Talk:Terminator Genisys

Reviews section

I object to this edit by Betty Logan. "Not positively" is only a euphemism for "negatively", and a cheezy euphemism at that. It counts as weasel words, per WP:WEASEL. Betty Logan argued that "not positive can indicate the reviews were negative, average, or a mix of both"; but again "average" is really only a wishy-washy euphemism for saying that a film isn't any good. Not positive = negative by definition. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

While one aggregator (Rotten Tomatoes) does indeed equate "negative" with "not positive" this is not the case with the second aggregator (Metacritic) which divides its reviews into three grades: positive/average/negative. The majority of the reviews graded by Metacritic were "average" not negative, so your edit does not correctly summarize the findings of both aggregators. This has already been discussed in depth at #Mixed or negative reviews and the current wording reflects the consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it does readers of the article a disservice to use vague language such as "generally not positively received by critics". If what that means is that the film received either negative or average reviews, then the lead should say so, in as many words. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem though is that "the film received either average or negative reviews" doesn't really make sense, and saying the film received "average and negative" reviews isn't really accurate i.e. if one aggregator grades a review "negative" while the other grades it "average" it can't be both an average and a negative review, it is just the victim or harsher/softer grading. I actually agree with you that "not positively received" is not ideal terminology, but in the absence of any better ideas I am happy to support it. Betty Logan (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think a better idea would be to follow the aggregator that grades reviews negative and ignore the other one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that would violate WP:NPOV, since there is no good reason for choosing one over the other. If we had to choose one—which we don't—it would make more sense to go with the aggregator with the more refined grading system anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• "not positively" or "not negatively" would both sound stupid. Just say mixed ratings. Dream Focus 16:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment/Suggestion – As Betty pointed out, there have been previous discussions that have gone to great lengths to explain why "mixed" and "negative" cannot stand on their own. Each term can give a different impression of the film's critical consensus. We know from the aggegators that the overall scores of both films fall well below what is considered a positive score and somewhat below what is considered an average score. How far below average is where the controversy sets in from several editors including myself. If it was as simple as picking "mixed", we would have done it by now. On the other hand, "generally not positively" covers both negative and mixed and so far is the best choice, but it is awkward phrasing for sure. How does everyone feel about changing it from:

Terminator Genisys was generally not positively received by critics...

to something more simple like:

Terminator Genisys was not well-received by critics...

The proposed change means the same thing as "not positive" but is easier on the eyes. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I can live with that revision. In regards to Dream Focus' comment above, I would again say "mixed ratings" is slightly misleading for a film that received hardly any positive praise. Betty Logan (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Also fine with "not well-received". The word "mixed" is not a great one, either... mixed reviews meaning they were both positive and negative? That they were "lukewarm"/"indifferent"? Too much obsession with applying such simplistic labels when we should substantially summarize what critics thought of a film. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. If there aren't any objections, I'll change the wording in the next day or so. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

There really isn't a consensus present on this section. Just rationalizing. A lot of trying to water this down and bury the truth that this film simply didn't do very well (though, I have to say, personally it was cool to see Arnuld back in the roll. Most people seemed to dig on that). Anyhow, RT is at a low 25% with a not so healthy 4.7/10. MetaCritic the film has a score of 38 out of 100 based on 41 critics, indicating "generally unfavorable reviews". The press is all but unanimous that this movie was panned by the critics. This movie is not more special than other covered by wikipedia. The idea that we can't use the word "negative" just to respect the sensitivity of critic haters or fans that don't think people should criticize a movie like this has no place here. The movie clearly got a negative reception by critics. Most analysts also concede that the film, at best, broke even but was still considered a box office disappointment considering these movies USED TO BE the gold standard of big budget money-raking blockbuster. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. In either case, cleaning up the article to reflect reality and respect the guidelines of proper sourced and evidenced content.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Emilia and Jason Clarke are not related - this should be mentioned in the article

