals who made assumptions without actual data.
@Brack, Im sorry, but I disagree on one of your points. IMO saying "filmmaking" is "misogymist" bc of all the action fare targeted that's historically been targeted towards males is like saying filmmaking is misandrist for targeting soap operas and rom-coms entirely to females. Do I welcome more females in films/stories that have been traditionally targeted towards males because of some incorrect assumptions about what women want to watch? Of course. I just don't see the misogynist (I.e. Hatred or dislike of women) part when it comes to these audience targeting assumptions, but maybe that's on me.
@Brack, Im sorry, but I disagree on one of your points. IMO saying "filmmaking" is "misogymist" bc of all the action fare targeted that's historically been targeted towards males is like saying filmmaking is misandrist for targeting soap operas and rom-coms entirely to females. Do I welcome more females in films/stories that have been traditionally targeted towards males because of some incorrect assumptions about what women want to watch? Of course. I just don't see the misogynist (I.e. Hatred or dislike of women) part when it comes to these audience targeting assumptions, but maybe that's on me.
It's institutional misogyny.
It's not that every single one of those 80 movies was made with hatred of women on their mind. It's the structures in place that led to there being a 80:7 ratio of male-led:female-led super movies that are misogynistic.
And it's easy to ignore, because it's the status quo.
Also, you shouldn't just think of this in terms of just "what women want to watch". A big part of the problem here is producers thinking men don't want to watch women in films.
Comments
Perhaps they will delve into this 1973 story in a sequel. Looks like one may get a green-light. The movie only did $90 million domestically, but it made that in the first 8 days in China - it took nine weeks to do that in North America. Worldwide BO was over $440 million.
I wish the "Salvation trilogy" would've been given a chance. Since they (thankfully) changed the original ending to that movie, I thought there was some real potential.
M
I agree, the next movies need to go back to a much earlier past. Skipping ahead and showing the future has been done to death in this franchise. In fact, I don't think Salvation had ANY time travel, did it?
I believe the altered ending is John Connor becoming a terminator?
The original ending had John die, then his skin grafted onto Wright's body. It leaked & they changed it; fortunately.
M
https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/linda-hamilton-back-in-new-terminator-movie-first-official-look/
People want to give Wonder Woman praise for being the needed strong female leading character, but I always thought that was filled by both Sarah (specifically in T2) & Ellen Ripley (specifically Aliens). Is it a coincidence both are by James Cameron?
One of my favorite bits in Luke Cage S2 was a one-armed Misty cocking her sidearm in front of Luke. He said (paraphrasing) “that’s some Ripley shit”. Misty responded “I was thinking more Sarah Connor.”
But plenty of writers continued to write as if the lack of a WW films was evidence of some kind of overall misogynist streak in society/Hollywood, as opposed to studio heads making too broad/misguided assumptions about the lack of success of previous films (as studio heads tend to do). Ignoring that there have also been a whole bunch of films with strong female leads that just didn't do very well (or well enough) at the box office to justify more than one sequel like Salt, the Tomb Raider films, Haywire (great fight scenes if you haven't seen it!), the Charlie's Angels films, La Femme Nikita (and its American remake), the Kill Bill films, and I have no doubt I'm leaving stuff out. You can't even argue that WW was the first female superhero movie as we had Supergirl, Catwoman and Elektra. All of those movies were enormous flops but you can't pretend they weren't made and didn't exist and continue to pound the "misogynist" narrative.
I can name you SEVEN superhero movies where the same is true of a woman. And one of those isn't even her name, just a description her in relation to the male lead (My Super Ex-Girlfriend).
Not to mention some of those 80(!) male-led superhero movies were just as bad as Supergirl, Catwoman and Elektra AND GOT SEQUELS.
There are TWO Ghost Rider films! TWO! And after Wolverine Origins we got TWO MORE SOLO WOLVERINE FILMS!
So let's keep pounding that misogynist narrative, until film-making stops being misogynist.
Excellent post.
But by no means did the studio at the time promote Terminator or T2: Judgment Day as if she was the lead of those movie. Or is if they were Sarah Connor movies. That character and performance stand out, rightly so, and make us remember how much those movies were hers. But for context, of course, the movies are called Terminator. And here is the one-sheet for Terminator
Here is the original trailer, in which the battle is clearly between the title character and Reese, and Connor does a lot of damsel running and hiding. She is portrayed as what she was- third billed. She is not the star of this movie.
And, of course, we all know she kicks ass in T2, and she gets a lot of screen time and carries a lot of the plot. But they were by no means selling it as a Sarah Connor movie. She is not the star of this movie, either.
Here is that one-sheet
"It's nothing personal". Because, hey, it is a movie about him. It is not like the key art image is her, and the tag line is something about saving her son. THAT would be personal and full of feelings. But this is robot V. robot.
Other tag lines for this movie included:
"This time he's back...for good!"
"Same Make. Same Model. New Mission."
"This time there are two."
And here is that trailer, which, yes, does show some moments of her being a badass this time. But also makes it clear, as the copy in the trailer says, that this is a movie about:
"Two machines. One sent to destroy. The other to protect."
So what I am saying is that, yes, it is not like the Wonder Woman that we got last year was the first female action hero. There have been a number of really strong characters and performances, and Linda Hamilton/Sarah Connor and Sigourney Weaver/Ellen Ripley are great examples of those, and should not be overlooked.
BUT I also get why people got excited for Wonder Woman. Why a reportedly $150M budget summer tentpole female superhero movie named after the title character and directed by a woman mattered. Why it felt like, and was, a different thing. I get that.
She would be the only character, other than the aliens themselves, to return in the sequel, Aliens.
Hey. Here's the studio one-sheet for Aliens, starring Sigourney Weaver returning as Ripley:
Hmm. I guess they really felt strongly about that font and tag line.
But, hey, she totally kicked ass in that. Was amazing. A new standard in female action hero.
And she's back for a third film! I mean, by the second Pitch Black movie they put Riddick's name in the title. No go here, we're still calling it Alien. That's fine. Alien is a strong title. Simple and clear. But the movie will be so much of her. More Ripley. The return of Ripley! Here's that poster:
Well. At least by the third poster of the trilogy she starred in, she finally had her name over the title. Even if they're only putting her face on it in the international one-sheets.
So, again, I am not saying anyone should pretend these characters didn't exist. But I think there were some real differences between how they were positioned and treated. How they were (and weren't) featured and promoted.
I can see why Wonder Woman felt like a difference.
I could’ve thrown in Buffy:TVS, though I’ve come to only recognize the TV series, not the movie. Again, it has nothing to do with the series title or marketing focus, but the character.
My favorite for Aliens has always been an armed Ripley holding Newt. It’s the definitive scene of the movie for me. It’s also the first image for the movie that I saw and intrigued me to want to see the movie (and series).
There wasn’t a Sarah Connors movie poster, but I saw T2 first and it was Sarah that intrigued me to see the original. I thought the following movies suffered by not having Sarah/Hamilton (though she recorded tapes for Terminator Salvation).
It's not that every single one of those 80 movies was made with hatred of women on their mind. It's the structures in place that led to there being a 80:7 ratio of male-led:female-led super movies that are misogynistic.
And it's easy to ignore, because it's the status quo.
Also, you shouldn't just think of this in terms of just "what women want to watch". A big part of the problem here is producers thinking men don't want to watch women in films.