I think after lengthy analysis I have discovered why Terminator 3 doesn't stand up to the first two (but it's still better then any recent action flick I can think of, except for The Punisher and Batman Begins).
It's the style. It has all the superficial elements of a Terminator film, but the heart, the soul, the powerful underlying messages and the equally powerful action scenes are missing. To me, T3 feels more like a superhero movie (Spiderman or Superman) rather then a movie about cyborgs. In many ways it was too comic-booky.
Get out you Terminator Wanna Be's, Face it you're not a real Terminator fan, Terminator 3 is the shit, Not long enough? Pffttt The 1st one didnt even go for 2 hours either, Only the 2nd one.
I'm just saying it needed to be longer so it could fit more things in, like more future war scenes, flash backs, and more story to help explain things better etc.
T2 wouldn't of worked if it was the same length as T1. It needed to be longer to explain more story, characters etc. This should of been the same case with T3.
Also we waited over 10 years and we only got an under 2 hour film. Surely you would of wanted it to be longer, yes?
I suppose a more impressive fight scene between the T850 all torn up and half-roasted versus the T-X endoskeleton with partial liquid metal covering would have been welcome.
I was quite happy with the film's length seeing as it left the door open for a Terminator 4, You need to stop worrying guys, The whole story will be explained, I wanna see the Future wars as much you lot do, We will see it for sure.
Linda Hamilton turned down the role of Sarah Connor in T3 because the script had nothing about 'the human condition, no message about human life'. I have to agree. T2, especially, had some very important messages about human life in it, with those all too famous quotes 'The futrues not set, there is no fate but what we make for ourselves'. This quote speaks for itself.
She also says, 'We were in unchartered territory now, making up history as we went along'. This says that everything we do helps to shape our future. If SC or the T101, John or Dyson had have done anything, even slightly wrong, the entire future would be changed forever.
Nothing was said in the third film about the human condition, no important messages, so IMO, T3 was crap because of it.
I've always believed T3 would have worked much more efficiently had it taken place in present time for the first half and then began the war of the machines during the second; Then ending at a cliffhanger leaving the door open for T4 to focus solely on the war and a more aged yet experienced John Connor.
maybe T3 got a crappy response because the new T-X was just a crappy knock off of the much cooler T2 terminator. so it could graft weapons from its arms, big deal, they hardly changed the concept at all, whereas the change from T1 to T2 was more impressive, like the machines had made a real technological advance, not just strapped a flamethrower into the old model. 10 years should have been long enough for them to think up something a bit better dont you think
__________________ If you dont like Frenzal Rhomb, your a whore!
I am aware that "your" should be "you're," and while I know I should change it as not to offend the grammar fans around the boards, school always said not to bow to peer pressure so it stays as it is
Its crap we all know that, T fans are probably still bitter including myself, hey these are the movies we grew up loving and thats why i still hold on to it.
And who're you to say we're not Terminator fans? You don't sound like a fan yourself. We know T3 wasn't as good as T1 or 2, but don't diss the length of T1. It's a classic.
O and btw, don't taint the Deadman's name. You're just making a fool out of yourself with the name "Undertaker". There is only one Undertaker who walks this earth and he's on Smackdown, not you. He'll Tombstone your a$$ any day!
__________________ [SPOILER - highlight to read]: All your Rick Roll are belong to me!!
KMC Community Forums
Jan 10th, 2006 01:28 AM
