分类： 未分类

Thailand’s King Maha Vajiralongkorn, officially known as King Rama X, has been listed as the world’s richest monarch, with estimates of Vajiralongkorn’s personal wealth ranging from US$30 billion up to US$43 billion, reports Reuters and South China Morning Post.

King Vajiralongkorn is considered the richest royal in the world, beating out Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei, who came in second with a total wealth valued at US$28 billion, and King Salman bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud of Saudi Arabia, who came in third with an estimated net worth of US$18 billion.

Here are 5 things you need to know about King Vajiralongkorn, the richest royal in the world:

As a child, King Vajiralongkorn attended a palace school in Bangkok, but by the age of 13 he was sent to two private schools in the United Kingdom for five years, and then went to a school in Sydney, Australia, for a year. He spent the next four years being trained at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, in Canberra.

Vajiralongkorn then continued his military training in Thailand and became an officer in the Thai armed forces. According to a BBC profile, he is a qualified civilian and fighter pilot, often flying his own Boeing 737 when travelling overseas.

Most of Vajiralongkorn’s wealth is held in the Crown Property Bureau

The title holds 16,210 acres of land in Thailand, with 40,000 rental contracts nationwide, including 17,000 in the country’s capital, Bangkok.

In Bangkok, the Crown Property Bureau owns around 3,281 acres of land, with parts of it being located in prime real estate areas, such as the heart of the business district. According to a 2011 biography on Vajiralongkorn’s father, King Bhumibol, A Life’s Work, its property holdings in the Thai capital are estimated to be worth US$33 billion.

The Golden Jubilee Diamond is part of the crown jewels and is an astonishing 546.67-carat brown diamond, making it the largest faceted diamond in the world.

The diamond has an estimated value of US$4 million to US$12 million according to Worthy, a luxury goods appraisal website. However, if sold at auction, this stone would likely fetch a significantly higher price because it is one of a kind and remains the largest cut and polished diamond on the planet.

Today, the Golden Jubilee Diamond remains in the Royal Thai Palace, where because of its size value, it is always carefully guarded.

US$9 billion of Vajiralongkorn’s net worth is in stocks

In 2018, the Crown Property Bureau, the organisation that controlled the royal fortune on behalf of the monarchy, announced that assets previously held by Crown Property would be transferred to the King.

It’s estimated that King Vajiralongkorn has a 23 per cent stake in Siam Commercial Bank, Thailand’s second-largest lender, and a 33.3 per cent stake in Siam Cement Group., the country’s largest industrial conglomerate. These two holdings have an approximate value of US$9 billion.

The rise of the Kamani family is frequently described by the British tabloids as one of the UK’s great “rags to riches” tales.

Mahmud Kamani, the patriarch of the family, is the 55-year-old billionaire behind Boohoo, which for the uninitiated, is the UK’s buzzy fast fashion clothing company that has achieved explosive growth in the past few years and is considered one of the few retailers to have dodged the retail doom and gloom.

Kamani, who is now one of the most successful entrepreneurs in the country and has worked his way up the UK’s rich list to be worth nearly US$1.5 billion, started his career selling cheap clothes to market stallholders and high-street brands in the UK (including H&M and Primark).

He went on to set up Boohoo with co-founder and designer Carol Kane in 2006, with the idea of cutting out the middle man and selling directly to customers online.  

From the start, Boohoo’s business model was based around being ultra-fast and ultra-cheap; around 3,000 new styles are added each week across its core brands with an average price between US$17 and US$20.

Since going public in 2014, the company has grown to include a host of other brands including PrettyLittleThing, Nasty Gal, and most recently, Coast and Karen Millen, and under the umbrella of Boohoo Group Plc is valued at more than US$3.8 billion.

Group sales have nearly tripled in the past two years, hitting £856.9 million (US$1 billion) for the financial year ending in February, and the company now has its sights firmly set on becoming a global brand with equivalent status to Zara or H&M.

