If someone already posted this, then I apologize for sounding so reduntant. Ahem. That being said, I'd like to say something about the logics of Terminator 3 taking place. Look at it from a common sense point of view. There could have indeed been extra parts and extra data stored else where, besides the Cyberdyne building that both the Conors, the T-800 and Dyson blew up. Remember, Dyson wasn't told everything. To quote him, after a young man asked him where the scraps from the terminator came from he said something along the lines of "Ya know, I asked them that very same question once myself. You know what they told me? "Don't ask'." This is clear evidence that he was kept in the dark about alot of things. We also know that Cyberdyne was working for the USAF, so the USAF could have had data that Cyberdyne researched or researched their own data. Now as for how Terminator 3 could've taken place despite it being "all over" in Terminator 2. It was Sara, John and the T-800 that assumed that it would all be over and SKYNET wouldn't exist if they destroyed all the evidence. Sara and John are only human and therefore capable of making mistakes, therefore their assumption that SKYNET would never be built be destroying the right arm and CPU chip is subject to error, but what of the T-800's assumption? At the time he followed Sara and John's assumption of altering the future by destroying the evidence, he was pretty banged up by the T-1000. He took two blows to the head and it is obvious his CPU took some damage, since his motor functions were impaired in his legs. With his damaged CPU, he probably couldn't calculate as well as he could before, therefore it is likly to say that he calculated the wrong probability in assuming that the future would be altered in the sense of SKYNET never being created if he allowed himself to be lowered into the steal. That make sense? It better. Now as for Terminator 3 being made only to rake in "big bucks". Well, what the ****ing hell do you think they made the first two Terminator films for, anyways? Their health? I adore James Cameron's work, but I think it was dipshit of him to try and kill his work off in Terminator 2 and I'm quite glad to see the franchise carry on. It doesn't make much sense to me to see all these dipshit hardcore fans/virgins say that Terminator 3 was a failure in their eyes. True, it was a different director, but at least it didnt' suffer the "Batman Curse", in which they changed both the director and actor who plays the main character in the third movie. As for the T-X Vs. a T-1000, it's obvious the T-X has the advantage. Yes, the T-1000 is made of liquid metal/mimetic poly alloy, but the T-X has built in thermal weapons that would give the T-1000 a run for its money. All it took was molten steal to terminate the T-1000. And since the T-1000 is already liquid at room temperature, it would have a lower vaporization temperature than a solid object. The result? Enstead of that plasma cannon, it's possible the T-X could melt away the T-1000 using only it's flame thrower.
Terminator 3 lacks the depth that the first two films had. Many of the important elements of the series were omitted such as the Poloroid of Sarah Connor and the links between the police and the previous Terminators which helped to ground the films somewhat in reality.
The obvious, blatant use of CG, the female Swiss-Army Terminatrix and Terminator's severe upgrade in endurance, strength and completely different (and convenient) power supply make it harder for us hardcore fans to suspend our disbelief.
That doesn't mean we can't sit back and enjoy a soda while watching T3 every once in a while, but we certainly aren't going to pretend it had the same impact on us or on the industry as The Terminator or Terminator 2: Judgment Day.
In my mind the original had the best story. The second one was a solid movie but it was a rehash. I like to think of it more as a "what if?" The first one, as stated in the movie's opening is the last battle. The "series" while interesting isn't relevant to the original canon in this fan's opinion.
And as vvvrulz mentioned, please keep the flaming to a minimum. After all, just because we disagree about what movies we like better, we are all Terminator fans here.
some very valid points made in the thread, oclet. But we are not debating the fact that how judgment day still happen, as it has been stated many times before by me, i blame it on myself, because i had set high expectations for terminator 3, even though i thought the ending was perfectly done, the movie itself was weak, and it has so many plotholes that are too many to dig in 1 thread. But i cant blame them entirely since this is a kind of a time machine-future movie, some plotholes are bound to happen. I like t3, hell i loved it to death when it first came out. But t3 lacks in the depth of the first two movies, emotionally and many other aspects. As for t1000 vs the T-x, i have always believed that the tx is stronger than t1000, and in the terminator comics they show how the tx just blows the t1000 into smithereens.
In the end i would like to say that i dont know where the terminator franchise is going, there is a whole story of John Connor and Kate Brewster waiting to be told, but the actors Nick Stahl and Claire Danes are not signed up to terminator 4 and terminator 5. This concerns me, What makes me hate the director and the writers so much is the fact that he did not think the whole process through, Now we are left with a war we have been longing to see the entire terminator history, HUMANS VS MACHINES, but will we ever get to see that? we dont even know that
I reckon Ocelot is thinking a bit too much about the fact that the T800 in T2 got banged in the head twice etc. He's not human, and I'm sure he's robust enough to take a few blows there.
