TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINE
Mark Leeper
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: The new TERMINATOR film has fewer ideas
to slow the action. The film is in more ways
than one just a machine demolition derby. The
future sends back what is supposed to be the most
advanced Terminator robot of the series but budget
constraints and poor writing make it less
intelligent and less capable than its predecessor
was. Compared to the previous films there is more
action, fewer ideas, and less attention to
character. Rating: 5 (0 to 10), high 0 (-4 to +4).
Following the review there is a spoiler section
that will discuss problems I see with the script.
There is a new Terminator film and once again the machines of the
future are jockeying for a better position in their present by
sending back in time a robotic agent. It is T-X (played by
impassive blond Kristanna Loken), with a mission to eliminate the
chief thorn in their side, John Connor (played this time by Nick
Stahl). And once again future humanity is trying to check them by
sending their own Terminator robot back to defend Connor. The
Terminator is played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who surprisingly
does not look too old in the part. He seems to be keeping his
youthful good (?) looks.
John Connor, his life torn apart by the need to hide from Skynet
and by the events of the previous film, has become a drug addict.
While he is robbing an animal hospital, chance brings him together
with veterinarian Kate Brewster (Claire Danes). The machines from
the future know these humans' fates are linked, but the two do
not. One machine wants to protect them, one to destroy them. And
in the traditions of the series, that is what each tries to do in
one action scene after another. There are no new ideas in this
film; there just isn't time for them in the pacing. Instead there
are only revelations about the old ideas.
The centerpiece of the film is a chase early on using unusual
vehicles and calculated to do the greatest possible collateral
damage without killing any bystanders. John D. Brancato and
Michael Ferris, who wrote the script, and director Jonathan Mostow
of BREAKDOWN and U-571 seem to go out of their way to make sure
the good guys are not responsible for any deaths, in spite of all
the action. Our heroes do, however, steal a lot of motor
vehicles. That seems to be more acceptable.
The filmmakers feel the need to rub our noses in at least one
product placement. Mostow manages to get the ad painted on the
side of a truck across most of the screen for several seconds.
The product, incidentally, is a diet drug. I would guess it
couldn't be a very effective one if it has to be shipped in such
huge quantities. This large and annoying product placement--the
largest I remember seeing in any film--is some producer's
statement that he is willing to mortgage the artistic quality of
his film and distract the audience in return for cold hard cash.
TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINE reminds me of sequels like
REVENGE OF THE CREATURE and RETURN OF THE FLY. It uses a previous
film, extends the story, but adds nothing new of value. I rate it
a 5 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high 0 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler...
I should note what I thought were problems with the script.
TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY was not a favorite with me, but the
writing was more intelligent than in this film. In this film the
technology is inconsistent. I notice that both future factions
know how to send back in time whatever sort of ticky-tacky these
robots are made of, but they cannot get the hang of sending back
cloth so both robots arrive looking just like naked humans. At
least guys get equal time since this is the first time a female
robot is sent.
We are told that the T-X is more advanced technically and much
smarter than the previous model, but we are expected to take it on
faith. Words are cheap. The problem is that the T-X appears to
be a giant step backward from the shape-shifting robot of the
previous film. Where the last robot could morph into a silent
sword, this one unimaginatively pulls out a gun and starts
blasting. She can morph to look like another human, but just when
it is about to do her some good, she stupidly morphs back to give
herself away. This is just poor writing. By the way, who is
doing all the computer science so that there are more advanced
Terminators coming off the assembly line?
Late in the film good guys suddenly turn up inside a highly secure
military area. How did they get past the security? A shape-
shifter might, but none of the others could.
The film cannot make up its mind what is fated and what isn't.
Supposedly August 29, 1997, was to be the nuclear war and it was
inescapable. Now the war is still inevitable but it just will be
a later date. This film has the feel of a quick knockoff intended
to do little more than capitalize on the Terminator franchise.
[-mrl]
Mark R. Leeper
mle...@optonline.net
Copyright 2003 Mark R. Leeper
Mark Leeper
Sorry.
rande...@rogers.com
wrote:
>In article <3F0C8B11...@optonline.net>, Mark Leeper
><mle...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> We are told that the T-X is more advanced technically and much
>> smarter than the previous model, but we are expected to take it on
>> faith. Words are cheap. The problem is that the T-X appears to
>> be a giant step backward from the shape-shifting robot of the
>> previous film. Where the last robot could morph into a silent
>> sword, this one unimaginatively pulls out a gun and starts
>> blasting. She can morph to look like another human, but just when
>> it is about to do her some good, she stupidly morphs back to give
>> herself away.
