I thought T3 was a fun movie but did absolutely nothing for the story and doesn't amount up to the first two by far. I didn't like the ending either.
In T2, we learn that T1 allowed Judgment Day to happen earlier because SkyNet got a jump start with the chip and the arm from the first T-101. I don't remember them ever saying that John Connor was going to lead the resistance when he was 12. They just sent the T-1000 back to when he was a kid to give themselves plenty of time to kill him.
Originally posted by Wolfie
Oh, really? When did they say the year? In the first two movies we see John Connor as an adult leading the resistance. I guess that was some years after the war began originally?
The Terminator is set in 1984, which is when Sarah gets preganant with John. So, I estimate his birth to be in the year 1985, possibly 84 but more likely 85. The orgiginal year set for Judgment day was 1997. Doing the math this would make John 12 years old; or 13 if he was born in 84. Someone pointed this out before in an old post saying that it didn't make sense. But if you recall Kyle Reese describing the war against the machines in the 1st movie you should now that humans were enslaved by the machines for many years after judgment day. Meaning, John would have had time to grow up before starting the resistance. If you want to confirm the year of the original terminator, a police officer says it on the police car radio when the terminator is driving it.
A friend of mine is a screen writer and reclently we were talking about writing a 4th Terminator.
Plot as follows:
The post rise of the machines ie the enslaved humans and little pockets of survivers
The resitance taking shape and trying to stop them sending back the termiantors in the relevent orders of all 3 films.
And eventually the final distruction of skynet and the liberation of the Human Race.
Do you think this would work?
on a personal level I thought they should have tied T3 into the others with a little more accruacy but what is done is done. at the end of the day it was a good flick and my friend and I think it should have a climax to rival and close all 3 films.
T4 will have to focus more on the war itself and not just trying to stop the sending of the terminators. Especially if they do succeed in stopping them it will make everything that is happening impossible to have happened. The sending of the terminators was a last ditch effort by skynet anyways, so perhaps there could be focus on that point near the end of the film.
They are just action films, reading a great deal into the plot is daft.
For example, how come a liquid metal T1000 can go through time, when Reese said in the first film that only things with human flesh could do it?
Why did they not send the T1000 back to 1984 to double-team Reese with Arnie?
All three serve their purpose as quality action films. That's that.
Originally posted by baracustastic
They are just action films, reading a great deal into the plot is daft.For example, how come a liquid metal T1000 can go through time, when Reese said in the first film that only things with human flesh could do it?
Why did they not send the T1000 back to 1984 to double-team Reese with Arnie?
All three serve their purpose as quality action films. That's that.
Wrong buddy. They are action films but the are also science fiction films. Now I will answer your questions:
Why didn't they send back a double team?
Answer: Though SkyNet's technology was vastly evolved, our own 1984 special effects technology was not. The "liquid metal man" was something that Cameron had the idea for but was unable to bring to film. By T2 he was able to bring it to life. Having it sent to strike at John as a child serves well enough for the story.
How did the T-1000 get through?
Answer: The T-1000 can simulate living tissue.
You have also claimed that analysing the story was daft; yet it was YOU who pointed out a strategical error in taking out Sarah Connor the first time. The fact that you even wondered how the T-1000 got through also shows that you are analysing the story. Aside from that you have also taken it upon yourself to enter a TERMINATOR forum and enter a topic that is ovbiously, by the title, something to do with analysing the story. To top it all off, you even took it upon yourself to provide input. If its such a waste of time, then why are you wasting your time?
Originally posted by CoCooN
Look every think its so simple...Edward furlong had a great job in T2, he was the best 10yo actor ever. Nick Stahl he is playing in this movie just for money. OK - i dont say he is not good in doing that!But the problem is all terminator fans waching T1 and T2 know the actors crew...and in T3 all changed. Arnie is the only one who act in all movies. And where is Edie, Linda, Robert a guy from Peskadero hospital, Judgment day, horror, Cyberdyne, Dyson's son?!
Edward Furlong is just one of them....
Arnolds not the only one in all 3, don't forget about Dr. Silberman.