阿曼能源部长周一表示，石油输出国组织(OPEC)及其盟友可能会延长减产协议，但不太可能加大减产力度。另外，阿联酋表示，不担心石油需求的长期增长。

为提振油价，OPEC和以俄罗斯为首的盟友(OPEC+)自今年1月起开始实施一项减产120万桶/日的协议，协议将于2020年3月到期。OPEC+将于12月开会评估其产量政策。

“我认为可能会延长减产协议，但不太可能加大减产力度，除非未来几周有重大事件发生，”非OPEC成员国阿曼的能源部长Mohammed bin Hamad al-Rumhy在阿联酋首都阿布扎比举行的能源会议上对记者表示。

他说，随着贸易紧张局势缓和，石油需求正逐步改善，阿曼对目前的油价感到满意。油价周一下跌，因担心美中贸易协议前景。

阿联酋能源部长马兹鲁伊表示，石油需求增长“合理”。阿联酋是OPEC第三大产油国，产量仅次于沙特和伊拉克。

能源安全

全球第三大石油进口国印度的石油部长Dharmendra Pradhan表示，地缘政治紧张局势令石油消费国感到不安，此前，全球最大石油出口国沙特的多家石油工厂遭袭，导致其产量一度减半。

一位熟悉沙特石油业务的业内人士对路透表示，沙特将10月石油产量提高至1,030万桶/日，以补充9月14日遇袭后被动用的库存，但将市场供应量维持在989万桶/日，低于OPEC为其设定的产量目标。

“沙特阿拉伯国家石油公司(沙特阿美)正在补充库存，该公司在9月时曾动用其库存以满足客户的需求，尽管遭受了该行业历史上最严重的袭击。”

华盛顿和利雅得方面指责它们共同的敌人OPEC成员国伊朗发动了此次袭击，并在今年早些时候对在海湾水域的沙特能源资产和油轮发动了其他规模有限的攻击。德黑兰方面否认了这些指控。

自2018年5月以来，美国与伊朗的紧张关系加剧，当时美国退出了国际大国与德黑兰签署的一项核协议，并重新对伊朗的石油出口实施制裁。

阿曼仍保持与德黑兰的关系，该国石油部长表示，与伊朗保持关系的成本低于建立紧急石油储备的成本。

“前进的道路是对话……与伊朗坐下来磋商是我们长期以来一直在推动的事情，希望这会发生，“Rumhy在一次小组讨论中说。

需要更多的投资

OPEC秘书长巴尔金都对石油行业投资不足发出警告，不过他表示，自2014-2016年油价暴跌以来，投资下降的速度有所加快。

“我们看到2017-2018年投资仅小幅增长……长期来看，投资者应该会流出，而不是流入石油行业，”他说。

OPEC在2019年《世界石油展望》中指出，尽管全球经济扩张推动了能源需求的增长，但随着美国页岩油和其他竞争能源的产量增加，未来五年该组织的石油供应量将会逐步下降。

气候激进主义在西方日益高涨，和替代燃料日益广泛的使用，正使石油长期需求的强度受到更多的审视。

“更绿色能源的增长速度将会加快，但传统的石油和天然气也会增长。天然气的增长将会更快，受助于对更清洁能源的需求，“马兹鲁伊表示。

If you just work harder, you’ll get ahead.

It’s a seductive concept, and essentially the view of 50 per cent of Australia Talks respondents, who agreed with the statement: “In Australia, anyone who works hard enough can get out of poverty.”

Forty per cent of respondents disagreed.

For those who haven’t followed it, the ABC’s Australia Talks National Survey questioned nearly 55,000 people across the community to get a nationally representative sample of what the nation thinks.

And a majority of people across the nation think “if you have a go, you’ll get a go.”

There’s logic to this view — Australia is a developed country with solid public education and health systems that should, at least in theory, offer everyone in the community a baseline of opportunity from which talent and hard work can shine through.

But those who work on the frontlines of poverty reduction almost unanimously say the notion that hard work alone can lift someone out of poverty is just plain wrong.

“People are incredible, and people who really face lots of adversity can find a way to break through, with luck and hard work and good will,” says Matthew Cox, who runs the Logan Together program, which aims to break the poverty traps in one of Australia’s poorest areas.

It’s hard to find someone more upbeat than Matthew. In our half-hour interview he constantly returns to the positives of Logan — it’s diversity, energy and opportunity — and the successes his program is already enjoying, ensuring more kids get a good start in life.

But even Matthew isn’t so optimistic as to think that everyone living in poverty can haul themselves out by force of will and effort.

“Those examples, in my experience, are the exceptions to the norm,” he continues.

“If you are born into a particular set of life circumstances where there are structural, economic, cultural barriers that you face then, on average at a population level, that’s just not true.