>
>The last terminator could also morph into inanimate objects, like a
>floor. This one seems to stick to human forms. Even though the T-X can
>produce rotary mechanisms like cutting saws, it eschews creating wheels
>for itself, choosing to run instead. Silliness.
>
Hopefully, they did that to avoid the horrifically bad computerized FX
we've seen in other films.
-Rich
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
Straker wrote:
> In article <3F0C8B11...@optonline.net>, Mark Leeper
> <mle...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > We are told that the T-X is more advanced technically and much
> > smarter than the previous model, but we are expected to take it on
> > faith. Words are cheap. The problem is that the T-X appears to
> > be a giant step backward from the shape-shifting robot of the
> > previous film. Where the last robot could morph into a silent
> > sword, this one unimaginatively pulls out a gun and starts
> > blasting. She can morph to look like another human, but just when
> > it is about to do her some good, she stupidly morphs back to give
> > herself away.
>
> The last terminator could also morph into inanimate objects, like a
> floor. This one seems to stick to human forms. Even though the T-X can
> produce rotary mechanisms like cutting saws, it eschews creating wheels
> for itself, choosing to run instead. Silliness.
I don't think it created the saw, it was built in, just like the
flamethrower. The one advantage the TX had over the T1000 is that since it
was a machine with a liquid metal "skin" instead of being pure liquid
metal, it could have various built-in devices like the one that let it
hack into any other machine, while the T1000 couldn't form any complex
machinery (and by the way, Mark Leeper forgot that the T1000 also resorted
to using guns on numerous occasions in T2, since forming blades only works
if the target is in close proximity).
I agree, though, that overall the TX seemed a lot less threatening than
the T1000, and its ability to hack into any machine was not really used
much in the story (unless it was the TX that created the virus that led
the military to activate Skynet, which is something I was a little
confused about).
Jesse
RogerM
> More questions: The T-X is capable of taking the appearance of anything
> it contacts, like the T-1000. (A patently ridiculous idea. How could
> any machine touch something and instantly know what the other side of
> it looks like? And why wouldn't a visual or laser scan be sufficient?)
> Why not take the shape of the "obsolete model" to gain the confidence
> of young Conner? The two terminators did grapple for a while so there
> was contact. Instead of coming in blasting, just tell Conner you're
> here to protect him then skewer him when you're close enough. For that
> matter, why not do that with the old model, programming it to have some
> finesse before ripping Conner's heart out. The 1984 terminator had some
> nice, devious tricks, like mimicking Sarah Conner's mother's voice.
> These last two of the same model have been dumb brutes in comparison,
> capable only of destruction. It could have been interesting to have
> Conner (and the audience) trying to figure out which is the good
> terminator sent to protect him and which was sent to kill him, having
> to run from both. Or to see two Arnold models mixing it up instead of
> Arnold and a girl.
That would have been better. I'm surprised it hasn't been done in either of
the two sequels.
> Arnold likes to play two characters in the same
> movie, like his "fake" and "real" selves in Total Recall or his
> character and himself in "Last Action Hero."
Also "The 6th Day" which was pretty good movie.
> With the advent of CGI
> stand-ins in fight scenes, why not a few hundred Arnolds fighting each
> other in T4 like in Matrix Reloaded?
Because it sucked in that movie? Worst scene in the film.
--
The more people I talk to, the more I empathize with serial killers.
In a land where gold is God, it is inevitable that greed will become a
religion.
Cinnamon J. Scudworth for Evil Genius of the Year.
Ken
"Mark Leeper" <mle...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3F0C8B11...@optonline.net...
> TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINE
> (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
<snip>
>
> The centerpiece of the film is a chase early on using unusual
> vehicles and calculated to do the greatest possible collateral
> damage without killing any bystanders. John D. Brancato and
> Michael Ferris, who wrote the script, and director Jonathan Mostow
> of BREAKDOWN and U-571 seem to go out of their way to make sure
> the good guys are not responsible for any deaths, in spite of all
> the action. Our heroes do, however, steal a lot of motor
> vehic4les. That seems to be more acceptable.
What's auto theft in the face of nuclear global thermonuclear war?
> The filmmakers feel the need to rub our noses in at least one
> product placement. Mostow manages to get the ad painted on the
> side of a truck across most of the screen for several seconds.
> The product, incidentally, is a diet drug. I would guess it
> couldn't be a very effective one if it has to be shipped in such
> huge quantities. This large and annoying product placement--the
> largest I remember seeing in any film--is some producer's
> statement that he is willing to mortgage the artistic quality of
> his film and distract the audience in return for cold hard cash.
>
> TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINE reminds me of sequels like
> REVENGE OF THE CREATURE and RETURN OF THE FLY. It uses a previous
> film, extends the story, but adds nothing new of value. I rate it
> a 5 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high 0 on the -4 to +4 scale.