Two of the co-stars in the film have the same last name. However, they are not related, as this Collider article points out here. I did not have a source for my initial edits, which were reverted, but there is a source now. Editor FreeKnowledgeCreator stated that indicating to readers that the two co-stars with the same last name are not related is trivia. No, trivia is informing the reader about a certain co-star's favourite take-out food or about the director's preferred brand of French Champagne. When the reader sees that two co-stars have the same last name, it is a reasonable inference to make that they may be related. Since Collider informs us that the two are not related, it would be helpful to inform the reader that Ms. Clarke and Mr. Clarke are not related. As well, the idea of indicating that two people with the same last name are not related is not just some strange idea I just came up with, it is a practice attested to in the MacMillan Dictionary: see here OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 03:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I see it pretty random too. It's like adding a notice in the article for Louis Armstrong saying he is not related to the guy that went to the moon. The article doesn't need to refute every weird assumption the reader may be able to come up with. --uKER (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with uKER. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

UKER's example does not parallel the Terminator 5 situation. An example that would parallel the Terminator 5 situation would be an article lead that stated "The co-defendents in the trial were Michael Smithe and John Smithe (no relation)" or "The fall fashion line was introduced by designers Kaye Smithe and Carole Smithe (no relation)". In the two made-up examples given, the article itself lists two people with the same last name. The parenthetical phrase "(no relation)" is used to indicate to the reader that the two individuals with the same last name are not related. It is not "random", it is a practice that is used in articles outside of Wikipedia to provide information to the reader.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 10:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The use of the phrase "no relation" is not a neologism, either. The use of "no relation" to mean "not in the same family" is attested to since 1930, according to Roget's Thesaurus.

see hereOnBeyondZebrax • TALK 16:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I see this used in periodicals, so I understand this approach. However, for an encyclopedia, do we know if this is a common approach? Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

In an article about a law trial, I can see how this sort of information would be important. I don't see it as being important in an article about a movie. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The presence or absence of family relationships between people in an article with the same last name is not important to the same degree as key facts about the article topic. It is a minor point of information provided to the reader. However, there is not a requirement that all content in an article be important. In addition to the key, important information in an article, articles often provide minor points of information to the reader. For example, an article about a company will state important information (revenue, profits, etc.), but it may also have a footnote explaining how the company calculates its revenues or profits. That is what I am proposing here: a footnote that will indicate that Ms. Clarke and Mr. Clarke are not related, with the source cited. Is this footnote important? Well, it is no more important than a footnote explaining how revenues were calculated. But there is a place in WP articles for footnotes on minor points of information.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 16:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a side note to point out, this article already makes reference to family relationships between people with the same last name, and in the lead. We hear about Megan Ellison, and then when David Ellison is mentioned, the lead mentions that he is her brother. Why does the lead clarify their family relationship? I don't know, but I suspect that the family relationship is indicated because to mention two people with the same last name in the lead without clarifying their relationship or lack thereof would lead to ambiguity. That is what I am trying to do here--remove the ambiguity.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 16:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure. Wouldn't we also have to mention that Douglas Smith is not related to Matt Smith then? Why are we singling out Emilia and Jason? Nymf (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Smith is the most common surname in the US (see here), so two Smiths in the billing block (or any of the top ten, such as Brown or Jones) is less likely to make the reader think that the two people may be related. However, when a name is unusual in the US, like Clarke with an "e" (Clark is number 25 in the US, but Clarke is ranked 476th), it is more likely that the reader might think that the two individuals might be related. As I indicated in my earlier posts, the standard scenario in which the phrase (no relation) is used is when two individuals who have the same last name are listed one after the other. In this article, Jason and Emilia Clarke are listed one after the other in the billing block in the Infobox and then again as co-stars in the lead.The two Smiths are not both listed in the Infobox or the lead. They only appear in the Cast section.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 22:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Wall Street (film), On Golden Pond, Donnie Darko, Paper Moon (film), I Am Legend, The Pursuit of Happyness, Rocky V, Big Jake, It Runs in the Family, After Earth, and Honkytonk Man are among the films that star people with the same last name who are related (list courtesy of Ranker.com). In this case, two of the co-stars have the same last name, but they are not related. I am proposing a footnote on Emilia Clarke's entry in the cast list with the phrase "Emilia Clarke and Jason Clarke are not related"OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 00:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Well done on providing some backing here. I have to agree that as a footnote, there's really no harm in including it, and if anything, it's a benefit to the reader since the names are located so closely together. I support the proposal. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that detail is crucial information, but I thank OnBeyondZebrax for at least finding a less obtrusive way of including it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Box office