“So, we can certainly see people who are the exceptions, and all those wonderful stories about people beating the odds are heart-warming because they’re exceptional.”

I also spoke to Suzanna. For many years she ran a fairly successful small business with her husband; they owned their own house and car.

But when his personal problems led to the collapse of the business and the breakdown of their marriage, Suzanna found herself left with nothing but thousands of dollars of business debts that had been taken out in her name.

She found herself staying at her adult son’s house and, when that wasn’t tenable anymore, she moved between friends.

And she has this message to the 50 per cent of Australians who think getting out of poverty is just about hard work.

“It’s definitely not true. You don’t know what’s around the corner,” she tells me.

“I never thought I’d be in this situation, especially in my 50s, so it can happen to anyone.

“I did work hard all my life and, at the end, I’ve ended up being homeless.

Emeritus Professor Frank Stilwell from Sydney University’s Department of Political Economy has just written a book on economic inequality in Australia and around the world, and he isn’t shocked by the Australia Talks response.

“Frankly, if you haven’t lived in a state of extreme poverty yourself, you’re unlikely to understand the vicious circle characteristics that actually prevent people escaping from that trap in practice,” he tells The Money.

“So, the fact that 50 per cent of people effectively blame the poor for not working hard enough to get out of poverty doesn’t surprise me at all.

“But I think if the roles were reversed they might see the situation a little more sympathetically.”

Strong concern about ‘steady march’ of wealth inequality
An apparent contradiction in the Australia Talks survey is that, while half the population thinks escaping poverty is just a matter of hard work, 81 per cent of people say wealth inequality is a problem in Australia.

Perhaps, as Professor Stilwell suggests, this reflects the lived experience of more people — while relatively few Australians have experienced genuine poverty, most Australians are at least somewhat aware of just how well the economic elite are doing relative to them.

Although they may not be entirely aware just how big that wealth gap between the top and bottom has become.

“The trends in the distribution of wealth show a steady march of inequality,” Professor Stilwell observes.

“The wealthiest 10 per cent of households now have over 50 per cent of the total wealth.

“In other words, the poorest 90 per cent have only as much as the top 10 per cent.”

11月7日，Woolworths集团与中国永辉超市集团在上海签约，近百种澳大利亚产品将在明年春节前摆上永辉超市的货架。

澳大利亚超市巨头Woolworths与Coles这对“冤家”在本地市场角逐多年后，又将目光转向了中国市场。

据了解， 在2019年上海国际进口博览会期间，Woolworths和Coles均在食品及农产品展区设立了展位，向中国消费者推介自有品牌的澳大利亚食品。

据悉，11月7日，Woolworths与中国大型连锁超市集团永辉超市（Yonghui Superstore）签署合同，将该公司的产品通过后者的零售网络带到中国。

据永辉超市集团企业网站消息，与Woolworths签约后，该公司成为Woolworths在中国的首个实体“全品类落地销售的零售渠道”。双方将开展一系列合作项目，通过永辉超市在中国各地的重点门店及公司开发的购物APP，向中国消费者出售澳大利亚品牌商品。

目前，永辉超市在中国20多个省市拥有800余家大中型超市以及500多家“永辉mini”小型超市。

据报，最快在明年春节前，中国的消费者就可以在北京、上海、广州、福建和江浙等地的永辉超市买到Woolworths供应的葡萄酒、日配、休闲、个人护理等九个系列的近百种产品。

永辉表示，Woolworths使用的绿苹果标志代表自然、有机、品质，其出售的产品可以更好满足中国消费者的需求。目前，中国消费者对食品是否安全，是否有益身体健康的问题尤为关注。

据悉，永辉超市核心合伙人牟鸣披露，永辉超市在2018年就从澳大利亚进口了价值约1500万美元的生鲜产品、价值1212万美元的牛羊肉以及价值1000万美元的酒类奶类产品。预计，永辉在2019年从澳大利亚进口的澳大利亚商品总额将超过4000万美元。

永辉超市集团并不是最近才对澳大利亚产品感兴趣。早在2014年，该公司就将塔州鲍鱼摆上所属超市的货架，并相继从澳大利亚进口龙虾、樱桃和三文鱼等生鲜产品。2016年时，永辉还在福州的五个下属超市内开设了塔州物产专区。

