Talk:Terminator: Dark Fate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move 19 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page to Terminator 6 at this time, per the discussion below. It does appear that this will require another move discussion in the future; on the plus side, this establishes a stable title for the page, which has already been moved about 6-7 times without talk page discussion since its creation. Please open a new requested move discussion if you would like to suggest a new title for the page based upon evidence of common usage in reliable, independent sources. Dekimasuよ! 16:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Terminator (2019 film) → Untitled Terminator film – The title of the film has not been confirmed by any official source. This early promotion artwork for the film does not confirm the film title, it's merely the franchise logo for an untitled film; similar promotional material was used for Genisys at a 2015 expo in Las Vegas before its title was confirmed, see here. This film is still in early production with rumours of filming having started; no official title has been announced. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 06:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). -- Alex^TW 07:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - sorry that I can't support. One reason for opposing is that an article called "Untitled Terminator film" could be confusing - I can't see anyone searching on that title - but my main reason is that it would eventually have to be moved in any case, when the title is known, so I can't see any point. And of course it's just possible that the current title may turn out to be correct. Deb (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I would like to direct you to Untitled Avengers film: that article wasn't named Infinity War - Part 2 because that title was removed by Marvel; nor was the article named Avengers (2019 film); the film is currently untitled. However, the opening paragraph reads "The untitled Avengers film, colloquially referred to as Avengers 4, is an upcoming American superhero film...". We could easily have the article read something similar. In addition, the current title could influence confusion between the upcoming film and Terminator the franchise. I would also question the strength of "it would eventually have to be moved in any case" as an argument; we don't know how long the film will go untitled. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 06:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This source seems to state the title is indeed just Terminator. Source Gistech (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That article's assumption is more than likely based on the promotional image that circulated, with people drawing conclusions that the name is simply "Terminator"; much like when the article for Genisys was originally named Terminator (film) based on its own promotional logo, cited above. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 10:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - at this point in time, the film's title is just Terminator. Should a subtitle be added later, (as films can eventually reveal a subtitle) we can change it at that point. With the article's title currently being "Terminator (2019 film)", there is no way that a reader will be confused and think that they're looking at the film series article, like you had stated.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support a move but to Terminator 6 because that is what comes up when I search for "Terminator". We can state in the opening sentence that this is not the official title. We can move it again once an official title is established. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I would support this move per WP:COMMONNAME. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I too would support Terminator 6 per Erik and WP:COMMONNAME. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 05:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• I also support Terminator 6 as a placeholder title per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATDIS. It is unlikely to be the final title (being that the previous sequels are being ignored, but it's equally unlikely to not have some subtitle, so the current article title will need to be changed anyway, and in the meantime the use of a parenthetical disambiguator when there's another option is not within giudelines. oknazevad (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Furlong as John Connor

Aside from the usage of Furlong's likeness for the young John Connor, is there any source stating Furlong will be playing John in any capacity, since the way the Cast section is laid out suggests he's playing John himself? Gistech (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't think there is. The majority of the sources reported only that Furlong's character will appear in the film, much like—if it's even true—how Sean Young's name is credited in Blade Runner 2049 since her character, and her 1982 face, appear in it. –Angga1061 13:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Protection request

