Gender: Female Location: Looking Under Amy Lee's D
why was this scene deleted?
in the first terminator, when sarah is on the gurney being loaded into the ambulance, we dont see the building in which she came out of. but on the special edition, with all the deleted scenes, it shows the building as cyberdyne, which is very important in the second terminator. i just wonder why the delted such an important part of the first movie because the biling plays such a major part in the 2nd film.
With the scene: Cyberdyne had the Terminator technology fall into their lap.
Without the scene: Cyberdyne somehow managed to aquire the technology to start building it.
The main problem is the causing of a paradox. The Terminator's created themselves, in a way, because it was their future technology that inspired Cyberdyne right?
Maybe keeping that scene in the movie would just make the paradox a bit too clear.
Also, having Sarah getting put into the ambulance softens the ending. Without it, the ending is more of a bang.
Interesting thought. But I don't see it as the technology that was found being the cause of the terminator's creation, but it sped it up. I don't believe they give an actual date that judgment day will occur in T1, but the do in T2. Now in T2, the date given could easily be the date that judgment day will occur now that it has been sped up. Originally, the date could have been several years later.
Read this, it is very well done and interesting. After reading the "fourth change" I can understand why this scene was deleted. Whether or not Cameron was actually thinking along these complicated lines is anybodies guess, but it would explain it.
Actually - I'm damn sure that complicated theory is pretty much EXACTLY the same theory as the Back To The Future approach to timelines.
The fact that time travel doesn't re-write time, it simply creates a new universe of events, its exactly the same idea as the one used in Back To The Future. Points A to B converted to points C and D. It makes sense.
How this fits into this deleted scene is merely because, like I said before, I think it's because it would make everything a bit too coincidental - allowing the audience to blatently focus on the paradox.
Not only that, but it also adds a lot to Terminator 2, in a sense that the sequel is more of a surprise. I mean, in Terminator 1, by the end of the movie, we are convinced that everything is safe. If we see the Cyberdine building, that hope is lost - we know there WILL be problems. Without the scene, the audience is led to believe everything is rosy, and when the sequel turns up, the audience is more shocked "We thought it was over".
And hence the reasoning behind Terminator 2 - it was supposed to be the end. But, as we all know, T3 ruined the franchise and decided to p*ss on everything.
mmm hmmm, especially with the foreshadowing where that mexican guy mentions there is a storm coming. sarah then drives off into the impending dark clouds.
Exactly my point. The ending left an opening for a sequel; it's obvious. And if no one cared for a sequel? Then it's left up to audience inference as to what my happen. I can think of many movies that give a totally open ending and still have no sequel to date.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 8th, 2005 03:51 AM
