Last Saturday, I talked about the way the writers of Terminator: Salvation (2009) used a clever retcon to undo the damage done by the third film. A retcon (“retroactive continuity”) introduces new information in a subsequent film in a series that addresses plot holes, continuity errors, and such in the earlier films. In this case, having Marcus unexpectedly sacrifice his life for John got around the problem created by the fact that the audience “knows” that the hero is doomed.

Corrections of this sort are much needed in a film franchise because all stories really break down into two genres, comedy and tragedy. The major problem with promising a character’s death or killing him or her outright before the end of a story in a comedy is that it ruins the stakes for that particular tale. It also kills any further stories involving that character as a live person. This is the ultimate problem that Terminator: Salvation faced. Sadly, as clever as the retcon was, I don’t think it fixed the issues with the third film. There are a couple of reasons for this, but the bottom line is that Terminator Salvation took the blame that should’ve been laid at the feet of the third Terminator film (2003), just as Alien Resurrection took the blame for the sins of Alien 3 (1992).

Blame for bad writing is often wrongly assigned to the later film

Now, my case is a little harder to make with this film because the numbers are closer. But I think this speaks more to the lasting impact of the overall Terminator franchise than it does to anything lacking in my theory. That is, despite the ranges between the numbers, my theory still stands. If a film is truly detrimental to a franchise, the impact of that film won’t be felt until the next movie, and usually the next movie receives the blame.

This is a real problem in cinema because the culprits are often treated as successful because they are wafted along by the hype from the previous film. In the case of both Alien 3 and Terminator 3, the sequels are, to this day, considered true blockbusters. What happens is that the third film gets a boost on opening weekend thanks to the sequel, but the sales plateau sooner than they should. Then the next film has box office problems and thus it takes the blame for the third film’s bad writing.

What the box office can tell us

I looked up the box office numbers for the Terminator franchise, and sure enough, the numbers for Terminator: Salvation’s opening weekend were down compared to its predecessor, despite opening in more theaters. Granted, the numbers are much closer, but the numbers are still down. Unlike Alien: Resurrection, which had a rough start but surpassed Alien 3 in the worldwide box office, Terminator: Salvation never gained any ground. It ended up making much less than Terminator 3.

I think there are two reasons for this.

Number One: As clever as the retcon was, it may have been too subtle. A viewer who was not very familiar with the storyline from Terminator 3 may have missed the fact that the writers were retconning the third film. The chances are, the only thing the audience really remembered hearing was that John was going to die. Because it wasn’t made obvious that this was no longer the case, they never grew excited for where the franchise was going.

Number Two: Despite this movie’s many positive aspects, the plot hole with Kyle is very glaring. There are a number of minor plot holes on top of that. Nobody is going to tell their friends about a movie that’s sloppy.

The last thing I want to mention about Terminator Salvation’s box office results is that both the third and fourth Terminator films plateaued at about the same time. But that’s not the most interesting detail. Terminator 2’s sales continued to grow. I’d argue that if the third film had been successful, its sales line should’ve charted with the second film’s sales. I wouldn’t expect it to gain as many sales as the sequel, but it should’ve continued to gain new viewers. My guess is that the reason both the third and the fourth films plateau at approximately the same time is that the only people continuing to watch the movies are the true fans. They are going to see the films out of devotion. But no one is telling friends about them.

Basically, the third film disappointed the fans, so word did not spread, and in the fourth film’s case, it didn’t effectively communicate that the damage done by the third film had been corrected. Perhaps there was no reason to watch the next movie if John was just going to die at the end. That’s my theory anyway.

Here are the websites I used for the box office numbers: The Numbers and Box Office Mojo

On the plus side…

My critique of the subtlety of the retcon is not meant to downplay the writers’ wit. Moral ambiguity aside, I loved the way they saved John. It’s the kind of clever writing I wish the writers of Alien: Resurrection had employed. If they had, I think the film would’ve performed better. And the writers of Terminator: Salvation had good reason for being so clever. Terminator: Salvation was supposed to be part of a trilogy. I think the writers knew that they couldn’t tell their own story until they’d dealt with that idiotic prophecy mentioned in the third film, a prophecy that was only done to shoehorn in a random female character nobody had heard of before as the protagonist. So, to do their own thing, they had to fix the previous movie, and in my opinion, they did.

The third film still has plenty of other issues, but those issues cease to be of consequence. Instead, the audience is left with a John Connor who thinks he’s going to die, takes up the task appointed to him anyway, but then, unexpectedly, survives. He lives to fight another day. That’s a better story. That’s the kind of story Alien: Resurrection should’ve come up with: no clones, no random characters to take up the mantle, just an unexpected twist that undermines the previous attempts to destroy the protagonist.

A  writer who wants a franchise to endure must preserve the main character until the end of the tale. The writer can kill that protagonist at the end, but not before. No protagonist, no stakes, period.

If the Terminator franchise was so determined to have a female lead, the writers should’ve kept Sarah Connor alive. It’s one thing to have her son take up the mantle when he’s promised to do so for two films, but if the writers take out the son and replace him with another female lead, then the writers also destroy Sarah Connor’s legacy in the process.

And finally…

Terminator: Salvation is by no means a perfect movie, but is it underrated. What it does wrong, it does wrong in spectacular fashion, but what it does right is also done in spectacular fashion. The world-building is amazing. The actors are incredible. Christian Bale and Sam Worthington produce fantastic performances, and the rest of the cast is solid as well.

However, the best part of the movie is the message that it’s better to be human than to be a machine. The robots are a threat. Cold, calculated decisions are a threat, but not just that; cold, calculated decisions are also detrimental, which is why humanity is destined to win.

Even Marcus’s sacrifice, as coldly as it was received on the part of the rest of cast, was meant to show humanity’s goodness. Humans aren’t just evil. This film is actually pro-human. The second film does offer this message as well, but conveys the message by humanizing the machine. The third film forgets it altogether. It was good to see the message of the first Terminator film reintroduced.

This movie might be sloppy, but it returned the story to its roots. I wish the franchise had stayed the course. Terminator: Salvation should’ve gotten its trilogy.

Here are the earlier five parts of my extended review of Terminator: Salvation:

Terminator Salvation (2009): A better film than Terminator 3 With three Terminator movies talking about the future, it was about time for the future to finally show up. By the end of the movie the viewer briefly sees John become something of a mentor, if not an outright father figure, for Kyle.

Terminator Salvation (2009), Part 2: Is Marcus really human? Or has he really been discovered to be a Terminator, bent on killing the human resistance? The dilemma is well handled because John Connor is genuinely confused and trying to understand the situation.

Terminator Salvation, Part 3: A return to roots This movie remembers what the second Terminator film forgot: the true nature of the machines. The film makes clear that the machines are the enemy because they are cold, and there is something special about being human.

Terminator Salvation (2009) Part 4: Marcus, Unwitting Terminator. Marcus learns the horrible truth from Skynet that his mission was to terminate John Connor. Although the Resistance blows up Skynet’s headquarters, the success of their mission turns on saving badly wounded John.

and

Terminator Salvation Review, Part 5: A clever plot rescue. Having Marcus unexpectedly sacrifice his life for John got around the problem created when the audience “knows” that the hero is doomed. Science fiction is closer to comedy than tragedy so a device like this — technically, a retcon — is handy and the writers were smart to use it.