I have placed this here as a means to discuss the needs for this page to currently be protected. Recently the producer announced the film's working title (which by no means is an official title). Various editors both registered and anon continue to move the page to the temporary title. This is deconstruction and has occurred several times now. Until the film is given a different title from what we know, it needs to remain the same. Thoughts?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. DannyS712 (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: reverted to stable title, Terminator 6, per WP:RMUM and the page move discussion still listed above. There have been 6 more moves to the page since a title was determined by a WP:RM discussion, each against the procedure for proceeding with possibly controversial requests set out at WP:RMCM, so the page has also been move protected. It is perfectly fine to move the page if and when another title reaches consensus, but discussion is required. Dekimasuよ! 12:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Terminator (2019 film) → Terminator 6 – The page was originally moved from Terminator 6 to Terminator (2019 film) under the (arguably false) impression that the name of the film would simply be "Terminator". James Cameron has announced that the working title of the film is Terminator: Dark Fate; this is by no means the official title, but it does logically indicate that the film will be called something eventually and be given a subtitle of some sort. I would propose moving the article back to Terminator 6 as a title-neutral name until the official name is announced; the name also provides WP:NATDIS against the existing films. There are also no sources that reliably cite the film's name as simply "Terminator". – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 08:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: None of that rationale involves evidence indicating what reliable secondary sources are calling this film, necessary per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Netoholic @ 11:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• I think "Terminator (2019 film)" is a more neutral title and makes more sense. Terminator, because adding 6 makes it look like it's the 6th direct sequel, even though they stated this is an alternate sequel to T2. Also, I would rather go to a promo logo, instead of secondary sources. Iamnoahflores (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Official Title

By the looks of it, the direct sequel to Terminator 2 will really officially be titled Terminator: Dark Fate. You can see for yourselves that several major websites have confirmed the title now when you search Terminator on Google! — $pongeP@ppy (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

As long as we have an official source verifying the final title, sounds good to me. --Bold Clone 18:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested the move. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Dark Fate

This article was moved from Terminator 6 to Terminator: Dark Fate. The source for this here has James Cameron saying, "We're calling it, Terminator: Dark Fate. That's our working title right now." Either we need to restore the colloquial title or to make it clear that this is a working title (and not the completely permanent official title). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I would argue for restoring the original "Terminator" title, because "Dark Fate" is simply a working title. In other words, "Dark Fate" is not the real title, any more than the real title for Avatar 2 is "The Way of Water." At the end of the day, a working title is not a real title, and does not become a real title until it is officially made the real title. Months from now at San Diego Comic-Con they may officially reveal the title, but until then a working title (such as "Dark Fate") has no more weight than the title "Woribgworg," which I came up with right now by mashing my fingers on the keyboard. A working title should be noted somewhere on the article (under Marketing, Post-Production, or somewhere else--I don't know), but it should not be treated as Word of God confirmation that this is the final movie title. --Bold Clone 20:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Haha, @Bold Clone: I like your working title, for an official title... sounds very sci-fi. LMAO. Seriously awesome.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Erik: and @Bold Clone:, I have started a discussion to protect the page as this is a recurring edit that keeps changing to "Terminator: Dark Fate". Working titles are never official. I have moved the film back to Terminator (2019 film) for the time-being.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sweet. I want to say up front though that working titles should be mentioned somewhere on the article. I mean, even if "Dark Fate" is not the final title, it is still more official than something like "Woribgworg". I just think that we shouldn't be too hasty in assuming the working title will end up being the final title. --Bold Clone 17:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

DisneyMetalhead, you were saying? "Working titles are never official"? -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: are you WP:HOUNDING?... What I meant is that working titles (a.k.a.: production titles) are never 'official titles' unless the production team makes it such. This isn't a new concept...--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Afterthought: it's a really hokey sounding title. Love the series, so I hope it's awesome.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Been here before. See the above RM, when it came up at RM/TR. You said never. Clearly it's not the case. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Alex, for once. He’s not technically ‘Hounding’. He’s being petty and vindictive. There’s a difference, and unfortunately there’s no real rules about dick-ish behavior on Wikipedia (which is probably just as well, since I would get in trouble as well). Still, I can at least call him out on it. Besides, common sense indicates that “never” can have a wide range of meaning, including “rarely” (even if that’s not technically proper grammar). If others don’t possess enough common sense to discern stuff like that, then that’s their problem. —Bold Clone 07:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2019

Move Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures as the international distributor to 20th Century Fox. Altough Disney bought Fox, it is the 20th Century Fox brand that appears to distribute the film offseas. Youngmiserable (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Where is Disney?

