Weekend Estimates by Klady – May 31
Klady has Up a little behind Ice Age: The Meltdown… Disney has it a little above. Either way, it’s the third biggest Pixar opening, after only The Incredibles and Finding Nemo and the biggest animated opener since The Simpsons Movie in 2007.
Interestingly, Night At The Museum 2 is only about $10 million behind the second 3-day weekend of the original. The story of the first film’s ultimately massive number was longevity, not mega-dollars upfront. Thing is, summer may not afford as much room to run as Jan/Feb did back in 2007 for Night 1. The competition this summer is a bit rougher than Charlotte’s Web and Arthur & The Invisibles.
In less happy sequel news, Terminator Salvation and Angels & Demons .
And what does it mean when Summer Hours is outgrossing The Girlfriend Experience? Niche. In that market, older people reign and good reviews about depth seem to overwhelm controversy and sex. (And I realize that I still haven’t written a review of GFE… oy.)
Yeah, it’s only half a million and neither film will likely see a million five, but those are the numbers that will define the future of art/indie. If people go into the business expecting a lot more – though more will occasionally happen – they are going to lose all of their money.
Dis is reporting over $68m for the weekend and I suspect their final will be over 68 come tomorrow.
Disney is one of the studios that usually underestimate. i wouldn’t be surprised if it was 69 or 70 tomorrow afternoon. That Terminator number is brutal!! And for the love of god…it’s BLOOM not BLUM
“And what does it mean when Summer Hours is outgrossing The Girlfriend Experience?”
Hmm….maybe they shouldn’t have sold the movie as “SEE SASHA GREY IN HER FIRST NON PORN ROLE.” They might have gotten a bit more of that older arthouse audience. I mentioned this before the opening, but all the horn-dogs here shot me down.
What do you do if you’re McG?
The guy had one fall hit. The novelty had worn off before the credits rolled. The sequel underperformed. We Are Marshall was a schmaltzy mess with some of the worst performances i’ve ever seen.
I went to Marshall, and the only reason i sat through it was because i knew that story so well. Had i no affiliation with the school, i don’t think i would have made it.
Now you give him a massive summer spectacle and he delivers something uneven and uninteresting.
Is there anywhere else for him to go? He’s had the opportunity and done little with it. This is in no way malicious. If i was an exec and i had a project ready to move forward, what would motivate me to attach McG to it? Rob Cohen wasn’t availale?
Is ANVIL this years’ MURDERBALL. A heavily promoted documentary whose box office seems glum in comparison to the number of words committed to it’s existence.
Thanks for the laugh, Wrecktum (and of course, it’s funny because it’s 100% true). Angels & Demons should be ok, as Sony was counting on overseas numbers which are doing their part. Even 2/3 of the original (which seems to be close to the final total) is half a billion dollars.
Terminator is not good, but from what I gather, Warner and Sony only paid a distribution fee (about $50 million and $75 million respectively), so they’ll lose their lunch but not their shirt. As for Warner Bros… no pressure Harry, no pressure at all.
Looks like I was right about NatM2 doing a boffo opening weekend, but wrong about it holding out for the long slog. In retrospect, opening it right before a one-two family punch (Up and Land of the Lost) was not the best idea.
Astoundingly, it looks like Star Trek will be either the third or fourth highest grossing movie of the summer (depending on how well Up plays over the next month). Sure, Ice Age 3 might surprise, but there’s nothing heavyweight left save for the two 1600 pound gorillas (and, um… GI Joe).
It does seem that people aren’t anxious to run out and see members of society that get classified as “losers” being bigger than that designation.
As far as McG, he has his studio supporters. I still haven’t seen TS, but in the end, summer is about openings, openings are about marketing, TS didn’t find an audience. I suspect that it has a lot to do with Star Trek also being futuristic and successful as well as Transformers 2 being right around the corner, plus a bit of the series coming and going as well.
It occurs to me now that the advertising – and I get the impression that the film doesn’t reflect this – doesn’t offer a machine hero or villain. So I am thinking that it’s more about that story element being missing than about the weakness of the stars (or director). After all, they didn’t sell T2 on Ed Furlong or, really, Linda Hamilton.
Is Sam Worthington a robot in human clothing? If so, why didn’t they sell that? It would seem that the drama would be in that.
The sell of “trying to save the world” is too broad.
Note that I was impressed by the campaign before it failed. So 20/20 hindsight and all that.