>
>
> Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler...
>
> I should note what I thought were problems with the script.
>
> TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY was not a favorite with me, but the
> writing was more intelligent than in this film. In this film the
> technology is inconsistent. I notice that both future factions
> know how to send back in time whatever sort of ticky-tacky these
> robots are made of, but they cannot get the hang of sending back
> cloth so both robots arrive looking just like naked humans. At
> least guys get equal time since this is the first time a female
> robot is sent.
The time bubble can only send back something covered with living tissue.
> We are told that the T-X is more advanced technically and much
> smarter than the previous model, but we are expected to take it on
> faith. Words are cheap. The problem is that the T-X appears to
> be a giant step backward from the shape-shifting robot of the
> previous film. Where the last robot could morph into a silent
> sword, this one unimaginatively pulls out a gun and starts
> blasting. She can morph to look like another human, but just when
> it is about to do her some good, she stupidly morphs back to give
> herself away. This is just poor writing. By the way, who is
> doing all the computer science so that there are more advanced
> Terminators coming off the assembly line?
Yeah, at least in T2, the terminator waited until AFTER the kills before
morphing back.
However what's so superior about a sword? Someone gets shot in L.A. ... how
much attention is that going to receive versus someone carrying a sword?
Once you have AI, the computer itself can continue the computer science.
After all, Skynet had the resource of half, ir not all of the planet.
> Late in the film good guys suddenly turn up inside a highly secure
> military area. How did they get past the security? A shape-
> shifter might, but none of the others could.
Claire Danes is the daughter of the head general of the whole place.
> The film cannot make up its mind what is fated and what isn't.
> Supposedly August 29, 1997, was to be the nuclear war and it was
> inescapable. Now the war is still inevitable but it just will be
> a later date. This film has the feel of a quick knockoff intended
> to do little more than capitalize on the Terminator franchise.
> [-mrl]
It's going with the "river" model of the timestream. Minor events can be
changed, major ones take a lot more effort and most likely would simply be
delayed.
Or maybe they were saying that the development of computer technology would
always lead to AI.
-- Ken from Chicago
Mark R. Leeper
[On using guns instead of morphing a sword.]
>(and by the way, Mark Leeper forgot that the T1000 also resorted
> to using guns on numerous occasions in T2, since forming blades only works
> if the target is in close proximity).
I didn't want to go into too much detail but in this particular scene
the two were sitting on the same bed, I think. And I think it was an
apartment where neighbors could hear the shooting. I would like to
see the scene again to verify this.
Ken
No. The Skynet virus was something that arose accidentally in present time.
That's why it didn't go after John Connor: it simply didn't know about
him--yet. Meanwhile the TX--programmed by the future Skynet--did focus on
Connor.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
"RogerM" <rodger...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3F0CB1C3...@ns.sympatico.ca...
They probably saving it for T4--where Ahnold has liquid metal too.
> > With the advent of CGI
> > stand-ins in fight scenes, why not a few hundred Arnolds fighting each
> > other in T4 like in Matrix Reloaded?
>
> Because it sucked in that movie? Worst scene in the film.
If you're used to cgi. A lot of people, the "mainstream", aren't, so they
might have been wowwed by the scene.
-- Ken from Chicago
Caden
:> > With the advent of CGI
:> > stand-ins in fight scenes, why not a few hundred Arnolds fighting each
:> > other in T4 like in Matrix Reloaded?
:>
:> Because it sucked in that movie? Worst scene in the film.
: If you're used to cgi. A lot of people, the "mainstream", aren't, so they
: might have been wowwed by the scene.
: -- Ken from Chicago
Worst scene ... why? Because the evil clone / evil twin concept sucks
or because the CGI sucks?
As Bryce3D has puked on far too many web pages in recent years, you, sir,
are absolutely correct about mainstream wow factor.
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
Ken wrote:
Are you sure about that? If I'm remembering correctly, at the end of the movie
they said the virus WAS Skynet, that it had already gotten into to systems
around the world and that's why there was never a chance John could have
stopped it.
Jesse
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
Ken wrote:
> "Mark Leeper" <mle...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:3F0C8B11...@optonline.net...
> > TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINE
> > (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
>
> <snip>
>
> > Late in the film good guys suddenly turn up inside a highly secure
> > military area. How did they get past the security? A shape-
> > shifter might, but none of the others could.
>
> Claire Danes is the daughter of the head general of the whole place.
This is still pretty implausible. She and her friends got into an area where a
bunch of secret projects were being worked on, like Skynet, the T-1 robots,
etc...surely on real military bases they don't allow friends and family of
military personnel to visit such areas. If my dad worked at Area 51 I doubt
they'd let me and my friends swing by to take a look around.
