John Connor - General Discussion

An old topic addressed the issue that John Connor would have been only 13 years old when judgement day came. 13 year old great leader? Remember that after judgment day the human race was enslaved for many years before they revolted. Kyle Reese talks about how he grew up that way. John was the one who started the uprising, so, it didn't happen for many years after Judgement day; making him an adult by then. 🙂

Good point, more evidence to support the notion that the makers of T3 hadn't even seen T1 and T2.

Do you happen to know why Cameron didn't want to sign on for T3? He could have saved it.

john is suppost to be 10 in T2, T3 made him put to be 13

Terminator 3 = a 13 year olds fan fic.

He sure looked older than 13 in that movie. Anyway, didn't his leadership kick in a few years after the machines took over?

He looked like he was 9 in that movie

At the beginning of T3 they said the original day that was supposed to be judgement day got delayed by their actions in T2. So judgement day happened later than expected, that is why he was older than 13.

T3 is more like a cheap add-on. It doesn't correlate with the first two very well at all, not much thought was put into it.

Originally posted by roundisfunny
He sure looked older than 13 in that movie. Anyway, didn't his leadership kick in a few years after the machines took over?

Yes, thats the topic of this thread. John would not have been a child when he lead the resistance, he would have been an adult by then.

Originally posted by Konjammenson
Do you happen to know why Cameron didn't want to sign on for T3? He could have saved it.

I think that he did want to but had lost the rights to the franchise to Fox or something.

hmmm, that's too bad. If fox was smart they would have hired him for the job.

Terminator 3 was nothing more than a poorly made remake of T2.

Even Cameron said that the story was already told, which is why he wasnt up for taking the helm, but i guess the river of money swayed him toallowsomeone else to make it. He only had to produce a bit.

yeah they shoulda left it with T2.. and then wait for a real director to take the helm

Originally posted by vvvrulz
T3 is more like a cheap add-on. It doesn't correlate with the first two very well at all, not much thought was put into it.

am i right in thinking that T3 made T2 obsolete?

or am i thinking completly wrong?

Originally posted by ChickinMeat
am i right in thinking that T3 made T2 obsolete?

or am i thinking completly wrong?

Yes, you are. It is the other way around. T-2 made T-3 obsolete.

well i guess it could be both ways, as in T2 everything involved with skynet is destroyed, so T3 is out of question, as skynet couldnt be created, whilst in T3 they find new parts from somewhere to continue the research, which make the whole point of T2 obsolete.

something like that i think anyway

T3 made the other two films look pointless. 🙁

^yep the 3rd one made T2 pointless cause he would have known that it didnt matter if he destroyed the hand and the chip. T3 is just a $hit film

no no, the T2 is so good it stands on its own. T3 made itself obsolete by ruining the expectations of EVERYONE who loved this story. The story was told after T3, T3 is just a pointless sequel. It's like Halloween 3, pointless (it didn't even have michael myers).