Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Review of T3: Rise of the Machines

jamie posted more than 11 years ago | from the go-see-28-days-later dept.

Movies 731

The Terminator movie series offers explosions and cyborgs galore, but you knew that already. Guns too, and cool special effects involving R-rated nude people in electrified spheres, but you probably guessed that too. So you've seen the trailer and are wondering whether "T3: Rise of the Machines" is worth seeing. Short answer: eh, whatever, it's big and dumb. For the long answer, keep reading. (No real spoilers.)

Let me first draw your attention to CNN's review. The CNN reviewer tells you this "darker and slicker" sequel is "worth the wait," gives you the long-form plot setup, shows you the sexy look of the "babe-a-licious" babe, and promises you "emotional weight" with "wit" and a "stunning and thought-provoking" climax. What he doesn't mention is that CNN and the movie's producer/distributor are both owned by AOL Time Warner.

It's been ten years since I watched the first Terminator and maybe I'm remembering it better than it was. But it had an emotional depth, a heart that neither of its sequels matched. T3 is slicker, yes, but darker!? It's light fluff. The nightmare of nuclear destruction in the original was rendered without CG effects, but I'll remember the skeleton clutching the chain-link fence long after I've forgotten this week's pixel-perfect explosions. And the "storm is coming" ending of the original was genuinely thought-provoking, with a chilling resolve that just embarrasses this week's Hollywood ending. Claire Danes is no Linda Hamilton.

The effects are what you'd expect from a modern zillion-dollar action movie, but not groundbreaking the way that T2's were at the time.

I found nothing about it witty. I chuckled through the chase scenes -- it's mostly chase scenes -- because they were so over-the-top and the plot holes were so glaring. Apart from that, there was only one funny line. (I assume everyone else is as bored as I am with the "dry cool wit like that" dialogue.)

Best unintentionally funny line: "I've got enough C-4 to blow up ten supercomputers!"

Best unintentionally funny visual: tie between fumble for the car keys, and offscreen killing sprays blood across photo.

Dumbest joke: gratuitous mocking of effeminate guy.

Best absurd effect: missile blows apart the wall in a small office ten feet from our heroes, they avoid injury by diving to floor. Duck and cover!

Best plot hole: Terminatrix's chronic failure to remember that she can run fast.

Heavy on the exposition, light on brains and heart, forgettable. See it if you really jones for big trucks smashing stuff. If you just have to see a movie, see "28 Days Later" instead. Rated R, not recommended for anyone whose mental age matches their valid ID.

cancel ×

731 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hopes it worth it.. (0)

dark3r (14184) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366824)

I'm going to go see it today. I hope it's worth the money I spend. I don't think it'll be as good as the other two simply due to the lack of personnel on this film when compared to the other two. Where the hell is Edward Furlong anyway? I bet he needs the work.

Re:Hopes it worth it.. (4, Informative)

phillymjs (234426) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366891)

Where the hell is Edward Furlong anyway? I bet he needs the work.

According to IMDB's T3 trivia page, [imdb.com] they wanted Furlong to reprise the John Connor role, but he was too drug-addled to do it.

I haven't seen him in anything good in years, so he probably wanted to do it (especially since it's the role that made him famous) but they probably didn't want to gamble on him going off on a bender in the middle of production.

~Philly

Re:Hopes it worth it.. (2, Interesting)

praxim (117485) | more than 11 years ago | (#6367027)

Well, five years at least- he was in American History X.

Re:Hopes it worth it.. (1)

ThatDamnMurphyGuy (109869) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366985)

No Eddie Furlong huh....well, I'll take T3 over this [yahoo.com] .

The Crow was the best of them....2 was bearable, 3 was cruel and unusual punishment. The thought of a 4th makes me plead for mercy.

ddsdsad (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366825)

first post

Re:ddsdsad (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366894)

hehe i don't think so cock fucker

Ruined (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366827)

Any more, it seems they ruin perfectly good movies with excessive bad content. I mean, does nudity enhance the movie at all? It could be just as good of a movie and be rated PG.

Re:Ruined (5, Funny)

sexmachine1066 (656799) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366859)

Anon Coward must be a female. :)

Re:Ruined (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366873)

Yes Mr. Scrunchy McPrude, it does.

Re:Ruined (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366950)

Haha, you must be a woman.

Re:Ruined (0, Redundant)

sexmachine1066 (656799) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366951)

What does? And what the hell does Scrunchy McPrude mean? It seems to suggest that I am a "prude." I am baffled, as your original statement stank of "prude." Good comeback though. Really.