Jesse
Doug
> "Mark Leeper" <mle...@optonline.net> wrote ...
> >
> >
> >
> > Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler...
> >
> > I should note what I thought were problems with the script.
> >
> > TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY was not a favorite with me, but the
> > writing was more intelligent than in this film. In this film the
> > technology is inconsistent. I notice that both future factions
> > know how to send back in time whatever sort of ticky-tacky these
> > robots are made of, but they cannot get the hang of sending back
> > cloth so both robots arrive looking just like naked humans. At
> > least guys get equal time since this is the first time a female
> > robot is sent.
>
> The time bubble can only send back something covered with living tissue.
That's what Reese said in T1, but it was proven untrue in T2. Robert
Patrick's T-1000 looked human but he was really liquid metal.
Which brings me to the primary reason I didn't care for T2 - it was
twice as loud but ten times dumber than T1.
Doug
Mike Rhino
news:5OaPa.14652$BM.47...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Mark Leeper" <mle...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:3F0C8B11...@optonline.net...
> > TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINE
> > (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
>
> > military area. How did they get past the security? A shape-
> > shifter might, but none of the others could.
>
> Claire Danes is the daughter of the head general of the whole place.
The military computers were down, so the usually ID checking won't work.
The electronic part of their badges would be useless. If the head general
said to let someone in, then the guards might let him in. It was an
emergency with an impending nuclear war. I don't know if the military had
information on John Connor from the previous movies.
John Connor seemed to know an awful lot for somebody with no phone or
computer. How would he know how to operate anything such as the particle
accelerator.
Bill T
> John Connor seemed to know an awful lot for somebody with no phone or
> computer. How would he know how to operate anything such as the particle
> accelerator.
>
He downloaded the info from Tank, of course.
And BTW in T4, after Arnold kills John Connor, Connor comes back to life
after a magical kiss from Trinity. The Matrix actually runs on Skynet, and
the Oracle is - you guess it - Sarah Connor! Neo is a way-advanced bot
(whoa), the T-ZZ, sent back in time to have sex with Trinity which would be,
like, cool. All this is to prepare the way for Bill and Ted to party on,
dude.
It all makes sense: this xmas, expect T4, Matrix Revolutions, and Bill and
Ted 3.
Bill T
Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>"Mark Leeper" <mle...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:3F0C8B11...@optonline.net...
<Snip>
>> The film cannot make up its mind what is fated and what isn't.
>> Supposedly August 29, 1997, was to be the nuclear war and it was
>> inescapable. Now the war is still inevitable but it just will be
>> a later date. This film has the feel of a quick knockoff intended
>> to do little more than capitalize on the Terminator franchise.
>> [-mrl]
>
>It's going with the "river" model of the timestream. Minor events can be
>changed, major ones take a lot more effort and most likely would simply be
>delayed.
>
>Or maybe they were saying that the development of computer technology would
>always lead to AI.
SPOILER SPACE
It's not just the postponement of Judgment Day. There's also the
matter of Connor's future lieutenants. If the future is
pre-ordained, what about the deaths of the kid at the drive-thru
window, the two kids at the party, and Gen. Brewster? Sure, I can
subscribe to the "river model", but I have to question why Connor or
Kate Brewster never say something like, "if it's all destiny, why are
these people dead when they're alive in another timeline?"
>
>-- Ken from Chicago
>
Ken
<vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3F0DA9E2...@mail.verizon.net...
Yes, the present virus was Skynet. It had went online so there was no way
for John to stop it.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
<vze2...@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3F0DAAE3...@mail.verizon.net...
They were a bit distracted with all the computers in the country shutting
down. They could have gotten to an outer waiting area when the computers
went kablooie and in the confusion snuck back--partially because the
security computers keeping various doors locked shut down.
Plus, how much of any of the secret projects would you and your friends even
understand?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
"Doug" <tr...@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:db01bae.03071...@posting.google.com...
It was liquid metal INSIDE a living tissue shell. It only needed to last the
trip. Afterward, the liquid metal could simiulate the skin.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
"Mike Rhino" <may...@alexanderpics.com> wrote in message
news:GgnPa.131977$49.50...@twister.socal.rr.com...
Ma Connor tought her boy well. Also the kid had a natural talent. Remember
the kid was a juvenile deliquent hacker breaking into ATMs with his homemade
computer terminal.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
"Bill T" <wct...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3InPa.4585$aZ6....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
Oh so close. Actually, with the knowledge John gained in T3, then in T4,
John FAKES his own death--becuase Ahnold TOLD him with its mission, Ahnold
would no longer have a purpose to exist, so would shut-down. That allowed
Claire Danes to reprogram Ahnold, to go back in time--because they KNOW the
T-X would infect his system. But what she doesn't know is that Ahnold would
infect HER system with a trojan horse virus AND infect the 2003 Skynet.