Back to McG, I think he is McDone. As much as anything else, he is a advertising-style boom boom guy and there are forever new kids coming up to push past those guys. When you establish yourself like Bay has or The Scotts, you go on. When you don’t, you don’t.
I had a chat with Duncan Jones, who write and directed Moon, and he was saying that in England, he is now considered old as a commercial director. He turned 38 yesterday. McG is 40. Brutal.
“Is Sam Worthington a robot in human clothing? If so, why didn’t they sell that?”
They did. How did you miss that? It was in all the trailers, and toy stores have been selling robotic “Marcus-faces.”
In the movie itself, however, it’s played as a surprise mid-point reveal even though all the early clips gave it away. But there is no “main” Terminator villain, which is probably a weakness, as someone mentioned previously.
And all the discussion of McG ignores TV’s “Chuck,” which seems well liked in geek circles.
Until we get a glance at that deleted footage (40 minutes worth), I’m reserving judgment on McG. This smells like an Incredible Hulk situation, where the studio forced McG to trim the film to below two-hours and with a bare minimum of plot and character so they could have action and nothing but action. I’m guessing someone (Warner, Sony, or one of the independent groups who financed the picture) panicked over Watchmen’s collapse and demanded that Terminator be the exact opposite – PG-13, under two-hours, and non-stop action. And I’m sure Christian Bale coming in, demanding to be cast as John Conner, and then rewriting the whole film to give Conner a starring role didn’t help either. We’ll see, but I’m not as quick to blame McG (although, at the end of the day, he is an adult is responsible for the final product). I have a feeling that this could make a fascinating ‘making-of’ documentary if Warner lets them do it for the DVD/Blu Ray.
It’s funny. Everyone i talk to says that the Connor element of the story was the weakest. In their efforts to ‘save’ the film, they might have destroyed it.
What’s weird is how anyone at the studio thought the rewrites and inclusion of Bale as Connor was going to lighten it up. I’d be interested in seeing the 40 minutes as well. A re-cut Marcus heavy version could make it much more interesting to me.
Though unless you digitally replace Ms. Bloodgood (or whatever her name is), there is still a giant flaw in the film.
Luke – There was that continuous loop of “he thinks he is human… but he is a machine.” But it was unclear about what character this was about. Moreover, no one knows who Sam Worthington is. So if they showed his face in those clips or in ads – and they may have – the mainstream audience had no real way of knowing how that fit into the movie… or more importantly from a marketing sense, what that leads to – if anything – in the film.
If you want to hide spoilers in ads, ok. But it doesn’t work both ways.
John Conner has reached the future… he is Christian Bale… there is a skin-covered robot… lots of stuff blowing up…
What else is there for a ticket buyer to hang on to when deciding on seeing the film?
I find it ironic that Angels & Demons isn’t doing as well as it should. It is clearly a better-made, better-acted film than DaVinci Code. It is exactly what I exepct from an early Summer popcorn mystery. It’s as if Howard & Co. decided to say “Fuck it!” and be cheerfully blasphemous. Hanks seems engaged with the material. McGregor is terrific in a tricky, now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t performance. The female lead is sexier than Tatou. And the ending is a real hoot. It makes zero sense, but you still believe it.
As for T4, it all begins with the screenplay. The filmmakers seem to be operating under the impression by just having characters named “John Conor” and “Kyle Reesae” the audience will fill in the gaps. Bale gives a flay-out bad performance. Here’s a questions no one ahs been able to answer. If conor is the savior of the future, why does he have a superior who constantly ignores every idea he offers? It’s as if everyone is choosing to ignore John Conor. Seeing T4 should make you appreciate the sturdiness of the Star Wars prequels.
I remember reading that the new Terminator is the first of 3 films. I guess we won’t be getting them. Dan Brown is allegedly writing another Langdon novel, do you guys think that it’ll get made into a film based on Angels and Demons’ numbers?
Dave,
I believe that you are first person in entertainment media to mention that Night at the Museum 2 has underperformed. While everyone has been quick to report on McG not delivering the goods with Terminator Salvation, I actually think that Night 2 is actually the more disappointing picture in both story-wise and economic expectations. I am sure that when Fox penciled Night 2 into Memorial Day Weekend 2009 slot it was at least looking at $200 million domestic and at least $400 worldwide (which it still might get). But, it is possible that reviled Wolverine could actually outgross Night 2 domestically without inflated Imax showings. And, why does Night 2 cost $150 million to produce before advertising budget is even counted?