在对中国生鲜食品市场的竞争中，Woolworths的老对手Coles也不甘落后，意欲进一步拓展市场，满足那些经济宽裕的中国消费者的需求。

今年九月，该超市集团与主要经营世界各地美食的上海城市超市有限公司达成合作，在中国市场发售联名款澳大利亚牛肉。

据《金融评论》(Financial Review)报道，Coles参加了今年的上海国际进口博览会，向中国消费者推介其自有品牌的牛肉，并打算于明年三月在中国设立办事处，将澳大利亚的优质牛肉出售给中产阶级消费者。

此前数十年中，中国市场上虽然也一直供应有Coles提供的肉制品，但所用肉类都是澳大利亚本地消费者不食用或极少食用的部位。

澳大利亚肉类及畜牧业协会（meat & livestock australia）公布的统计数据显示，截至今年九月，中国紧跟日本，成为澳大利亚第二大牛肉出口国，并很可能在鼠年春节前进一步增加进口量。

一个值得关注的问题是，面对巨大的中国市场，如何确保消费者不会买到假冒伪劣的所谓“澳大利亚制造”产品呢？

在中国，假冒澳大利亚红酒随着新兴中产阶级购买力的上升而泛滥。
在中国，假冒澳大利亚红酒随着新兴中产阶级购买力的上升而泛滥。 (Weibo: Guangdong Provincial Public Security Department)
据报此前中国广东警方曾查获涉案金额数百万澳元的假冒澳大利亚红酒和保健品，而在中国市场上出售的澳大利亚牛肉，或有一半都是假冒的。

目前，商家利用“澳大利亚制造”来吸引消费者的举动也引发了人们的关注。

据了解，永辉集团下属超市曾因食品安全问题多次被中国媒体曝光 。那么，在其与Woolworths开展合作后，如何保证消费者不会买到假冒或变质澳大利亚产品呢？

Woolworths在接受采访时并未直接回答这一问题。

“全球公认澳大利亚是一个提供清洁、绿色、安全产品的国家。因此，Woolworths相信中国的顾客会像澳大利亚本地顾客一样喜欢该超市的产品，”Woolworths国际业务部总经理克里斯·克拉蒙德（Chris Cramond）说。

配合绿色投资计划的推展，金管局首个投资项目是投入1亿美元到国际清算银行的绿色债券基金，支持它的全球绿色融资计划。

新加坡金融管理局（MAS）将推出一项20亿美元（约27.2亿新元）的绿色投资计划，以加快新加坡绿色金融生态系统的增长，推广具环保意义的可持续投资项目。

配合绿色投资计划（Green Investments Programme）的推展，金管局首个投资项目是投入1亿美元到国际清算银行（Bank for International Settlement）的绿色债券基金，支持它的全球绿色融资计划。

教育部长、金管局董事会成员王乙康昨天（11月11日）在新加坡金融科技节及新加坡科技创新周（SFF X SWITCH）会上做出这宣布。

绿色金融是当前世界金融业趋势之一，指的是各种环境或气候变化有关的金融项目，并在金融活动中注重生态环境影响和社会可持续发展。

王乙康指出，我国正积极推广创新与科技，但它们不应仅达到推动经济增长的目的，还要取得更广大积极作用，特别是在应对气候变化方面。

他说：“凭借我们在本区域的融资经验和技术能力，我们可以在绿色金融方面做出独特贡献。我们的愿景是成为亚洲和全球绿色金融的领先中心。”　

金管局在2017年推出绿色债券津贴计划，迄今本地发行的绿色债券规模已超过60亿元。去年，该局把津贴计划扩大至社会与可持续债券。

王乙康：绿色借贷领域增长潜能巨大

在新设的绿色投资计划下，该局将把资金交由在本地推动区域绿色行动，并为金管局其他绿色金融计划做出贡献的资产管理公司进行投资。这有助于该局的投资组合获得可持续性的长期回报。

王乙康在演讲时说，新加坡在绿色借贷领域也开始起步，拥有巨大增长潜能。例如，房地产发展商向银行取得绿色贷款，用来发展绿化建筑、安装太阳能板，以及重新装置节能设备。本地医疗领域私募股权投资公司Quadria Capital最近获取一笔6500万美元融资，这是全球首个融资利率与改善可持续性表现挂钩的信贷工具。

企业要取得绿色贷款，往往须承担额外费用，例如建立可持续性框架和聘请外部审核人员等。王乙康说，金管局下来推出拨款计划，以帮助企业支付相关费用。

他说：“我们要在亚洲推广绿色金融，让绿色贷款不是小众市场活动，而是成为主流市场活动。”