However the programs to infect each others don't realize they are serving a
greater purpose than just serving their users.
So sayeth TRON 2.0: WORLD WEB WAR!
-- Ken from Chicago
-- Ken from Chicago
Doug
> "Doug" <tr...@cinci.rr.com> wrote ...
> > "Ken" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote ...
> > >
> > >
> > > The time bubble can only send back something covered with living tissue.
> >
> > That's what Reese said in T1, but it was proven untrue in T2. Robert
> > Patrick's T-1000 looked human but he was really liquid metal.
> >
> > Which brings me to the primary reason I didn't care for T2 - it was
> > twice as loud but ten times dumber than T1.
> >
> > Doug
>
> It was liquid metal INSIDE a living tissue shell. It only needed to last the
> trip. Afterward, the liquid metal could simiulate the skin.
Was that said in the film? I don't recall that. My assumption was
that whatever "field" it is that's generated by living tissue, the
liquid metal also generated.
Doug
Arthur Lipscomb
>
> "Ken" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote ...
> > "Doug" <tr...@cinci.rr.com> wrote ...
> > > "Ken" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The time bubble can only send back something covered with living tissue.
> > >
> > > That's what Reese said in T1, but it was proven untrue in T2. Robert
> > > Patrick's T-1000 looked human but he was really liquid metal.
> > >
> > > Which brings me to the primary reason I didn't care for T2 - it was
> > > twice as loud but ten times dumber than T1.
> > >
> > > Doug
> >
> > It was liquid metal INSIDE a living tissue shell. It only needed to last the
> > trip. Afterward, the liquid metal could simiulate the skin.
>
> Was that said in the film?
No it wasn't.
~consul
> Ken wrote:
>>No. The Skynet virus was something that arose accidentally in present time. That's why it didn't go after John Connor: it simply didn't know about
>>him--yet. Meanwhile the TX--programmed by the future Skynet--did focus on Connor.
> around the world and that's why there was never a chance John could have stopped it.
That's what Ken said. Skynet in the present creates the virus that just got born a few
months back, infecting all the regular computer systems. It didn't infect the military
because the military was on a different system, and was blocked by firewalls. So
Baby-Skynet mucks about with all the other systems until the US mil feels that only Skynet
can fix it, so they give Skynet military access, and voila, Skynet has all the weapons to
use. Skynet then loads itself fully into the net instead of working via proxies, and has fun.
--
"Most folks considered him to be quite intelligent and imaginative, with a strong
physique. He worked hard, volunteered with many good causes with time and money. His only
true failing, that he was also ... evil ... so she left him."
-till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- dolphins-cove.com
con...@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com ((remove the INVALID))
Ken
"Straker" <sky....@moonbase.alpha> wrote in message
news:110720031930206754%sky....@moonbase.alpha...
> In article <ben951$nce$1...@usc.edu>, ~consul
> <con...@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote:
>
> > That's what Ken said. Skynet in the present creates the virus that just
got
> > born a few
> > months back, infecting all the regular computer systems. It didn't
infect the
> > military
> > because the military was on a different system, and was blocked by
firewalls.
> > So
> > Baby-Skynet mucks about with all the other systems until the US mil
feels
> > that only Skynet
> > can fix it, so they give Skynet military access, and voila, Skynet has
all
> > the weapons to
> > use. Skynet then loads itself fully into the net instead of working via
> > proxies, and has fun.
>
> network, infected all civilian systems and couldn't infect military
> systems, why would the people need to let it into the military net?
Baby Skynet (hey there, baby Skynet, gitchy gitchy goo, who's a nuke tossin
AI? who's a nuke-tossin AI? yeah, you are, yes you are, yes you are, yes you
... er, ahem) secretly launches an online virus that sabotages the civilian
systems and begins to work on military systems. Meanwhile Big Skynet waits
patiently for the 3-star general to give it full control. Once it gets
control, it shoots the humans and once secure, launches the nukes.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
It was said in the original TERMINATOR film. All the Terminators have come
back in time covered in living tissue. That's why they are always nude.
Otherwise they could come back packing major ammo.
-- Ken from Chicago
Reverend Lovejoy
My assumption was that when it was stated the time machine only worked on
living tissue, that simply meant that the time travel mechanism interacted
with carbon for some technobabble reason. Hence things with a high carbon
content - ie, living things and the T-800 (with a large percentage of living
tissue) could be sent through, but not guns or such, with almost no carbon.
