CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Terminator saga look back
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Terminator saga look back

post #1 of 159
4/24/05 at 12:28pm
Thread Starter 
Well I arrived at CHUD quite recently and I noticed at The Matrix discussion that Terminator is described by someone as "humans are good machines are bad". Taking apart tthat the poster could be joking let's discuss this saga, I would prefer that we focus in the first ones because the last one (beside a quite decent plot) has too much tech flaws to mention, plot holes and decission that sounds childish (the chase that last too much ass an example)
Reply
post #2 of 159
4/24/05 at 1:40pm
STOP WHINING!
Reply
post #3 of 159
4/24/05 at 3:59pm
Why did you post this on the Star Wars only board? Sheeesh.
Reply
post #4 of 159
4/24/05 at 4:08pm
I love the series -- including the rather fan-maligned Terminator 3. I like that each of the three films does something different from each other, and the overall story arc works very well, leading to that "The battle has just begun" moment in Rise of the Machines.
Reply
post #5 of 159
4/24/05 at 4:50pm
Terminator 3 was just plain poorly done overall, and the hand of James Cameron was sorely missed.
BTW this section is the Franchise section, not the Star Wars Only section,Sraight Edge, and the individual had every right to post a Terminator thread here.
If you are being sarcastic, I agree that the emphasis on Star Wars in this section is a little tedious but to be expected, and if you are being serious you are a dumbass.
Reply
post #6 of 159
4/25/05 at 12:29am
As much as I love these films, the Ultimate Edition DVD of T2 in which the T-1000 doesn't shoot Greedo first was a slap in the face to the fans.

T3 is a fine film, not as good as either of the first 2 but proceeds with the inevitable future war that was bound to happen. After the down and dirty feel of the original and the big budget spent well look of the second there wasn't much that could be done by T3 that would seem all that inventive. Given that restriction Mostow did a nice job filling the impossible shoes of Cameron.
Reply
post #7 of 159
4/25/05 at 12:48am
I really was fascinated by the "destiny" theme of T3, that no matter what, things would turn to shit through some permutation of events. I also thought that was an ambitious beginning, having John Connor almost lament the prevention of the end of the world because it meant he would become a bum. Credit where credit's due, T3 could have been FAR worse than 2/3's asskicking and 1/3 TERMINATOR DINNER THEATER.
Reply
post #8 of 159
4/25/05 at 12:52am
Oh sure, let's praise a film based on the fact that it wasn't a total fuck-up. There was ample material to work with for T3, but instead of thinking the film out thouroughly and coming up with something new, the writers created a sophomoric homage to T2. True, it wasn't terrible, but it will be forgotten (likely, it already has been).
Reply
post #9 of 159
4/25/05 at 1:47am
So what should it have been? John Connor manages to prevent Judgment Day again? It was inevitably going to be similar to Terminator 2, because no filmmaker (whether it be Mostow or Cameron or anyone) would drop the action antics to return to The Terminator's smaller scope. T3 managed to tell a decent story, give us likable characters, great action, and a fantastic ending that changes everything if Terminator 4 is produced.

Yeah, I can't really ask for much more than that.
Reply
post #10 of 159
4/25/05 at 3:05am
The problem with Terminator 3 is that it completely cancelled out all the efforts of the heroes in the first two films, essentially making their stories redundant. I agree there was little else they could do with it, but it shouldn't have been made in that case.

On the other hand, the terminator chick is hot
Reply
post #11 of 159
4/25/05 at 3:30am
As long as at least one Terminator came back in time their efforts were pointless.

And was the ending to T3 supposed to be longer originally? The part between the girl terminator crashing her helicopter and Arnie exploding his fuel cell seemed kinda rushed.
Reply
post #12 of 159
4/25/05 at 3:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviatedPrevert
The problem with Terminator 3 is that it completely cancelled out all the efforts of the heroes in the first two films, essentially making their stories redundant.
The problem with Terminator 3 is that it completely blew chunks.
Reply
post #13 of 159
4/25/05 at 3:39am
You guys should listen to Arnie's commentary on the T3, fucking hysterical.