荷兰安智集团（ING）亚太区可持续金融主管赵慧利接受《联合早报》访问时说，金管局这项计划将刺激整个买方供应链，带动机构投资者制定绿色金融策略。她说，金管局表明会选择致力于强化新加坡绿色金融活动和能力的资产管理公司，这意味着投资者会提高对环境、社会与治理（ESG）事项的关注程度。

金融科技节由金管局举办，科技创新周则由新加坡企业发展局、国立研究基金会和新加坡知识产权公司联办。这两项活动今年首次联合举行，贯穿的主题为可持续性和气候变化。

《新明日报》日前报道，德国一家顾问公司进行测试，每日只让员工工作5个小时，并只能检查公司邮件2次。研究结果出炉，工时缩短没影响公司营运，反而让部分生产率提高。相反的，人若长年累月在高压环境中工作，可引致倦怠，而很可能影响工作表现。

究竟什么是倦怠（burn-out）？能如何预防？《活得好》请精神科医生解析。

黄廷方综合医院精神科顾问医生温尔敏说，倦怠指的是，因长期承受工作压力却未能成功妥善管理而形成的现象。它只适用于工作有关，并不适用于生活其他范畴的经验。

一般上，倦怠患者会每天感到非常疲倦，也感觉与正常工作角色或职责分离。他们也可能觉得自己无法与同事或同龄的人沟通。

若没妥善处理，让倦怠感持续，温医生表示，这将降低工作效率，可能影响收入，而甚至恶化，引致抑郁症。

如何对抗倦怠？

• 学会拒绝无法应付的多余责任。若可以选择，尽量把多余的责任或工作给其它人分担。
• 学会忙里偷闲，抽个时间小休（约20分钟），再回到工作岗位。不要有内疚感，这是“充电”时间。
• 尽量把工作留在办公室做，别带回家，尤其知道自己已出现倦怠感。

倦怠和抑郁症有何差别？

温尔敏医生：若出现这些症状，很可能是抑郁症：感觉人生没希望、感到自卑，甚至反复有自杀念头。这些念头突然发生，毫无原因。

提醒！如出现上述症状，应寻求专业人士帮忙。

One of the biggest challenges for human beings in the next two decades will be the lack of more human beings, according to Alibaba Chairman Jack Ma and Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

The billionaire techpreneurs met on one stage at the World Artificial Intelligence (AI) Conference in Shanghai on Thursday to debate the power of AI and the future of computers.

Ma believes artificial intelligence poses no threat to humanity, claiming that compared to humans, computers are just a toy. The best resource in the world is the human brain, he says, explaining: “It’s impossible that humans could be controlled by machines. They’re machines that are invented by humans.”

Musk disagreed with Ma, noting that computers are getting smarter than humans in more and more spheres and that the trend will continue. “We will be far, far surpassed in every single way. I guarantee it,” he said to Ma. He pointed to advances in chess and the Chinese board game of Go as evidence of progress in AI, saying “Your cell phone could crush the world champion of chess, literally.”

Arguing his point, the Tesla and SpaceX founder said humans are capable of creating things that are superior to people. Humans are not the last step in evolution, Musk suggested, warning that people must be wary of thinking that they are smarter than they really are. “The most important mistake smart people make is that they think they’re smart. Computers are already smarter than people. We just keep moving the goalposts,” he said.

Ma, who seemed at times to be bored or puzzled by Musk’s comments, as he frequently pulled pained expressions and raised eyebrows, disagreed with his opponent’s statements.

“Computers may be clever, but human beings are much smarter,” Ma repeated. “We invented the computer – I’ve never seen a computer invent a human being.”

According to the e-commerce giant founder, AI will open a new chapter so that humans will know themselves better. “Most of the projections about AI are wrong … people who are street-smart about AI are not scared by it.”

While insisting that he is “not a tech guy,” Ma added: “I think AI can help us understand humans better. I don’t think it’s a threat.”

Musk countered: “I don’t know man, that’s like, famous last words.”

Ma said he believes that with AI’s help, humans could eventually reach a point where the average workweek is only 3 days long, and the workday averages 4 hours. That opens the opportunity for humans to enjoy life more, and live longer, he said, adding: “We need to be ready to enter the era where everyone will get to live [to] 120 years.”