Logically then, the T-1000's liquid metal (and the T-X liquid metal) must be
composed of a high carbon compound, allowing them to interact with the time
machine.
--
"I remember another gentle visitor from the heavens, he came in peace and
then died, only to come back to life, and his name was E.T., the extra teres
trial. I loved that little guy."
- Reverend Lovejoy, The Simpsons
The Posting One
Wouldn't it have been better if T-1000 came back in a big hairy lump of
flesh and then broke out of the skin? Probably too expensive, so they went
with a nekkid robert patrick.
Ken
"The Posting One" <bl...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:JYOPa.24485$hY1.7...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Sorry, Kristanna, them's the rules since the beginning."--T3 Director
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken
"Reverend Lovejoy" <pap...@remove-these-words.rpi.edu> wrote in message
news:RhKPa.2688$eY3...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
T-1000 was covered in living tissue when it TRAVELLED back thru time. Once
thru, he no longer needed skin, so he could just simulate the skin using
liquid metal.
> --
> "I remember another gentle visitor from the heavens, he came in peace and
> then died, only to come back to life, and his name was E.T., the extra
teres
> trial. I loved that little guy."
> - Reverend Lovejoy, The Simpsons
-- Ken from Chicago
Doug
> "Reverend Lovejoy" <pap...@remove-these-words.rpi.edu> wrote ...
> > "Doug" <tr...@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:db01bae.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Ken" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote ...
> > > >
> > > > with living tissue.
> > >
> > > That's what Reese said in T1, but it was proven untrue in T2.
> > > Robert Patrick's T-1000 looked human but he was really liquid
> > > metal.
> > >
> > > Which brings me to the primary reason I didn't care for T2 -
> > > it was twice as loud but ten times dumber than T1.
> >
> >
> > My assumption was that when it was stated the time machine only
> > worked on living tissue, that simply meant that the time travel
> > mechanism interacted with carbon for some technobabble reason.
> > Hence things with a high carbon content - ie, living things and
> > the T-800 (with a large percentage of living tissue) could be sent
> > through, but not guns or such, with almost no carbon. Logically
> > then, the T-1000's liquid metal (and the T-X liquid metal) must be
> > composed of a high carbon compound, allowing them to interact with
> > the time machine.
>
> T-1000 was covered in living tissue when it TRAVELLED back thru time. Once
> thru, he no longer needed skin, so he could just simulate the skin using
> liquid metal.
Yeah, well, I don't buy that explanation. The T1K was liquid metal
from the get-go, according to everything we saw on the film. It's
just that Cameron and Wisher violated their T1 continuity for T2
simply to achieve the shock value of seeing Robert Patrick do the
mighty morphin' thing. Rev. L's explanation makes more sense than
postulating a skein of skin which was not apparent in the movie.
Which also goes to the heart of why T2 is a lesser film than The
Terminator: special effects at the expense of story.
Doug
Ken
Which is an assumption.
> just that Cameron and Wisher violated their T1 continuity for T2
Which is a complaint based on an assumption.
> simply to achieve the shock value of seeing Robert Patrick do the
> mighty morphin' thing. Rev. L's explanation makes more sense than
> postulating a skein of skin which was not apparent in the movie.
How? How does "the time travel mechanism interacted with carbon for some
technobabble reason" make more sense than "the time machine only worked on
living tissue"? All the former does is replace carbon for living tissue. How
is that an inherently better explanation?
Complaining that the movie doesn't follow an assumption based on yet another
assumption that directly contradicts the original story ... kinda weak.
Oh and the skein skin is NOT supposed to be obvious. It's a terminator. It's
SPOSE to blend in with humans (at least model of terminators).
> Which also goes to the heart of why T2 is a lesser film than The
> Terminator: special effects at the expense of story.
>
> Doug
Which story? The one onscreen or the one that's assumed?
-- Ken from Chicago
Smak186..
> > T-1000 was covered in living tissue when it TRAVELLED back thru time. Once
> > thru, he no longer needed skin, so he could just simulate the skin using
> > liquid metal.
>
> Yeah, well, I don't buy that explanation. The T1K was liquid metal
> from the get-go, according to everything we saw on the film. It's
> just that Cameron and Wisher violated their T1 continuity for T2
> simply to achieve the shock value of seeing Robert Patrick do the
> mighty morphin' thing. Rev. L's explanation makes more sense than
> postulating a skein of skin which was not apparent in the movie.
>
> Which also goes to the heart of why T2 is a lesser film than The
> Terminator: special effects at the expense of story.
Perhaps the machines learned how to send things without the human skin
by then? Ok... Why didn't he bring a laser weapon from the future? <g>
You guys nit pick stuff too much. I preferred the T-1000 to another
T-101 in T-2. It was worth changing the human skin/time machine thing to
have it in the story and it's Cameron's story so he can change what he
wants I guess..
