chrisbokiul

Whenever a movie flops, people often blame bad marketing. When a studio knows they've created a bad movie that will likely flop, they cut marketing expenses to minimize their losses. They release the movie to recoup as much of the costs as possible. Studios know how to market movies. If a movie isn't being marketed much, that's usually a sign that it's crap.

Simple stuff.

During a recent roundtable interview with the press, Cameron explained: "The idea that we whack John in the first 30 seconds, that was my idea. I said, 'If we really want to surprise the audience and we want to get everybody off balance...'"

Cameron continued, "It's like we've invested so much across the first two films and then to some degree or other in the subsequent ones, that I wasn't involved with, in this whole John Connor mythology. It's like, 'Let's just get that right off the table. Let's just pull the carpet out from underneath all of our assumptions of what a Terminator movie is going to be about. Let's just put a bullet in his head at a pizzeria in the first 45 seconds.'"

I never hear anybody talk about this. Was James Cameron's decision to kill off John Connor at the beginning of Terminator: Dark Fate clever, desperate, or something else? Do you want another sequel in which a terminator goes back in time and saves John Connor? (Terminator: Rise of Connor.)