There is a quote in the Box office section that says:

Given its $155 million production budget and the $50–100 million analysts estimate was spent on marketing, Bloomberg Business estimated that the film would have needed to earn at least $450 million during its theatrical run to break even.[1]

Why $450 million - if they have spent an estimated $250 million on production and marketing, wouldn't a ~$300 million international box office allow to break-even when you remove VAT/GST? Where do these additional $150 million come from?--Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 17:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Might be that theaters keep a percent of box office receipts? Betty Logan, what is your impression? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if venue owners are keeping ~35% of all ticket receipts,[2] that would explain these figures. Thanks!--Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 18:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

In the U.S., studios get 50-55% of the revenue, but overseas, that percentage can drop to as low as 15% depending on the country. The average return overseas is closer to 40%. For this film, that's where a bulk of the revenue is being generated, so the break-even numbers are going to be higher than usual for a domestic film. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Bloomberg helps to clarify this: That suggests the film will have to generate worldwide ticket sales of at least $450 million to break even during its theatrical run ... Studios split ticket sales about evenly with theaters in the U.S., and typically get 40 percent to 45 percent of the international box office, according to Wade Holden, an analyst at SNL Kagan. They get additional sales later from DVDs, TV and streaming. So to recoup a $200–250 million investment it would need to earn roughly twice that in box office receipts. Deadline did a profit breakdown for last year's films which shed some light on the finances: [3]. Using the same ratios as Transformers, then the studio income for Terminator would be $46 million for the US (51%), $28 million for China (25%) and $93 million for the rest of the world (39%), for a total of $167 million. Going by those figures it is unlikely that Terminator will have broken even yet even with a gross of $440 million. That said, Transformers earned more in total from its ancillary markets (home video/TV/merchandise) than it did from its theatrical run, so it is important to not misinterpret the Bloomberg source: it is simply conjecturing the break-even point, not saying it is a "flop". Betty Logan (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like it's made a little over $440 million on its theatrical run, and will only have to make about $10 million on TV airings, streaming, and home video to break even? --79.242.222.168 (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that is a moot point. Studios mostly rate a film's performance based on its theatrical run. The home market is such a small chunk of the revenue, that it is not usually relied upon to help a film move from being in the red to being in the black. Even if the home market does technically get it out of the red, it wouldn't likely change the studio's mind about how successful the film was in the end. They want to be turning a sizeable profit long before the film hits the home market. And when it comes to making a decision to green-light a sequel, the risk of losing money or simply not making any needs to be low. Barely breaking even on a film that was supposed to reinvigorate a franchise will not instill much confidence in studio execs about how future sequels will perform. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Uhhhh...AFAIK, that mighta been true back in the 70s. But ever since the advent of VHS in the 80s, the home movie market has come to surpass theatrical revenues for any given film. So only pointing towards domestic theatrical figures is just as unfair as only pointing to domestic figures when most films make their theatrical money overseas. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"the home movie market has come to surpass theatrical revenues for any given film" – I'm not sure why you believe that, but it is simply not true for most films. Take Furious 7 for example. According to The Numbers, it made roughly $68 million in domestic DVD sales compared to $351 million in domestic theatrical revenue. Even if the film only made $200 million at the box office, its home market revenue still wouldn't come close. Sure, that doesn't include streaming, TV airings, etc., but those other venues are just drops in the bucket compared to DVD and Blu-ray sales. At most, they'd probably tack on another $5-10 million, and that's being generous. If we look at Terminator Genisys which hit the home market on November 10, 2015, the numbers are even lower. I'm focused on domestic sales here, simply because that's all we have home market figures for. I wouldn't be surprised if the overseas home market was a similar ratio to overseas theatrical sales, if not worse.