Outt..
Jeff.
Ken
"Smak186.." <smak...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3F11B603...@comcast.net...
If the story is inconsistant to its own rules, then John Connor could just
as easily stop the TX by shooting it with a bullet--to the head.
In SF, the rules of science may be bent, but the rules of fiction can't
be--or at least shouldn't. If the rules don't have to be followed, then
Skynet could simply send itself back in time. Inconsistancy is bad science
fiction, bad fiction period.
-- Ken from Chicago
Doug
Which is a failing of T2. I recall that years ago someone posted the
dates mentioned in T2 and that they not only were inconsistent with T1
they were internally inconsistent. It's not a big thing, but like the
"covered in living tissue" element that was discarded, it's just
sloppy writing.
Doug
Doug
But an assumption based on what's onscreen, rather than postulating
something unseen and even un-hinted at.
> > just that Cameron and Wisher violated their T1 continuity for T2
>
> Which is a complaint based on an assumption.
This part isn't, since T2 clearly has different continuity than T1.
I'm sure there's a FAQ somewhere that details all the differences.
> > simply to achieve the shock value of seeing Robert Patrick do the
> > mighty morphin' thing. Rev. L's explanation makes more sense than
> > postulating a skein of skin which was not apparent in the movie.
>
> How? How does "the time travel mechanism interacted with carbon for some
> technobabble reason" make more sense than "the time machine only worked on
> living tissue"? All the former does is replace carbon for living tissue. How
> is that an inherently better explanation?
Because there's no evidence that the T-1000 has real skin at any time.
There's no dripping gore or shed epidermis (like a snake) to be seen.
Nor is it implied at any point. Thus, the idea that the liquid metal
mimics living tissue becomes the most likely explanation. This
doesn't explain why the T-1000 went back naked. The only explanation
for that is the desire on Cameron's part to preserve the
aforementioned "surprise factor" of discovering the T-1000's imitative
and malleable properties.
There's also the notion that Reese was apparently wrong about a lot of
stuff, such as the destruction of the time machine, or the fact that
only one Terminator went through, or the "covered in living tissue"
idea.
> Complaining that the movie doesn't follow an assumption based on yet another
> assumption that directly contradicts the original story ... kinda weak.
I disagree. The postulation that the liquid metal imitates human
tissue is stronger -- based on evidence in the film -- than
postulating that it was covered with skin, for which there is no
evidence at all in the film.
> Oh and the skein skin is NOT supposed to be obvious. It's a terminator. It's
> SPOSE to blend in with humans (at least model of terminators).
So what happened to all that living tissue? Just a covering of skin,
a la Leatherface, is insufficient; it has to be more substantial. The
reference in T1 is to a "field generated by a living organism" which
implies more than just a suit made up of skin. (Or a fur coat, for
instance.) Reese says that "nothing dead" can travel through time, so
for the T-1000 to make the trip, there are only two possibilities: 1)
It came back inside a living body or 2) It generates a field similar
to that created by biological creatures. Since there's no evidence at
all for #1 (Robert Patrick's appearance is the same throughout), that
means #2 must be the answer.
Deriding Rev. L's idea as a mere "assumption" is fairly ridiculous,
since it requires less of a leap in logic than postulating an
imaginary covering of living tissue for the T-1000.
T2 was just on TV again last night, and at no time is there any
evidence that the T-1000 was anything but the humanoid liquid metal,
since we get to see Robert Patrick's entire appearance from time
bubble to subsequent killing of the cop. His appearance is unchanged
throughout this introductory sequence, which again implies one of two
things: either the liquid metal T-1000 1) travelled through time
inside the human Robert Patrick and assumed that form once it arrived,
discarding the body once it was no longer necessary, or 2) the liquid
metal is treated the same as living tissue by the time machine. Only
the second explanation fits what's onscreen, therefore it's the most
logical.
Doug
vze2...@mail.verizon.net
Doug wrote:
The dates in T2 are consistent as long as you're willing to assume the terminator sometimes rounds up when talking about the
number of years to a certain event. The police computer that the T-1000 looked at to find John Connor's personal information
said his DOB was Feb 28, 1985 (which is consistent with T1, where he was conceived in May of 1984) and that he was 10 years
old, so T2 took place between February of 1995 and February of 1996. The terminator at one point says "In three years
Cyberdyne will become the largest supplier of military computer systems", and since this must happen before Judgment day on
August 29, 1997, this could be explained by saying T2 took place sometime before August of 1995, and the terminator was just
rounding up. The terminator also says "thirty-five years from now you reprogrammed me to be your protector here, in this
time", which either means he rounded the number up again if it was in 2029 (perhaps it was in late 2029), or else John Connor
didn't send the reprogrammed terminator back until 2030, a year after he sent back Kyle Reese.
