Forum NewsForumsHTF Chat Hardware ReviewsSoftware Reviews HTF Events
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Live Search: 
Web Search: 
 
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum




 
Forum Jump

Forum Sponsors

Home Theater Forum > Entertainment and Media > Movies (Theatrical)
[ *** Official "TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINES" Discussion Thread ]

Post New Thread  Reply

 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Home Theater Forum
Old 07-08-2003, 02:11 AM   #301 of 399
Seth Paxton
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 12,185

Send a message via AIM to Seth Paxton
Morgan, a gaffer is an electrician.

A best boy is his assistant.


However, there are creative consultants for films and they often discuss the practicality of the ideas being portrayed. For that matter many authors (good ones) will also work with consultants for plot points/devices.

Quote:
She simply needed clothing and transportation, which she got from the old lady.

That is not why she didn't take the lady's form, nor why the T1000 didn't take the cops. The simple reason is that you should show your antagonist in a way that the audience can identify with, at least most of the time. So for both T2 and T3 they choose to only have them take certain looks when it would make for a good narrative moment, even though in both films it would make much more sense to almost always be in disguise.

But if that were the case then the audience would be left without a good antagonist to identify with (against really) and as "right" as it might be it would also be poor narrative screenwriting.

It is only prudent when the point of the antagonist is that they remain unknown to the audience like a mystery/thriller, such as The Thing. Even in a film like Exorcist 3 there are attempts to show the real antagonist even though he wouldn't really be visible that way.


I did think it was a bit of a cheap gag to go with the breast enlargement and for her to comprehend such a subtle human, even socially specific, concept from one billboard in a matter of seconds...but maybe she also had psych programming coded in her.

I do think its a slight mistake to have your heartless robotic killer antagonist be involved in any moments of humor and I don't recall Robert Patrick being put in such situations (until Wayne's World ).


Seth Paxton is offline Quote this post in a PM Send Support Ticket
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
sendpm.gif
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Old 07-08-2003, 02:23 AM   #302 of 399
Seth Paxton
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 12,185

Send a message via AIM to Seth Paxton
Dennis, I think I just have to disagree with you on Silberman and the way he was a joke in T2. To me he was played as that hard-ass prick who had an upstaging coming. The events that cause him to react are the actual SF moments that he witnesses.

In T3 he shows up and almost immediately goes into this silly "some things you don't forget, this is all about me now" discussion BEFORE Arnie appears. Maybe I have the timing wrong, but I remember wondering why a PRACTICING psychiatrist would go off on that tangent before experiencing another terminator. To me they made him flip out before he should have, and then his actual flip out was a bit more over the top.

Your jaw hitting the floor when a human being morphs through bars is not cartoonish but probably very realistic, the joke is in his upstaging not in how goofy he is. Not being able to speak with a trauma victim when its your job because your yourself are still so traumatized makes no sense, he wouldn't still have the job if that was typical of his approach (and appeared to be since he says that stuff before Arnie pops out).

They could have easily gone with the same approach as before where he thought he knew better till Arnie comes out, or maybe they could have run into him in his private life (like he no longer has his psych job thanks to the events in T2 freaking him out so bad).

Him being back didn't bother me, just how he was used.
Seth Paxton is offline Quote this post in a PM Send Support Ticket
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
sendpm.gif
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Old 07-08-2003, 02:38 AM   #303 of 399
Brad Porter
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Local Time: 01:53 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 2,014

I need to post the following so I don't forget what my position is on T3:

I don't agree with people saying they liked it because it was better than Hulk/Matrix/Monkeybone/etc or even better than their expectations. I tend to judge a film on whether it is as good as it could be, independent of whatever else may have been released recently. This evaluation is largely based on my admittedly uninformed guess of the filmmaker's intentions and also on whether the film properly uses the assets provided to it.

That having been said, I have an unfavorable opinion about the film overall. If the first two films didn't exist, I would have rated it as an above average action flick with some interesting ideas about time travel. When viewed as a part of "the Terminator films", the flaws become apparent to me.

I agree 100% with Seth's assessment of the film as excessively borrowing from the first two films. I described it as a "dance remix" of T2 in my first post in this thread. I'm bothered not only because of the borrowed elements that seem a) out of place or b) redundant, but also because the original elements of the plot of this film do harm to the characters and themes of the both T1 and T2. There are certain things that must be borrowed from the first two films - Schwarzenegger, time-travelling cybernetic organism(s) tearing or shooting up a building, and at least one amazing car chase. These are the cornerstones of the franchise. Other than those elements, the writers could have done anything with the film that they desired. The future was unwritten after T2. They performed well with the crane chase, and the fight scene in the bathroom was visually and aurally interesting. But they didn't do anything interesting with Schwarzenegger's character at all - his protector Terminator in T3 was a flawed rehash of the protector in T2.