I thought it was enjoyable and there were fantastic action set pieces, that truck chase being one. The ending was haunting enough but after the T-1000 there was no way they were going to come up with a better villain, to their credit they tried but the T-X just didn't feel intimidating at all, I don't know if that stemmed from her character or that she was a chick.
Reply
post #14 of 159
4/25/05 at 3:58am
How's this for a billiant idea, set it in the future. Instead of retreading the same ground as T2 (in a slick, yet less interesting way), instead of the machines sending a Terminator back for a 3rd time (which is inane), start the film right about the time Sky-net goes apeshit and starts the end of the world. Or set it even further in the future, hell, it doesn't even have to be about John Conner. There are a lot of great things you could do with the property, what they did wasn't one of them.
Reply
post #15 of 159
4/25/05 at 4:03am
Which would be great, except for the fact that Terminator 2 completely invalidated the possiblity of a future war, at least for awhile. You'd essentially be going from "We destroyed everything -- the chip, the arm, all of the research," to "Holy shit! Future war!"

It wouldn't make any sense. Granted, T3's explanation for the events coming to pass was pretty pathetic too, but at least it serves as a bridge.
Reply
post #16 of 159
4/25/05 at 4:15am

The Terminator Series?

That's easy. A brilliant piece of science fiction and two sequels that are only in it for the money.
Reply
post #17 of 159
4/25/05 at 10:30am
All I know is what the terminator taught me... that the first movie is the best movie.
Reply
post #18 of 159
4/25/05 at 12:09pm
Terminator 2 is a pretty decent sequel to one of the Best Films Ever made.
There IS NO Terminator 3 people. Allright. Lets just pretend and it WILL go away.
Seriously...defend T3 all you want but deep down in your soul of souls.....you know!
Reply
post #19 of 159
4/25/05 at 2:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by niffling
Terminator 2 is a pretty decent sequel to one of the Best Films Ever made.
There IS NO Terminator 3 people. Allright. Lets just pretend and it WILL go away.
Seriously...defend T3 all you want but deep down in your soul of souls.....you know!
Sorry. Sold mine.
Reply
post #20 of 159
4/25/05 at 4:34pm
T2 was decent?

BLASPHEMY!
Reply
post #21 of 159
4/25/05 at 6:13pm
As a preteen, looking at Terminator 2, I could find no faults. It was extremely scary, and maybe a little disturbingly cold or gleeful in its dispatch of innocents. Everything was smooth and well orchestrated (except for the stuntman on the motorcycle during the truck chase--that face was not Arnold's). It looked cool, and it was everywhere.

On an old tape the other day I listened to "You Could Be Mine." It is not a good song. When I was younger, I could find no faults in it, too...

So I'm curious to see T2 if it comes on TV anytime soon. Looking back what I remember mostly is all the poor secondary characters who lost their lives so quickly: Furlong's adoptive Mom, who is also in Aliens, his father, stabbed through the mouth while drinking milk, the helicopter pilot told to "get out," the chubby security guard, the police officers who the good Terminator "only" shot in the knees, Dyson the inventor guy I think who they kind of stay with before he blows up...
Reply
post #22 of 159
4/25/05 at 7:21pm
I just cannot get over my hatred for Terminator 3. I've tried to mend fences, but every time I sit down with it I just get hit in the face with how awful the script is, how bad the acting is, how limp the directing is, how ...non exisitant the score is. And of course what they did to Sarah Conner. If they couldn't top Terminator 2 (and granted, it's a pretty big ask to top one of the greatest movies ever made), then they should've either dropped it completely, or just made the future-war movie we've been waiting so long for. Gaps in the logic could have been papered over with a voiceover at the start, you'd still get scale and spectacle from the giant robot army battles. You could still have Arnie, either just as a cameo or as the template for the infiltration models.
Reply
post #23 of 159
4/25/05 at 7:43pm
T3 works fairly well as a comedy terminator film for about two thirds of it's length. Terminator! The Sequel!
It takes all the surface ideas of the first two and sends them up brilliantly, deliberately or not.

Seriously, watch it again. it is deliriously silly.

Every so often a serious sci-fi film about destiny pops its head up, only to be squashed by Arnie carrying a coffin. Then, about when they get to the skynet base compound thing the crushing stipudity takes its toll.