Jesse
tsbr...@gmail.com
How did Skynet survive the nuclear war? Wouldn't the nuclear war have wiped out most of the computers that were housing Skynet, and thus destroyed Skynet?
wlah...@gmail.com
> Major Nit At end of Terminator 3: John Conner says that Skynet (the sentient computer program that caused the Judgement Day nuclear war) had spread throughout millions of computers worldwide. Thus, there was no central server room for Conner to take out.
>
> How did Skynet survive the nuclear war? Wouldn't the nuclear war have wiped out most of the computers that were housing Skynet, and thus destroyed Skynet?
moviePig
was safely in the Cloud...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
wlah...@gmail.com
> Although the war destroyed all computer equipment, by then the Internet
> was safely in the Cloud...
>
moviePig
wlah...@gmail.com
> Gotta work on my deadpanning...
>
Obveeus
wlah...@gmail.com
>
> Because normal people might not know that clouds are in the sky?
moviePig
I hold no one to account for its obliqueness but me. Next, rather than
let it lie, I figured it was better -- and safe -- not to seem a
complete dodo. So, I was wrong twice. Don't let this be a third.
Obveeus
On 12/7/2014 10:15 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 12/7/2014 7:33 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 7, 2014 7:27:20 PM UTC-5, Obveeus wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Because normal people might not know that clouds are in the sky?
>>
>> How punny. That's your idea of humor? Of insight? I forgot how
>> everyone trivializes everything around here. My mistake.
>
> I thought my reference obvious in these post-Jennifer Lawrence days, and
> I hold no one to account for its obliqueness but me. Next, rather than
> let it lie, I figured it was better -- and safe -- not to seem a
> complete dodo. So, I was wrong twice. Don't let this be a third.
TB
TB
wlah...@gmail.com
> Did the Cloud already exist in 2003? I don't recall hearing abut it until sometime this decade.
Bill Anderson
having the concept explained to me in the mid-1990s. Check "origin of
the term" here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
wlah...@gmail.com
> The cloud was being referred to as such long before 2003. I remember
> having the concept explained to me in the mid-1990s. Check "origin of
> the term" here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing
>
Bill Anderson
pretty puffy whiteboard drawings connected by lines.
wlah...@gmail.com
> Sure, but when it was explained to me there was no marketing -- just
> pretty puffy whiteboard drawings connected by lines.
>
hislop
> Major Nit At end of Terminator 3: John Conner says that Skynet (the sentient computer program that caused the Judgement Day nuclear war) had spread throughout millions of computers worldwide. Thus, there was no central server room for Conner to take out.
>
> How did Skynet survive the nuclear war? Wouldn't the nuclear war have wiped out most of the computers that were housing Skynet, and thus destroyed Skynet?
>
military which was all computerised.
moviePig
moviePig
BTR1701
would survive and inhabit the latter before launching the nukes.
Bill Anderson
TB
wlah...@gmail.com
> Has anyone ever suggested calling cloud computing "Skynet"?
tsbr...@gmail.com
trotsky
Rise of the Machines". Perhaps originally it was just a short film
about the rise of one machine.
hislop
TB
TB
tsbr...@gmail.com
Should I be wondering why Rodger didn't ask about Scott? (Kate, where is Scott, and why isn't he with you?).
TB
TB
tsbr...@gmail.com
> According to John Conner at the end of the movie, Skynet had spread throughout the Internet by the time it became self-aware. It was resident in millions of computers worldwide. How then did it survive a nuclear war that would have destroyed most of the computers it was living in, and disabled the Internet? Also, how did it escape from a military research facility to the civilian Internet at a time it was still a dumb program with no volition? Wouldn't the military have instituted strong protections against computer leaks? I would expect the Skynet computers to be totlly isolated from other computers.
tsbr...@gmail.com
> TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINE
> (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
> Late in the film good guys suddenly turn up inside a highly secure
> military area. How did they get past the security? A shape-
> shifter might, but none of the others could.
>
Easy: Just have Arnold beat up all the guards!
TB
> On 12/7/2014 4:15 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Major Nit At end of Terminator 3: John Conner says that Skynet (the sentient computer program that caused the Judgement Day nuclear war) had spread throughout millions of computers worldwide. Thus, there was no central server room for Conner to take out.
> >>
> >> How did Skynet survive the nuclear war? Wouldn't the nuclear war have wiped out most of the computers that were housing Skynet, and thus destroyed Skynet?
> >
>
> was safely in the Cloud...