I do not mean to state that Terminator Salvation is not a disappointment, budget wise or meeting audience expectations. But, out of the films only Terminator 2 is the only the major international blockbuster when Arnold was #1 movie star in the world. The original Terminator was a surprise, almost indie sleeper hit in 1984 while Terminator 3 barely was in the black with worldwide theatrical results.
Remember, everyone was lambasting McG getting the reins of a “dead franchise”…and only with the signing of Christian Bale (fresh off Dark Knight) and the 2008 Comic-Con footage started the beginning positive buzz. So, maybe Terminator Salvation ended up in the place in our cultural landscape. that it was going to all this time. I actually enjoyed the picture and felt it was a better reimagination than Star Trek (though I enjoyed that picture as well).
Dave,
I was looking at the upcoming January 2010 release schedule, reviewing the original Night’s holiday run, and looking back at this past January with its three $140 million pictures. Studios no longer look at January and early February as the dumping season for their films, do they? You can have an extended run (at least 3-4 weeks of keeping same theater count or upping it) in this current film marketplace; your picture can develop some word of mouth and not be gone in a week because there was no killer $50 million plus weekend.
David:
“There was that continuous loop of “he thinks he is human… but he is a machine.” But it was unclear about what character this was about.”
In the trailers and at least a couple of the TV shots, they clearly show a chained-up Worthington looking down to discover that his torso is metallic. I don’t know how anyone watching those ads could have thought the human/machine stuff was referring to anyone other than Worthington.
The question isn’t so much whether the film will get made, Polyp, but who will write, direct, and star in it.
I’m thinking they go to Vince Vaughn.
As for Terminator, there will also likely be more films. Rights are too expensive. But I would be surprised not to see a “re-boot” that looks to be as relatively cheap as the original. Not much robot action… more idea mining.
Even if you hated the Terminator Salvation film with every fiber in your being, I do not think that it will be the worst directed film of the summer. With each new clip, GI Joe is really looking more and more like the runaway choice for the Golden Raspberry worst picture of the year.
Anvil (per Anghus’s comment) is a better film than Rollerball, which pinned so much of its existence on chasing the youth market that niched itself into a corner.
Murderball, Jeff, not Rollerball.
Yes, sorry, typo. Everything else holds true though.
I think Night at the Museum is another film that feels like a product of the abscenes of creative thought and not the sequel to a blockbuster that was asked for.
People have mentioned this trend a lot. A film makes money, a sequel is made, but people don’t care anymore because the first one wasn’t very good. Whether people enjoy the movie or not never seems to enter into the equation.
Lion Witch and Wardrobe>Prince Caspian
Tomb Raider>Tomb Raider 2
Matrix Reloaded>Matrix Revolutions
Da Vinci Code>Angels and Demons
The bottom line is so often the only logic used in creating sequels. I remember back in 1998-99 there was the head of Sony Pictures (A woman whose name i cannot remember nor take the time to look up online). In an interview with EW, they were asking her about the recent release slate. When asked about Godzilla and a potential sequel she said something like “Any movie that makes 350 million dollars will get a sequel”
That kind of logic gets you to this point. It crosses some kind of financial threshold and you immediately get the next one going. Whether or not the perception that the movie was good even matters.
Transformers 2 will be interesting, because most people i know say that the original is “Cool to look at but sucks”. If the original makes 25% less than the original, i might consider adding it to that list.
I drove past a Regal multiplex last night and the marquee had “Up in Conventional 2D”. Disney is overestimating “Up” because of the 3D surcharge. Don’t be surprised if the actual numbers are closer to $60M-$65M.
@Scott: “Terminator Salvation” is a negative pickup for WB, thus any rewrites or reshoots were the producers’ responsibility.
@Jimmy: “Angels and Demons” is underperforming because the trailer was name-checking “The Da Vinci Code”. Being targeted by the right-wing Catholic League doesn’t help.
You can’t make people buy what they don’t want.
christian, then how do you explain 5 seasons of Arli$$
I’m pretty sure the WB execs didn’t open their door one day, find a negative labelled ‘Terminator Salvation FINAL CUT’, and make thousands of prints of it sight unseen.
Also, millions of people saw Angels and Demons specifically because of its connection to The Da Vinci Code, not the other way around.