Re:Ruined (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366972)

Any more, it seems people ruin perfectly good sentences by sticking "any more" where it doesn't belong.

Re:Ruined (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6367015)

Whoa! Hang on a sec. What's more plausible in todays society? An R-rating for violence and killing, or an R-rating for coming back from the future in the nude?

In any case they gave a reasonably rational explanation of it in the second film; only beings with human tissue on the outside could travel back in time (yeah, I'm intentionally ignoring the T1000).

Personally I reckon it's cos there were no cows in the future to make into leather jackets, but there you go...

can pr05t?? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366828)

c@n 1 fr1st Poast di5?

Re:can pr05t?? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366905)

no u can't twat u missed it by at least 50 posts

Skeletons (5, Informative)

Zog The Undeniable (632031) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366834)

Wasn't the skeleton hugging the chainlink fence in T2?

Re:Skeletons (1)

jamie (78724) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366889)

"Wasn't the skeleton hugging the chainlink fence in T2?"

Shit, you're probably right. Like I said, ten years since I last watched the first movie so I may be fuzzy on the details.

Re:Skeletons (1)

Zog The Undeniable (632031) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366918)

I agree it was memorable anyway - if rather nasty. IIRC it made it into the G'N'R video for "You Could Be Mine", albeit only the bit before the bomb goes off.

It was T2 (5, Informative)

phorm (591458) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366927)

It comes with a scene where Sarah Conner is watching kids in a park, then starts yelling at everyone about impending doom, etc. A nuclear shockwave hits, park goes byebye and Sarah is reduced to a skeleton clinging to the fence.

Then she wakes up... and decides to go assassinate a poor defenceless geek who just happens to be involved in the future creation of skynet.

Re:It was T2 (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 11 years ago | (#6367049)

Decides to assasinate a poor defenceless geek....

Sounds like a good plan to me.

(sound of GWB thinking, "now who should we attack? North Korea or Iraq, gosh being president is tough").

Mental age (1)

BetterThanCaesar (625636) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366838)

Well, my mental age exceeds my Slashdot ID. I think this movie might be to flashy for me.

Re:Mental age (1)

floydigus (415917) | more than 11 years ago | (#6367042)

You must, therefore, have a mental age of at least 625637.

How old are you in RL? I bet you could tell the rest of us a thing or two!

Seen it (4, Informative)

Boo Robin (657702) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366842)

I saw it the first day it came out. It was pretty good, but the ending was a bit lacking. It leaves it real open. :D

I must say, some parts with the robots looked a tad too unrealistic. It just looked to fake. But then again, that was only one scene.

It is a good movie to see if you want a little action in your life or love Arnold.

-Boo

Re OT: Sig Question (0, Offtopic)

veddermatic (143964) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366880)

Who is Dixie? I know that quote from a TOOL song... did they nab it from someone, or....?

Re:Re OT: Sig Question (0, Offtopic)

praxim (117485) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366998)

Actually, that's an A Perfect Circle song you remember it from.

Re:Re OT: Sig Question (0, Offtopic)

Boo Robin (657702) | more than 11 years ago | (#6367004)

Hot damn... didn't know that. Dixie is someone that I know that regularly uses it. Oh well, I'll change it. ;) Thanks for the heads up.

-Boo

Re:Seen it (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366936)

I must say, some parts with the robots looked a tad too unrealistic.
Well, it would have been rather a dull film if the Terminators were restricted to working in a car factory, hoovering or drawing angular diagrams on the floor.

Arnold: LEFT 30, FORWARD 10
Clare: Picasso! Picasso! Picasso! Picasso! Picasso! Picasso! Picasso! Picasso! Picasso! Picasso!

Re:Seen it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6367051)

Your post has seven sentences and two grammatical errors. That's an error rate of approximately 28.6%. I'm suprised you didn't like the movie.

Song (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366843)

click here. [gaddis.org] Now.

28 Days Later? (1, Funny)

mikeophile (647318) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366846)

C'mon.

That movie could have been named "One Dumb Move After the Next"

The only reason for calling it 28 Days Later is because it had more blood and rage than a menstruating lesbian convention.

/oh the karma's gonna burn for sure this time

Re:28 Days Later? (0, Offtopic)

Zog The Undeniable (632031) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366861)

And, no doubt, more smashed crockery than a Greek wedding with angel dust kebabs.

Re:28 Days Later? (2, Insightful)

mashx (106208) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366870)

Agreed, I was really disappointed by the ending as well, and much preferred 12 monkeys.

Having said that, if you watch the extras on the DVD, you'll understand that they chose the better ending....

Re:28 Days Later? (1)

3.5 stripes (578410) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366887)

I think a menstruating militant feminist comune would be a better metaphor...