Hey, the special effects are great. the car chase, by the way, is full of CGI
Reply
post #24 of 159
4/26/05 at 12:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Clarke
Hey, the special effects are great. the car chase, by the way, is full of CGI
Everything, even ads for cat litter have CGI. I respect T3 for doing a good deal of that chase the old fashioned way. If the whole movie had started off with the future war folks would bitch about how it happened so fast, then T2 would really be pointless. T3 is a fun ride, a nice way to send Arnold off to politics (for now), and a great bridge to a 4th film that doesn't have to include Arnold (but should end with Reese going back to 1984).
Reply
post #25 of 159
4/26/05 at 1:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti
Everything, even ads for cat litter have CGI. I respect T3 for doing a good deal of that chase the old fashioned way. If the whole movie had started off with the future war folks would bitch about how it happened so fast, then T2 would really be pointless.

How is it not pointless now? Sarah's fight, Dyson's sacrifice, everything from the second film is rendered bullshit thanks to Mostow and the greedy suits of the studio.
Reply
post #26 of 159
4/26/05 at 1:31am
I have an unholy love for all things Terminator. In fact, I think T3 fits better thematically with T1 than T2 does. I was going to give my explaination of the timeline, but other Chewers have done it way more eloquently. So I dug up the original T3 thread (and ended up reading all 5 pages of it!) for you all to browse through at your leisure.
Reply
post #27 of 159
4/26/05 at 1:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Jones
How is it not pointless now? Sarah's fight, Dyson's sacrifice, everything from the second film is rendered bullshit thanks to Mostow and the greedy suits of the studio.
Which, inevitably, any Terminator sequel was going to do.
Reply
post #28 of 159
4/26/05 at 2:08am
Sarah's actions were pointless no matter what she did because her fate (and that of everyone else's) was predetermined. Similar to the Matrix saga and the phrophecy that guided Morpheous' and the resistence' actions, Sarah needed to believe that she could change the future. Her "no fate but the one we make" mantra was crucial to her to gaining the strength for her to train her son to become the "great military leader", but that was all she was meant to do. The way the timeline is set up in the Terminator trilogy, events in the past are contingent upon things in the future. For example, Judgement Day has to occur in order for John Connor to send Reece back in time which in turn ensures that John is fathered by Reece. It's a very circular way to look at it vs. the flat timeline we're used to seeing in movies.
Reply
post #29 of 159
4/26/05 at 2:20am
I liked the "no fate but what we make" message in T2. It was the truth - I don't believe in this 'destiny' bullshit. Also the whole concept of 'time' is a human construct - it doesn't really exist. Ooooh, I'm getting a headache.

So whereas T2 offered a positive antidote to the first films bleak outlook, the third film completely rubbishes that - and is therefore redundant in my opinion. It was purely a case of being 'Terminator 3: The Search For More Money' as Mel Brooks would put it.
Reply
post #30 of 159
4/26/05 at 3:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Jones
How is it not pointless now? Sarah's fight, Dyson's sacrifice, everything from the second film is rendered bullshit thanks to Mostow and the greedy suits of the studio.
I've always felt that the main point of T2 was for the T-800 to keep the T-1000 from killing John Connor, the man who will lead the humans in their fight against the machines after the Future War. T2 is still quite important to the storyline of these films.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviatedPrevert
So whereas T2 offered a positive antidote to the first films bleak outlook, the third film completely rubbishes that - and is therefore redundant in my opinion. It was purely a case of being 'Terminator 3: The Search For More Money' as Mel Brooks would put it.
I prefer to thinK of it as TERMINATOR 3: HEY, WE DIDN'T TAKE A DUMP ON THE FRANCHISE LIKE ALIEN 3 DID
Reply
post #31 of 159
4/26/05 at 4:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviatedPrevert
So whereas T2 offered a positive antidote to the first films bleak outlook, the third film completely rubbishes that - and is therefore redundant in my opinion. It was purely a case of being 'Terminator 3: The Search For More Money' as Mel Brooks would put it.
'Cuz God knows, Terminator 2 was made for purely Saint-like reasons and was never intended to bring in a single solitary cent.
Reply
post #32 of 159
4/26/05 at 11:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviatedPrevert
I liked the "no fate but what we make" message in T2. It was the truth - I don't believe in this 'destiny' bullshit. Also the whole concept of 'time' is a human construct - it doesn't really exist. Ooooh, I'm getting a headache.
Just because you liked the "No Fate" message doesn't make it the truth. There was never any indication in any of the films that Judgement Day could be stopped.