To think otherwise is foolish.
Chucky, what’s “the phrase that pays”?
Funny thing, Jeff– I thought you actually were thinking of Rollerball, in which case your comment would also hold true.
Chucky, I disagree completely on that point. I think, if anything, A&D has underperformed because it is not monickered “The Da Vinci Code: Angels and Demons”. The lack of Da Vinci Code (the money phrase) has hurt the film. Yes, it’s somewhat mentioned in ads and that sort of thing, but when you go into a movie theater up on the screen is Angels and Demons. I can guarantee you that most joe public that sees that has no recognizance of that title and thinks it’s some boring arty religious movie (or whatever). The marketing assumes to a large degree that the mass moviegoing audience recognizes “Angels and Demons” as the title to Dan Brown’s sequel, and IMO that’s a lot to expect.
As far as T4’s marketing, I liked it, lots of cool robot action shots. But as far as the human element, I agree with Dave that the Worthington machine/man aspect did not come across strongly. Mostly because, in the previews I saw, I had no idea Worthington was a significant character in the story. The got across that Bale was the main character, and beyond that there were some nameless, personality-less robots. It lacked the Arnie/Robert Patrick/even the weak Fem bot from T3. The Terminator franchise was based on the ultimate, super violent, robot in human form. That was completely lacking from the marketing, and I guess the film also.
“I drove past a Regal multiplex last night and the marquee had ‘Up in Conventional 2D’. Disney is overestimating ‘Up’ because of the 3D surcharge. Don’t be surprised if the actual numbers are closer to $60M-$65M.”
Yeah, I’m sure they never ook that into account. Their distribution analysts aren’t as smart as you are, are they?
@martin: The Catholic League was banging the drum against “Angels and Demons” well before the release date. This is an outfit that once had direct ties to the Archdiocese of New York.
Mixing religion and culture is a scary thing whether it’s Afghanistan or the U.S.A. If the mouth-breathers haven’t heard yet, an abortion clinic doctor was shot to death in church this morning.
What do either of the above points have to do with anything?
I’m lost.
Why does not knowing about an abortion clinic doctor being shot in a church make me a mouth breather?
How could i not have heard about an ironic shooting? Damn my mouth breathing ways!
More to the point, what does a tragic shooting have to do with a turd like Angels and Demons?
Jeff, you’re asking Chucky to be rational. You might as well ask ice to be cheese.
As for NATM and Terminator, I think they are equal disappointments.
I don’t care what a lot of people on this blog are saying (and I didn’t even see it), but the first Night at the Museaum was a really well-liked movie that had good word of mouth. Fox just screwed this up – if they were going to move it to the summer (to give Avatar more time), they should have planted a weekend all to themselves. And now in their second weekend, they have to face probably the highest grossing Pixar film in five years. This thing is going to do over $100 million less than the first one and I actually expected it to do a little more.
As for Terminator, there is no way to not paint it as a disaster – even adjusted against inflation, it will probably be the lowest grossing Terminator film ever. Hey, I liked the previews too, thought they looked cool – but Warners really overestimated the audience for an Arnie-less Terminator. I think the marketing department got a little cocky after The Dark Knight, which was a brilliant campaign that very effectively sold exactly what the film was no matter how dark it was. The difference was they had some hooks – people really loved Batman Begins and The Joker is a classic iconic villian that people were actually clamoring to see again. It’s Sith made so much money – despite like three minutes of screentime, they sold the hell out of Darth Vader.
Terminator had no such hook – and I said this a few weeks ago: this franchise was ALWAYS about Arnold. He was a classic villian, classic character – the genuine hook. Without that, it was always going to be a challenge. I saw it last week and I found it to be 2/3 of a solid action/adventure film. But there was just no real point to the story – SPOILER – it’s actually the second sequel in a row for Terminator that ends as a setup.
I also finally saw Star Trek, last night – three weeks after release and it was a packed crowd that completely ate it up. Fun movie, far from perfect, but well cast and well directed. The actual plot, when you think about it, is silly enough that you could just insert the word, “time warp” into it, transport it to Land of the Lost, and have Will Ferrell sell the comedy of it. But regardless, a bit triumph for Paramount – Dave has been harping on them for how much they spent on this thing, but come one….a few years ago in the summer of the “Threequel” both Pirates and Spidey sequels barely grossed $30 million more than their production budgets domestically. This is really nothing new for mega-franchises and at least Paramount doesn’t have to split the earnings with a Marvel or Bruckheimer.