20th Century Fox SG's YT, 20th Century Fox UK's YT, 20th Century Fox still distributes the film internationally.--Justice305 (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"Untitled Terminator film" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled Terminator film. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

"Untitled Terminator 2 sequel" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled Terminator 2 sequel. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

"Untitled Terminator sequel" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled Terminator sequel. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

2022

Somebody changed my edit.

According to the article, this movie is set twenty-seven years after T2, which is set in 1995.

By my math, that makes this movie set in the year 2022.

Unless the article is not right, why is this contested? Or let me rephrase that, why was this not at least contested, but instead just changed back to the way it was.

--Noah Tall (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Noah Tall: Per WP:CATVER every category needs to be supported by what is in the article. The info you added wasn't the article. Also it is WP:SYNTHESIS so if it is included in the article should be supported by reliable sources that give that date. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's confirmed that this movie take place on 2022 Justin bibir (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Then it should be easy to find a WP:RS that supports that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Noah Tall:@Geraldo Perez:@Justin bibir: WP:CALC says "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations" and may be relevant here. Perhaps all we need to do is to find a source which states the movie is set 27 years after the setting of Terminator 2? MPS1992 (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Still all the data needs to be stated in the article with reference support, even for trivial calculations, so the calculations can be verified. Better is a source that just directly states it takes place in 2022. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC notice

There is a request for comment whose outcome may affect this article: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#RfC on distributor of post-merger Fox films. Nardog (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

RFC was closed with result The general consensus here is to retain the credited distributor ("20th Century Fox" or "Fox Searchlight Pictures") and as such, to not unilaterally change names of credited subsidiary distributors to their parent, "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures". Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Distributor

We have a reference that names Paramount Pictures as the domestic distributor and 20th Century Fox as the international distributor. There is an unreferenced assertion being made that 20th Century Fox no longer distributes films and that Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures is the international distributor. IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source but is generally correct for this type of thing, lists the distributor for most countries as for example "20th Century Fox (2019) (Austria) (theatrical) (through Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures)". This makes it look like 20th Century Fox will be the named distributor of record for most countries but that they are using Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures to do the actual work on their behalf. If IMDb is correct, 20th Century Fox will still be the credited distributor internationally, though, and that is what should be in the lead and infobox, more explanations, if reliably sourced, would be appropriate in the release section. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

We need a reference which is not IMDb even though they are generally correct about this sort of thing. See Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. There are very few things we can use IMDb as a reference for and distribution credits isn't one of them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Another reference, this from Forbes, supporting the first reference, 20th Century Fox is named as the international distributor. They mention that Fox is a Disney company. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Also see RFC notice below which is directly relevant to this issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I think this will be the only time 20th Century Fox will distribute post-merger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XSMan2016 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Then again, I found a source from ScreenDaily where there is a section that says:
"Dark Fate grossed a middling $72.9m from 48 material territories to accompany the $29m number one North American debut that fell way below expectations and already has sparked reports the film will lose its backers in the region of $120m-$130m. Approximately $28m came from China via Tencent, and Dark Fate grossed $6.9m in the UK, $5.8m in France, $4.2m in Russia, $3.4m in Indonesia, and $3.2m in Germany. Paramount distributes Dark Fate in North America, and Fox the rest of the world via WDSMPI. The tentpole earned $9m on IMAX globally and $6m from 992 international screens." — Preceding unsigned comment added by XSMan2016 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit request 23 November 2019

Please fix the tense in the article. Specifically change

"The film, like Cameron's initial Terminator films, will be R-Rated"

to

"The film, like Cameron's initial Terminator films, is R-Rated"

Thanks. -- 109.78.207.234 (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done.  AJFU  (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

A "gay bar" in Terminator 3 ?!