Also, whether or not time exists in your mind, in the rules set up by the films, it does. For christ's sake, it's a story about TIME TRAVELLING ROBOTS! If you can buy that machines become self-aware, build a time machine and can travel to the past, you have to buy that the construct of time is a crucial part of the films.

In addition, in order for someone in the future to travel to the past, the future has to be already happening which in turn means that whatever you are doing in the present is precisely what leads to that future occurring. You can never change future events becuase everything you are doing in the present is the cause of that future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviatedPrevert
So whereas T2 offered a positive antidote to the first films bleak outlook, the third film completely rubbishes that -
Exactly! T1 is bleak as hell. T2 completely invalidates everything set up by that film in an effort to cash in.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviatedPrevert
and is therefore redundant in my opinion. It was purely a case of being 'Terminator 3: The Search For More Money' as Mel Brooks would put it.
I do not think that word means what you think it means. T2 is redundant in that it is basically a carbon copy of T1. T3 may be unecessary or superfluous, but its not redundant.
Reply
post #33 of 159
4/26/05 at 11:20am
I don't get all this T2 is redundant crap, T1 was a darker, more violent movie. T2 was slightly more optimistic in it's approach, the tone was less claustrophobic. If T2 is a carbon copy of T1 then T3 is a carbon copy of T2 which makes it a carbon copy of T1, they're all the same film only with a bigger budget each time, that doesn't make them anyless enjoyable.
Reply
post #34 of 159
4/26/05 at 11:29am
They are all basically the same movie. However T3 switched things up a bit, albeit slightly, but still its a change. In T3 John Connor was not the primary target as he was in the first two. The T-X's targets were John's luitenants. Also, in T1 & T2, Skynet was hardware whereas in T3 Skynet was software. Again, its a slight change, but I think it adds to the story in that a virus is much harder to fight than a server sitting in some office. it also shows that everything that Sarah and John do in the future (such as John staying off the grid) have consequences in the future, but ultimately cannot change what is destined to occur.
Reply
post #35 of 159
4/26/05 at 1:58pm
And "No fate but what we make" never even shows up in the original film. That wasn't even close to Connor's original message -- Cameron decided to swap it in for Judgment Day.
Reply
post #36 of 159
4/26/05 at 2:46pm
It's interesting that none of the heroes sent back in time, not Reese or Arnold's good Terminators, are ever sent back to stop the war. They only serve to make sure the proper leadership is in place when it inevitably happens. Trying to stop the war is just the very human response from Sarah and John.
Reply
post #37 of 159
4/26/05 at 3:20pm
Well, that's because they won. And in fact, because of Sarah and John trying to stop it, they extended it. The war originally ended in 2029 when Skynet's defense grid was destroyed. Now all of a sudden, the war starts later, John Connor himself is killed in 2032, and the battles are waging and such. So by trying to stop the war from happening, they may have actually given the machines the victory.
Reply
post #38 of 159
4/26/05 at 3:53pm
Not to get too philosophical about these films, I hate when folks do that with the MATRIX series, but T3 makes me view the future war as a symbol for death. We can take steps to prolong our life, quit smoking or eat healthy, but eventually we all pass away.

Just so I don't sound like too much of an egghead I also liked when Arnold was at the gas station.
Reply
post #39 of 159
4/26/05 at 5:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diva
In addition, in order for someone in the future to travel to the past, the future has to be already happening which in turn means that whatever you are doing in the present is precisely what leads to that future occurring. You can never change future events becuase everything you are doing in the present is the cause of that future.
That's a valid explanation, but there are others. Some theoreticians argue that person A returning from future F to present P is predestined to ensure F (nothing he does in P will make any difference to F). Others say A will shape his own future (F1) instead of playing a role in F (perhaps creating or jumping into a parallel universe, or simply obliterating F).