As for calculating errors in a machine, I don't think a machine is capable of calculating errors unless the programme already had minor/major bugs in them, or someone reprogrammes it (like what the TX did to Arnie).
__________________ [SPOILER - highlight to read]: All your Rick Roll are belong to me!!
How dare you. Ok, so bottom line here is that T3 was a HUGE letdown in many ways. The difference in the "big bucks" theory you brought up is that there was no time and care taken into this one. T2 grossed more than the other two combined ever will. Part of Cameron's theory about sequels failing is because they try to rehash their predessescor. That is what T3 did. No, T2 was NOT a rehash of T1. Reason being, there were two terminators. I know, doesn't sound like much. Take into consideration the time this film was made. Making it two terminators instead of one along with the fact that you could watch it without even having to consider what took place before is what makes it a good sequel.
T3 failed in delivering a fresh story and making it feasible. Cameron had original plans for a T3 that featured SkyNet sending back cyborgs to work at Cyberdyne to speed up they process. They were rejected of course because they were not following the forumula that had already been proven effective. This is why the "big bucks" destroyed T3. They tried to stick with the same idea. Someone mentioned the CG crap they overloaded too. T2 was WAY ahead of it's time and the special effects are still impressive to date. T3 special effects are shit; plain and simple.
Protector meets innocent character and there is a fight scene followed by a car chase. Villian crashes hero gets away. Villian meets up with hero again, another fight breaks out, hero gets away in a vehicle leaving villian on foot.
Final chase the heros and villians are both in a vehicles. They both crash. They aquire new vehicles (okay Reese and Sarah ran) and the chase continues into some factory/plant where the final battle takes place and the villian dies by shear luck.
Insert romantic/paternal subplot and stop Judgment Day subplot and you have essentially the same movie. Different tones but it's the same story.
Last edited by chriscaffee on Nov 8th, 2005 at 02:59 AM
yeah, T3 is a decent attempt to keep the franchise moving forward, rather than just leave it open-ended, letting us assume that everything plays out as was set forth in the original, now that Judgment Day has become inevitable and all...
it's the same as the Halloween franchise; you can choose to watch the first best original, and call it a night, or you can watch back to back to back non-stop saga, of whichever length you wish, and still be entertained by some portions of each consecutive flick...
especially when you consider how Kyle set up the future events in T1 when he told Sarah the History of Things to Come and she said something about his info being the future, and he says: 'One possible future...' all the follow-ups from T1 show events slightly altered, other versions of possible futures...
it works for what it is, just another sequel
__________________ 'The future is not set...'
'I'll be back...'
'Hasta la vista, baby!'
'Come with me if you want to live!'
The whole technological progression from T2 to T3 was still possible despite the T-800 in T2 being smelted due to the fact that in one scene where the two of them are fighting near a huge wheel with a conveyor, the T-800 gets his arm jammed in the device and forcibly marches away, ripping his arm off at the elbow in the process - this arm was left in that wheel and not destroyed, hence leaving 'evidence' that could still lead to Skynet's creation. No one can say that this arm was never found, as I'm fairly sure that government agencies would be investigating the massive liquid nitrogen spill that occurred there earlier in the movie
The concept of T3 was right (multiple targets instead of just JC). Just the execution of the film was pretty poor. I was of the thinking that if Jim Cameron wasn't going to direct the 3rd movie then perhaps there shouldn't be one. But then without T3 there would be no T4 and I really want to watch T4.
I think the film makers of Salvation would of really liked to have ignored T3 (McG and Bale always talk about the first two films - Bale has said he, quote, "doesn't know what that was doing" when referring to T3), but luckly it doesn't (as we can see with Kate Brewster being in the film and no Sarah etc). The film takes place, I think, 12 years from T3, setting the film in the year 2018.
The Sarah Connor Chronicles plays no part in the film(s).
Huge Hole in your theory buddy!. That is a totally bogus assumtion about the melting point of the liquid metal/mimetic poly alloy. First of all the T-X survives not only open flames in T3, but also being crushed by Steel Shrapnal. Second The T-X is not "liquid" at room temperature. that is not liquid metal. Have you ever heard or read about Nano Technology, becasue that is exactly what they are reffering to or implying, although that term wasnt even invented at the time this movie was filmed, this is obviously what they mean. Liquid allow itself obsiously would never have to ability to change shape or move on its own and would otherwise be knows as "mercury" as it has to technological significance or A.I. (artificial intelligence). I know it appears as liquid metal, buts it's actually supposed to be millions of tiny "nano-bots" formed together. It is "the ability to form shapes and metal objects, and mimic whatever it touches" and this technology already exists today, A very recent technological breakthrough.