This thing is going to make close to $250 million on a budget probably under $200 million – it’s not great, but when you talk “break-even” you’re forgetting that Paramount has a 40 year catalog of TV shows and movies that are going to see signifant upticks in sales on the back of this success. Sure they spent a boatload and yeah, if this thing did under $150 million, they would have looked foolish, but it didn’t…..the risk paid off, they made Star Trek cool again, so give some credit where credit is due.
Also saw The Brothers Bloom, this weekend – loved it and I was not a fan of Brick. Mark Ruffalo deserves some Oscar talk – he is probably the closest thing we have to Dustin Hoffman under 40, right now.
Geoff: it was never about ARNOLD! Arnold is a part of the Terminator films as much as Linda fucking Hamilton. Seriously, this Terminator movie failed to deliver on what people wanted. People wanted that fucking war. I have now lived to see three fucking Terminator sequels, and I have still never seen THAT FUCKING WAR! While I really dig all of Salvation. It really does not need to exist. There’s no reason for this film in terms of a FRANCHISE. The whole point of getting Bale is a FRANCHISE, and this film almost completely negates the FRANCHISE notion of hiring Bale.
The funny thing is: I have a feeling we are going to see that war one day. It might not be any time soon, but we are going to see that war. WE WILL SEE IT!
I do agree with you about BotS aka NatM: II. It need it’s own release date. It’s also a Fall movie. It has a Fall feel to it. FOX got suckered into making a DISNEY CASPIAN move, and they are going to pay for it at the Box Office. While not paying for it on home video. Where this thing should hopefully make a mint.
Oh yeah: Chuck is fucking crazy. Really fucking crazy.
“christian, then how do you explain 5 seasons of Arli$$”
I…can’t. At all.
IOIOIOIO, Arnold was and always WILL be the Terminator – it’s not really up to debate. He’s the reason T2 was so huge and the reason any one still cared to see Terminator 3. I’m not saying that Salvation would have been much bigger with Arnie above the title, because by the time Part 3 came out, he was already a faded star. But this has always been his franchise, make no mistake about it.
I mean, can you imagine if they did a Beverly Hills Cop redux without Eddie Murphy or a Rambo film without Stallone? Yes, people like you and I were very intrigued to see that future war, but…..there simply weren’t enough of us, no matter how Warners sold it.
kyle reese says very clearly in ‘the terminator’ that skynet/the machines had lost the war and the rebel humans had won, which is the reason skynet sent the terminator back through time to take out sarah before john could be born, in a last ditch effort to change the outcome of the war. but the terminators failed in all attempts to kill john and thus the war was indeed lost and humans prevailed. there, i just saved those fucking moronic half-wits the trillion dollars it’ll cost to make two more shit flicks
“I find it ironic that Angels & Demons isn’t doing as well as it should. It is clearly a better-made, better-acted film than DaVinci Code. It is exactly what I exepct from an early Summer popcorn mystery. It’s as if Howard & Co. decided to say “Fuck it!” and be cheerfully blasphemous. Hanks seems engaged with the material. McGregor is terrific in a tricky, now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t performance. The female lead is sexier than Tatou. And the ending is a real hoot. It makes zero sense, but you still believe it.”
I…gotta agree 100%. And I would have scoffed at this idea if my friend didn’t pull me along with her yesterday to see this for myself. “The DaVinci Code” bored me to tears, but this one, even with a long list of problem areas, is a great little B movie good time. McGregor’s speech to the cardinals in the middle of the film about science and faith working together was also an unexpected pleasure in a wish-fulfillment kind of way.
“The funny thing is: I have a feeling we are going to see that war one day. It might not be any time soon, but we are going to see that war. WE WILL SEE IT!”
But what is interesting about the war? What are you waiting to see on the screen? It’s a war, it’s in the future, humans versus SkyNet, and…what else is there to it? I’m just not seeing it being chock full of rich material like you are, IO’.
Grady – It’s that no one – aside from the geek squad – knows who Worthington is. It’s not as though Bale was hanging there and the speech was made about him.
But even beyond that, it was so oddly shown in the ads that it took me a few times to discern what he was saying… and that’s too many times for an effective campaign.
Why on earth did they put NatM2 against Up. Pixar pretty much trumps everything else in family entertainment, doesn’t it?