"...only pointing towards domestic theatrical figures is just as unfair as only pointing to domestic figures..." – Since when did we limit the discussion to domestic figures? The $440 million mentioned earlier includes overseas revenue. Hell, if we were only talking about domestic figures, this film would have been a total bomb at under $90 million domestically. Thankfully, it has the overseas market, otherwise you and I wouldn't be here talking about it.

While I enjoy a good debate, we need to stay focused here on article content. Wikipedia talk pages are not forums. If there is something you'd like to discuss specifically about the article, let's do so, but this is just financial speculation that can't be used to improve the article without a proper source supporting it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You're forgetting the very fact that the home video releases last much longer than theatrical releases, and that's exactly why home video releases have a much higher revenue than theatrical releases. And it's also why it's wrong to point towards recent home video releases, which would be like complaining that a film hasn't made a billion within its first hour after its theatrical release. That's why it's much easier since the advent of VHS for films to return their production costs without the need to rely upon a few weeks in theaters. But even within this short a time of the home video release, Genisys has made more than 7 times the amount it required to break even.

Plus, your statements on when exactly a studio expects profits are pure speculation, as are those about how the exact time of the break-even point influences plans for sequels, if and when they will be made, and how high their individual budget will be. The studio itself say they were happy with the revenues but not overwhelmed, so they'll poll oversea audiences (as the franchise's main theatrical market at this point, obviously) to find out what they can do better with the next entry until which development is on-hold, and once the data will be in and they'll find a new strategy on where to go with the next one(s), the sequels will go into development. Regarding all the aforementioned, it can't count for nothing that the film's main actor has recently (long after the theatrical release was over) gone on record in interviews there's gonna be more films. That's all the information we have so far, and it all sounds a far cry from an upset studio and a deficitary film.

Oh, and it's just now that I realize that even by the Bloomberg formula above, the film has earned 12 million over its production budget already while it was still in theaters. Whether that is considered a success is a different matter (particularly with marketing costs factored in), but a.) we don't know how correct the Bloomberg formula for Transformers is for Genisys, and b.) you simply can't use that formula to claim the film didn't break even, as the formula tells us that the film broke even while it was still in theaters. The only source which claims the film didn't break even for a definitive fact is Hollywood Reporter, which followed a lot of speculation sold as definite fact to the effect that started way before the film was even released and continued after its release. We've been over it many times before on this talkpage how speculation and bias have been sold as fact about this film, and breaking even is just one issue of many here. In any case, I seriously doubt that the studio can officially proclaim they're happy with the profits if the film didn't make even. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The amount of money studios make off a single home media purchase declines significantly after the first few months. When first released, a Blu-ray copy may sell for $20 or more, but six months later that may drop to $10 and then eventually the bargain bin at most retail outlets for $5-7. In addition, the number of sales drops off significantly over time. If you were looking at a graphical chart showing the exponentially declining curve, it's true that it would never hit zero. After a couple years, however, it would reach a point of great insignificance to the studio and distribution companies. We could debate this all day, but getting back to the article for a second, what is it exactly that you're trying to change? Are there sources that paint a different picture that we haven't considered? Ultimately, it comes down to the sources and not our personal opinion on the matter. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Another interesting comparison: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, another recent critically polarizing action film, cost $30 million more, and only had to make $400 million to break even, whereas Genisys has made $40 million more than more expensive Crystal Skull's required break-even point. And still, they're calling one a flop and the other a hit. The evaluation of box-office figures are just as skewed as the evaluation of the critical response here. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Cast section cleanup

I removed all of the minor characters and general regurgitating of plot information as per the Tag. Here is a link to the previous version of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terminator_Genisys&oldid=696489012 There's no need for such extensive detail. AyrtonProst ^Radio 20:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

plot point omitted

I have added two minor edits that clear up, that the childhood visions Kyle experiences are not from his own childhood (as the article implied) and how they originate at the end of the film. This is an important plot point, since it is the reason why Kyle and Sarah go to 2017 instead of 1997 for the second half of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.23.157.146 (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)