What did they choose to do with the rest of the inherited elements?

John Connor, the supposed future savior of humanity (even in the unknown future of the T2 timeline as reported by Arnie in T3), is still a reluctant hero in his 20s. He whines more than he fights in this film, an aspect of that character that I had hoped had gone away with Furlong. The audience laughed when Kate announced that she had trained on her father's plane, but I may have been the only one rolling my eyes when John confidently fired up the particle accelerator like it was no more complex than a toaster. John hasn't shown any notable strategic or tactical skills up to that point, surviving by sheer luck and Terminator intervention through the entire film. It was actually out of character for him to show competence at that point in the film. I suppose I'll have to wait for the fouth film for the amazing John Connor to do anything remotely beneficial to humanity.

I agree with MikeRS that the revival of the Skynet program (although vaguely altered in structure), the occurrence of Judgement Day, and the same basic man vs. machine conflict after Judgement Day smells of lazy writing. People drawing analogies to the inevitability of the light bulb seem to be equating a simple electromechanical device with the complex interactions of billions of hardware, software, and bioware elements. The revival of the same basic future is entirely too convenient, and when paired with the high number of unimaginatively recycled elements, leads the cynic in me to agree that the filmmaker's were thinking about the box office when they should have been thinking about the story. I suspect they started with Judgement Day and worked backwords from there to create the plot.

They added Kate Brewster, another whiny, reluctant hero who at least shows some guts later in the film. Despite what some have said, I saw no comparison between her and the Sarah Connor of T2. I also didn't feel that she was transformed enough at the end of the film to be compared to Sarah Connor from T1. Some of my other posts in this discussion have questioned the instructions that she gave to the Terminator that she sent back.

Frankly, with these two in charge, I'm rather concerned about the fate of humanity. If that was the goal of the filmmakers, then they at least succeeded at one thing.

---

Quote:
Sure he could. John could just have a different father.

I have to address this. I have a problem accepting that the malleable future that lays before humanity at the end of T2 will still result in Skynet/Judgement Day/Man vs. Machine, but that is a minor leap compared to what you (and other posters) are proposing with the original timeline for T1.

Somehow mousy waitress Sarah Connor gives birth to John(presumably out of wedlock since he kept her last name) at an unknown time. She has absolutely zero knowledge of the future. At some point Skynet/Cyberdyne/et al blow up a bunch of stuff, after which John, who presumably has zero training in survival, becomes the great leader in the human resistance. Skynet sends a Terminator back in time to kill his mother before he is born. John responds by sending Kyle Reese back to protect his mother, creating a new future in which John is Reese's son who experienced a lifetime of hardcore survivalist training and ends up fighting in the same basic future.

No sir. There is no freakin' way that John Connor ever had a father that wasn't Kyle Reese. I love the circular timeline that the first film is based on, both on the side of humanity and the side of the machines. But the function of sending anything back in time only makes sense if those circles can be broken. We see the machine circle broken in the second film, an act which frees John Connor from his own predestined future. Having the third film suggest that the machine circle was just stretched by a few years is not a good thing, and I'm having difficulty understanding the statements in this thread that the third film makes the first two better. Not only does the third film negate the major themes of the second, but it also denies John Connor any understandable character development. He should either be living la vida loca in his unwritten future, or he should be training diligently for a future war and at least be aware of the presence of the Skynet Project. Instead they place him in this middle ground where he is ignorantly hiding out from his own destiny with only a paint ball gun for defense.

T3 has lots of glitter and flash, but it's rotten at the core.

Brad



A Møøse once bit my sister ... No realli! She was Karving her initials on the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink".

We apologise for the fault in the signature. Those responsible have been sacked.

Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti...
Brad Porter is online now Quote this post in a PM Send Support Ticket
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
sendpm.gif
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Old 07-08-2003, 02:43 AM   #304 of 399
Brian Dobbs
Member
 
Location: Annapolis, Maryland
Join Date: Jul 2001
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 448

can someone explain the model numbers to me? i thought arnold is a CSM 101, not 800. does he say this anywhere in the movie?


Brian Dobbs is offline Quote this post in a PM Send Support Ticket
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
sendpm.gif
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Old 07-08-2003, 03:12 AM   #305 of 399
FredK
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 505

My position on the movie is the story is fine, the execution poor. Lot's of money and potential wasted with a decent end result.