Not to take a leaf out of Lex’s book, but maybe Salvation would’ve done better if they realised that people like to actually see what’s happening and don’t always want bronzey doom and gloom.
“Anvil” is a better movie than “Murderball?” Not to this moviegoer, not by a long shot. And, although I’m not privy to the secret definition of “niche” that is sometimes used here, I’d argue “Anvil” has a much smaller niche than “Murderball” did.
Chris: Fair enough, but I thought Murderball was aiming itself too intently at that MTV audience that didn’t show up – that’s what I meant by niche- Anvil isn’t aiming at a heavy metal audience but a more generic indie-movie/doc audience, and Murderball, in trying to widen its appeal, probably narrowed it.
Anyway, I felt more pathos and emotionality from the guys in Anvil than I did from anyone in Murderball aside from the guy who was driving the truck in the latter movie.
IOI:
“Oh yeah: Chuck is fucking crazy. Really fucking crazy.”
Aren’t you the guy who thinks calling someone ‘crazy’ is the supreme insult, greater than ‘douchebag’, ‘motherfucker’, or ‘asshole’? I had no idea you hated Chucky so much.
If I believed in responding to someone like Spaz. I would, but he’s a spaz. So here’s my answer to the guy who spaz obviously shares a house with at the present time.
Tell spaz that there is a difference between the way someone like myself acts and the way spaz uses it, and the way Chucky acts and the way I use it. If you are so SPAZZERIFFIC not to note the difference between someone who post like me, and someone who post like Chuck. You really have more problems than being a 42 year-old man with a roommate. Seriously spaz’ roommate, that guy never gets the difference between his mean and horrid actions. Compared to someone like me responding to someone like Chuck. Who seemingly responds in a ridiculous over the top way that involve the Weinsteins fixing the Oscars, the liberal media being involved, and name-checking being the absolute sin of the fucking New Jersey Megaplexes.
Seriously spaz’ roommate, the guy is so fucking daft, that it amazes me you can live with the guy. Does he cover his part of the expensives? I can see him being a guy that’s a cheap as fuck, and not willing to cover his part of the rent. Spaz just seems that way.
Nuff said.
Spaz’ roommate: this is why I never respond to the guy. He’s a cunt. He’s the biggest cunt I have ever run across on the net. He’s such a cunt. A producer once threatened to choke him with fries. The thought that this spaz of a 42 year-old man, who sees himself in decline every day of his life, and is obviously friendless and without a relationship. Dares to insult me in any way, is just damn sad. Really sad.
I would feel sorry for him, but he’s like the Ty Cobb of this board. Oh I have to explain this for him because he’s so fucking oblivious to any pop-culture reference that does not include an innocent female being killed.
Ty Cobb is such an asshole, that Shoeless Joe and the other players do not let him play in Iowa. That’s Spaz aka Ty Cobb.
Good thing you only called me a cunt, IO, and not something else or I might have thought you were trying to insult me.
Spaz’ roommate: I refer to him as Ty Cobb. I think that guy online is the equivalent of a wife-beating, murdering, racist, thug, and asshole. He thought I would type “FAG.” Really Spaz’ roommate? He really thought I would go there? Nah. He’s this blog’s Ty Cobb.
I’m sorry you feel that way and would be happy to find some way to get along.
The awesome thing is, even though Chucky is fucking crazy, at least you can understand what he’s talking about unlike IO…who’s roommate are you talking about, and who is spaz you insane fuck?
Also, if yout think Arnold was not the reason for Terminator doing well, you are crazier still. Linda Hamilton may have been a “part” of Terminator and she was great, but she wasn’t putting any asses in seats.
And Salvation didn’t do poorly because people didn’t get the war…from the ads, it looked ALL ABOUT the war. And people still didn’t care.
And DP, if you couldn’t figure out what was going on in those trailers, I don’t know man…I figure they gave the entire plot of Terminator away in the trailer I haven’t seen it but I guess I can give you the gist of the story at least. This guy Worthington is a robot but for some reason doesn’t know it, like he was made as an infiltration unit perhaps? Or maybe he got clonked and lost his memory. Either way, the humans show him he’s a robot, he screams, and joins the good guys and they fight bigger robots.
Am I close?
Not about IO…I’m definitely on the money calling him a crazy mental patient. I mean about the plot of Terminator.