The truth is we simply don’t know enough about time travel (if it is indeed possible) to call to account movies that include it as a plot device. And from a screenplay writer’s perspective, that's probably no bad thing …
Reply
post #40 of 159
4/26/05 at 6:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diva
Exactly! T1 is bleak as hell. T2 completely invalidates everything set up by that film in an effort to cash in.
Actually, T2 is a well crafted film that honestly counters the bleakness of the first film, and give us hope for the future. A film that can do that without pandering to the audience deserves respect. T3, on the other hand, comes across as nothing but a cheap ploy to cash in on the Terminator franchise by doing a one-more-time-round-the-block plot, but with a "clever" (note: sarcasm) twist of actually blowing up the world at the end.

So not only is it a cheap knock off, it also closes out by invalidating everything Cameron built up in the second film. Thanks very much, Mostow.
Reply
post #41 of 159
4/26/05 at 6:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diva
I do not think that word means what you think it means. T2 is redundant in that it is basically a carbon copy of T1. T3 may be unecessary or superfluous, but its not redundant.

From the Concise Oxford Dictionary:

Redundant: 1. superfluous; not needed. 2. that can be omitted without any loss of significance.


Sorry to sound like a prick, but I am an English major. I know what words mean. But anyways, I guess you could apply the same description to T2, but I wouldn't, simply because T2 was made as a counter to T1, a companion piece if you will. T3 seemed to just be a case of, hey what franchise can we butcher next? Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed parts of it, but as part of the Terminator series it will always be a bit of a "Last Crusade" to me.
Reply
post #42 of 159
4/26/05 at 6:44pm
Wait, did someone compare ALIEN 3 unfairly with T3? That's insanity. A3 is a flawed but still pretty fine and brave attempt at a franchise picture with two stellar prequels. T3 is a generic actioner with a decent ending and comedy scenes of Clare Danes and Nick Stahl being hunted by Nintendo's R.O.B.
Reply
post #43 of 159
4/26/05 at 6:44pm
I also agree with Werbal that the first is the best. By a wide margin, I'd say.
Reply
post #44 of 159
4/26/05 at 7:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Jones
Actually, T2 is a well crafted film that honestly counters the bleakness of the first film, and give us hope for the future.
I can't say T2 left me feeling hopeful for humankind in Cameron's universe. Judgment Day may have been averted, but the underlying problems are still there: man is as bellicose, belligerent and paranoid at the end of T2 as he was at the opening of T.

Being rescued from atomic hell may well have served no purpose other than to set them on the road to another self-induced apocalypse. Hardly something to shout about, IMO.
Reply
post #45 of 159
4/26/05 at 7:05pm
Terminator- Excellent.

T2- Overrated.

T3- Underrated. - Love that crane chase, ending. Best thing about the flick is NO Eddie Furlong.
Reply
post #46 of 159
4/26/05 at 7:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Jones

So not only is it a cheap knock off, it also closes out by invalidating everything Cameron built up in the second film. Thanks very much, Mostow.
Cameron would disagree with you. He raved about the film and praised Mostow.
Reply
post #47 of 159
4/26/05 at 7:08pm
I think the "hopeful" bit was Sarah's closing statement about learning the "value of human life". I don't know if the rest of the movie lived up to that coda, being an orgy of destruction, but if The Terminator was about man's dangerous reliance on machines, T2 was about holding onto our humanity, and that everything we make, including "robots from the future", still reflect that humanity...

Or I'm just talking out of my arse.
Reply
post #48 of 159
4/26/05 at 7:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Zod
Cameron would disagree with you. He raved about the film and praised Mostow.

I would be interested to know what Cameron thought of Alien 3?
Reply
post #49 of 159
4/26/05 at 7:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviatedPrevert
I think the "hopeful" bit was Sarah's closing statement about learning the "value of human life".
Sarah and John Connor may have learned the value of human life, but what about the billions around them who were blissfully unaware of events? Let's face it, when machines can out-perform humans as parents - the future doesn't look particularly promising.
Reply
post #50 of 159
4/26/05 at 7:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviatedPrevert
I would be interested to know what Cameron thought of Alien 3?
I know he described AR as "The one with the rubbish monster". If memory serves he described A3 as "Sigourney kills the franchise".
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Terminator saga look back