One review's quotation contains this sentence : “Terminator 3 went overboard with the gay bar and outdated catchphrases like “talk to the hand,” but Dark Fate is sillier.” That Fred Topel dude, whoever he is, self-terminated his relevance on the subject and the reliability of his writings as worthy sources for a Wikipedia article. Shouldn't it be a condition for quoted articles (and especially the quoted sentences) to get the basic facts right, and for the author to demonstrate that they are able to actually pay attention to what they supposedly saw before they propose their oh-so-brilliant analysis to enlighten the crowds ? And now that the sentence is there, which means that it's been considered worthy of inclusion by editorial consensus, and that noone was annoyed by this egregious detail, shouldn't there be at least a note to mention and correct that factual error ? Or would that be considered as "original research", as if it required a PhD in bullshittology to be qualified in determinining that bullshit smells worse than fresh cut grass ? So, to state the obvious, if it's really a requirement in this short-attention-span era, or for those who happen to have never seen the third installment yet somehow stumbled upon the talk page for the article about the sixth one: at the begining of Terminator 3, the T-800 arrives at a ladies bar, where a male stripper is about to do what he does, and a male stripper is not the same thing as a homosexual, even if he sports garish "Elton John" star sunglasses.--Abolibibelot (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2019

First, the film cost between 270 and 290 million to make , which includes production and marketing costs. It has lost at most about 30 million.

2nd: The critisisms that killing John Connor off was a terrible idea that ruins the first two films, is ridiculous and also subjective. The film is only a story. It is also art, and art is subjective. The previous 3 sequals were not James Cameron films. It is James Cameron who invented the first 2 films. The film is only a story. Maybe many Terminator fans and critics, just cant separate fantasy from reality. Many people I know think the film Dark Fate does respect the 1st two films story lines.

Is John Connors deaths any worse than Han Solo dying, in The Force Awakens? 3rd: who are you who does all this monitoring of edits? The way wikipeadia page edits are so tightly controlled, is ridiculous, especially as I have zero idea of who even does the editing and controlling.

Francis, Scotland Francishooton (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This line of puffery in the lede, "...It received mixed reviews from critics, who believed it to be an improvement over previous installments and praised the performances...." is not only speciously at minimum worthy of a citation-needed, but should probably just be tossed anyway as BS. (I'm not of aware of any worthy critic proclaiming this better than the foundational films of the franchise, or who thinks the acting is as good. Should such a critic be found, he certainly wouldn't represent a consensus view.) --2601:444:380:8C00:C024:80E2:523C:20B9 (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

So you claiming that Dark Fate is better than Genisys?213.230.102.146 (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight on crufty plot inconsistency

I made this edit in which I removed what was a whole paragraph ranting over a minor plot inconsistency based on a deleted scene in Terminator 2. The author reverted me, so to avoid edit warring, I put it up for comments. My arguments are:

1. It's based on a deleted scene, not the theatrical T2. The argument is pure fancruft from the get go.
2. This is a franchise dealing with time travel and parallel timelines, and the war is known to have lasted for probably decades. In all of that universe of possibilities, Skynet could well have sent a write-enabled terminator for whatever reason. It could well even be the first one at it, which would explain why it succeeded in killing John. In other words, it being a hole is arguable at best.
3. Even if it was an actual plot hole, it's not relevant in any significant way, and certainly not worth a paragraph.

All opinions are welcome. --uKER (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The scene was in Terminator 2 Special Edition not in the theatrical release. This does seem like a minor thing only fans would notice or care about and is about something that is not part of the theatrical continuity of the film. I think it adds nothing to the article as it talks about something that isn't even relevant to this movie and how it relates to the theatrical release of T2. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Precisely. And, yeah, I own the Skynet Edition of the T2 Blu-ray and know the scene full well, Linda Hamilton's twin and all. --uKER (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The "deleted scene" has obviously been put back into the Special Editions of the film, and are readily available on Blu-ray and DVD. The fact that it was cut from the theatrical version is thus rendered moot. Hell, when I went to the film I immediately had flashbacks of those chip removal scene and how it did not conform with this movie. Perhaps we should have a separate section to discuss this obvious compatibility issue between the films? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.183.179 (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of plot holes is completely out of the scope of a Wikipedia article. Especially such minor ones, completely irrelevant to the whole work. --uKER (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you are over-trivializing the importance of this continuity error. General audiences turn to the Special Edition as the definitive version of the movie - it's the one they get on the DVDs and Blu-rays. It's the version that airs on television. I remember watching it on a VHS rental. People are going to start noticing the egregious continuity error between it and Dark Fate. As Singer points out in his article, Dark Fate's interpretation of the T-800 only makes sense if we ignore that scene (link).