Quote:
That is not why she didn't take the lady's form, nor why the T1000 didn't take the cops. The simple reason is that you should show your antagonist in a way that the audience can identify with, at least most of the time.

That's not really a fair argument, one side is covering the rules within the story and this response is about the rules of story. In the story she only needed clothes and transportation to start (same as the other 4 terminators). To say she didn't take the woman's form because it's a bad device is true, but it doesn't refute the in story truth that at the time all the T-X needed was clothing & transportation (why disguise when no one could identify her yet).
FredK is offline Quote this post in a PM Send Support Ticket
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
sendpm.gif
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Old 07-08-2003, 03:21 AM   #306 of 399
Matt Stone
 
Location: No, I did not co-create South Park
Join Date: Jun 2000
Local Time: 04:53 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 10,442

Send a message via AIM to Matt Stone Send a message via Yahoo to Matt Stone
Brian,
I'm pretty sure Arnie is a T-800 model 101. They mention the T-600 series (having rubber skin) in Terminator 1...so I'm guessing that the "model 101" would pertain to the look of the model. The model 101 would be the Arnold model.
Matt Stone is offline Quote this post in a PM Send Support Ticket
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Old 07-08-2003, 04:34 AM   #307 of 399
Ken Chan
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Local Time: 12:53 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 3,329

Quote:
can someone explain the model numbers to me? i thought arnold is a CSM 101, not 800
In T2, he was a Cyberdyne Systems Series 800 Model 101 (Version 2.4 -- you can see this in his diagnostic screen when he reboots in the Special Edition at 1:12:46). But all he ever says is right after he rescues John, in the alley:

John: Now, don't take this the wrong way, but you are a Terminator, right?
Terminator: Yes. Cyberdyne Systems Model 101.

For T3, they decided to upgrade the Series to 850, but he's still Model 101, the one that looks like Arnold. You see this in various promotional and movie-related materials (where it's "T-850"). It's not clear what the difference is. I don't recall 850 being mentioned in the movie, just as 800 was never said in the T2.

But in T3, when they're in the truck, he says something like, from memory this time :

John: Don't you remember me?
Terminator: That was a different T-101.
John: What, do you guys come off an assembly line?
Terminator: Precisely [or Exactly]

So they're sticking with the "101", but now they're putting the "T" in front, which is simply confusing. Because in T2, the T-1000 almost certainly means the 1000 Series (liquid metal), not the 1000 Model (looks like Robert Patrick).

//Ken
Ken Chan is offline Quote this post in a PM Send Support Ticket
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
sendpm.gif
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Old 07-08-2003, 09:13 AM   #308 of 399
Lou Sytsma
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 4,912

Send a message via AIM to Lou Sytsma
T3 is in a no win position.

Some criticize T3 for rehashing elements of the first two.

Others criticize T3 for changing the rules and taking the franchise in a new direction.

I seem to recall when T2 came out many were crying foul when Arnie became the good guy and the Terminator became 'domesticated'.

If T4 ever becomes a reality, T3 will be the bridging movie between the first two and the fourth. T3 had a difficult job. By and large T3 has suceeded on most levels and most importantly was a FUN experience.



Every man is my superior, in that I may learn from him.
Lou Sytsma is offline Quote this post in a PM Send Support Ticket
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
sendpm.gif
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Old 07-08-2003, 10:18 AM   #309 of 399
Jan Strnad
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Local Time: 08:53 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 2,178

Brad wrote:
Quote:
John, who presumably has zero training in survival, becomes the great leader in the human resistance.

Why presume this at all? Plenty of people have survival training, including all combat soldiers. All non-Reese John has to do is serve in the military, even if he only does so to avoid jail, to become this kind of person.

Holadem,

Well, there's no point in arguing the finer points of the nano-thing, since the rules are never spelled out (as they were with liquid metal). So I'll just close my end of the debate with "I didn't like this power" and let it go at that.

As for the hottie issue, I'm just old enough to be bored by super-powered super-model action heroines. Was a long time ago, in comics. If they want to make a female Terminator, fine, but that decision's not going to get any points for originality from me, since we're awash in such babes already.

Sounds as if you'd second my idea for T4...three Charlie's Angels-type Terminators. I mean, hell, if you're going to pander, do it with a capital P!

Jan



Jan Strnad

aka J. Knight,
author of Risen and Boo.
Jan Strnad is offline Quote this post in a PM Send Support Ticket
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
sendpm.gif
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Old 07-08-2003, 10:47 AM   #310 of 399
Holadem