Far from a return to form, ‘Terminator: Dark Fate’ has flopped at the box office. Was the movie’s failure the result of misogyny, or indifference toward a Hollywood that doesn’t know when to put an old dog down?

Billed as a worthy successor to 1991’s universally-loved ‘Terminator 2: Judgment Day’, ‘Dark Fate’ had a big pair of cyborg boots to fill. After a slew of uninspiring sequels, the return of series creator James Cameron as producer was seen as a good omen, and critics scored the flick higher than any entry since 2003’s ‘Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines’.

But demand for the film was not as great as expected. ‘Dark Fate’ pulled in only $29 million on its opening weekend in the US. In China – a market where moviegoers have spent more than $2.23 billion on Marvel movies – it only managed to earn $28 million. Unless a dramatic turnaround comes, sources at rival studios predict the movie may leave Paramount, Skydance and Disney $100 million in the hole.

The movie’s 2019-correct makeover could have something to do with it. Starring three leading women, ‘Dark Fate’ is very much a female-driven enterprise. Liberal media, of course, have celebrated this, with Gizmodo squealing with delight that “Terminator: Dark Fate’s Post-Judgment Day Future Is Female, and We’re Here for It,” and Vox declaring “Terminator: Dark Fate is all about the kickass ladies.” 

The Guardian called internet grumbling about the movie a “kind of misogynist backlash,” while Slate called ‘Dark Fate’ “the gayest Terminator yet”  – for no other reason than its reviewer fancied leading lady Mackenzie Davis.

‘Dark Fate’ also treats viewers to some very Trump-era imagery: social commentary on automation displacing blue-collar jobs, a sympathetic portrayal of Mexican immigrants, and even a fight at a detention center for illegal immigrants. 

“Go woke, go broke” exists as a phrase for a reason. Hollywood’s current obsession with gender-swapped reboots and minority representation has left audiences sour and cost studios money. The 2016 all-female reboot of comedy classic ‘Ghostbusters’ bombed at the box office, and an all-female remake of ‘Ocean’s 11’ left viewers unimpressed. Plans for a black, female 007 in the next James Bond movie and a female Thor have also drawn ridicule from fans.

But a backlash to woke culture alone doesn’t explain the latest Terminator’s flop. After all, James Cameron was always a pioneer of the strong female lead, with Sigourney Weaver’s leading role as Ripley in ‘Aliens’ and Linda Hamilton’s portrayal of Sarah Connor in the Terminator franchise ticking the “badass women” boxes long before studios went out of their way to make sure their heroes have ovaries.

And most viewers who actually went to see ‘Dark Fate’ over the weekend liked it, rating the movie 85 percent on Rotten Tomatoes.

It’s far more likely that 35 years after Arnold Schwarzenneger first told viewers “I’ll be back,” nobody gives a crap about Terminator any more. The 1984 ‘Terminator’ opened to $4 million, out of a $6 million budget. ‘Terminator 2’ took in $31.7 million on its opening weekend, or almost $60 million in today’s money. 

The three sequels since then have all taken in between $27 million and $44 million on their opening weekends, but scored poorly with critics. Until the latest installment, reviews for each Terminator film since ‘Judgment Day’ have been steadily going downhill, and the prospect of another disappointment could have led fans to simply stay at home instead. 

But a backlash to woke culture alone doesn’t explain the latest Terminator’s flop. After all, James Cameron was always a pioneer of the strong female lead, with Sigourney Weaver’s leading role as Ripley in ‘Aliens’ and Linda Hamilton’s portrayal of Sarah Connor in the Terminator franchise ticking the “badass women” boxes long before studios went out of their way to make sure their heroes have ovaries.

And most viewers who actually went to see ‘Dark Fate’ over the weekend liked it, rating the movie 85 percent on Rotten Tomatoes.

It’s far more likely that 35 years after Arnold Schwarzenneger first told viewers “I’ll be back,” nobody gives a crap about Terminator any more. The 1984 ‘Terminator’ opened to $4 million, out of a $6 million budget. ‘Terminator 2’ took in $31.7 million on its opening weekend, or almost $60 million in today’s money. 

The three sequels since then have all taken in between $27 million and $44 million on their opening weekends, but scored poorly with critics. Until the latest installment, reviews for each Terminator film since ‘Judgment Day’ have been steadily going downhill, and the prospect of another disappointment could have led fans to simply stay at home instead.