I don't know how long you've been on Wikipedia, but all sci-fi films are PLAGUED with plot holes, and you won't see a single article devoting a paragraph to any, unless it's so severe that multiple sources find it worthy of mention, which certainly isn't the case. This is just a fanboy nitpicking on a minor detail to brag about having seen the extended cut. --uKER (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

A restored Terminator 2 3D conversion was in cinemas and released on Blue Ray the same year as Dark Fate. They did a few continuity fixes, like the wind shield of the truck NOT falling out when it came crashing down from the bridge, but inserting of cut scenes like this is not among the changes. So the version without the chip removal or Johns struggle to convince Sarah not to kill "Him", is the newest and latest version of the previous part to Dark Fate. Just my two nerd cents. --Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

SAC-NORAD

I watch the film several times, there was no mentioned of SAC-NORAD. Is this mentioned in other official material, such as novelization? --TX55^TALK 04:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

About Edward Furlong's "return" as John Connor

• DarkHorizons.com (https://www.darkhorizons.com/rumor-on-furlongs-dark-fate-role-revealed/) — July 20, 2019
• Bloody-Disgusting.com (https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3573841/edward-furlongs-terminator-dark-fate-return-john-connor-spoilers/) — July 19, 2019

″The biggest surprise of the recent “Terminator: Dark Fate” panel at San Diego Comic-Con came from James Cameron himself who confirmed that Edward Furlong would appear in some capacity in the upcoming sequel.

How exactly wasn’t clear. None of the trailers have suggested an older John Connor survives in this, meaning the most likely scenario is either using old footage from T2 or some trickery to portray a T2-era young Connor in select scenes.

The latter appears to be the option they’ve taken according to Bloody Disgusting who suggest that according to their sources they’re doing effectively what was done in “Blade Runner 2049” with Rachel or “Rogue One” with Tarkin – a blending of an actor of the right age and body type on set mixed with a facial capture performance mapped onto it:″

“We won’t be seeing an adult version of Furlong’s John Connor in Dark Fate, at least not in the most recent cut of the film. My source tells me that yes, Jude Collie was in fact cast to play a young John Connor and that CGI was used to put Furlong’s face on his body. While Furlong isn’t physically in Dark Fate, he does deliver a brand new performance that’s been digitally placed directly onto Collie’s face. So, yes, Furlong is technically in Dark Fate, just not exactly how we all expected.” — 82.193.82.79 (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Came here to contest the mention of Furlong being involved in the film. His likeness being used doesn't merit his inclusion as cast. Let alone in the infobox. --uKER (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Furlong already had at least two interviews confirming his actual involvement in the film, albeit in a limited motion-capture capacity for his facial performance. Shouldn't this topic be closed at this point?Dibol (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2020

Change: On January 31, 2020, Hamilton gave an interview on her future with the franchise in which she said that "I would be quite happy to never return. So no, I am not hopeful, because I would really love to be done. But if there were something new that really spoke to me, I am a logical person, and I will always consider viable changes.” [224] Change to: On January 31, 2020, Hamilton addressed her future in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter: “I would be quite happy to never return. So no, I am not hopeful, because I would really love to be done. But if there were something new that really spoke to me, I am a logical person, and I will always consider viable changes.”

Update the [224] reference to the actual source link which is The Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/linda-hamilton-would-be-happy-never-return-terminator-1274687 2600:8801:1A00:860:508A:FBD8:8371:DF9B (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)