Re:28 Days Later? (1)

nattt (568106) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366901)

Sucked big time!

And shot on DV, then mucked around in the computer to make it look as bad as possible, then dumped onto film in a really bad way, then end result being unwatchable - looking remarkably like bad VHS....

I saw it at a free preview and I that was a waste of money - I pity anyone who actually payed cash to see that rubbish.

Re:28 Days Later? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6367013)

C'mon.

That movie could have been named "One Dumb Move After the Next"

The only reason for calling it 28 Days Later is because it had more blood and rage than a menstruating lesbian convention.

I totally agree. Who modded this as Offtopic? The review itself says to go see that steaming choad 28 Days Later.

t3 sucks (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366858)

T3 sucks. I think that T2 was better than T1, though, but T3 weakens the whole premise of T2, which was that Connor would not have to fight after all, thanks to the action of the Terminator. Now, with T3, we have this premise that if the machines don't like what they see, they keep going back in time, ad infinitum. And yeah, the movie sucks as well.

Re:t3 sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366965)

bwahaha.. T2 was better than T1?!

What are you smoking?

You must be a young'un that saw T2 first.

Bah, go get your diaper changed.

sounds crap (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366862)

I remember the piss-my-pants excitement of going to see T2 in the cinema. I remember thinking "The ONLY thing that could be better that this would be a new 'Star Wars' movie."

Be very careful what you wish for kids, it may come true.

Never happened! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366865)

If you watched T2, you know this never happened. So why bother?

My favorite lines from the movie (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366867)

Director: Up and at them.
Arnold: Up and atom.

Director: Up and at them.
Arnold: Up and Adam.

Director: Up and at them.
Arnold: Up and atom.

Re:My favorite lines from the movie (4, Informative)

gmrc.2 (674908) | more than 11 years ago | (#6367001)

You got it backwards bro .... Up and Atom is the line the director *needs* from Radioactive Man ;)

You fucktard (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6367003)

How did you possibly manage to get the Directory & McBain lines the wrong way around?

Re:My favorite lines from the movie (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6367045)

Wasn't that same scene in a Simpsons epidose? (Episode 2F17)

Movie Producer: Up and atom!
Renier Wolfcastle: Up and at them!
Movie Producer: Up and atom!
Renier Wolfcastle: Up and at them!
Movie Producer: Up and atom!
Renier Wolfcastle: Up and at them!

Whatever happened to Jon Katz? (4, Funny)

TobyWong (168498) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366868)

Seems like an ideal thread for him to spin off into some tirade about T3, columbine, and americas wasted youth.

Re:Whatever happened to Jon Katz? (1)

Gzip Christ (683175) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366987)

Whatever happened to Jon Katz?
He was last seen writing a Slashdot poll with CowboyNeal.

But the question on everybody's mind is (1)

Faust7 (314817) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366871)

"Does the female Terminator have a body better than perfection and move about sexily in tight-to-semi-tight outfits throwing around evil looks which in other circumstances could be interpreted as 'come-hither'?"

Come on, CNN. You're not telling me anything...

Re:But the question on everybody's mind is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6367038)

As a geek, I was incredibly upset to find out that the Terminatrix - far from being CGI or animatronics - is in fact, a real woman...

hang on...

Got to see it! (4, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366875)


It has Arnold.

It has explosions.

It has Arnold.

It has violence.

It has Arnold.

It doesn't have Jar Jar.

It has Arnold.

George Lucas never touched it.

It has Arnold.

Arnold is da man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366982)

I just saw that old Pumping Iron movie he was in so long ago.

Very cool.

Exposition (1, Funny)

someme2 (670523) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366881)

Heavy on the exposition, light on brains [...]

ITYM "heavy on the exposition of brains"

Terminate California: Vote Arnold! (2, Funny)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366883)

Does anyone have any good Arnold governor campaign slogans for Arnold's possible pending T4 in Sacramento?

"T4: The Rise of the Political Machine"

Re:Terminate California: Vote Arnold! (4, Funny)

mikeophile (647318) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366915)

"True Lies"

Re:Terminate California: Vote Arnold! (2, Funny)

tizzyD (577098) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366978)

I can see it now . . .

Ducking paparazzi--"you think I'm the real governor, but I'm not. He's over there. Ha ha ha ha." The hologram disappears as he ducks into the limo (Total Recall)

Budgetting--"Deficit?! It's not a deficit!" (Kindergarden Cop)

Wildlife protections--"Hasta la vista, duckies!" (T2)

Political fundraisers--"Feinstein, my name is Freeze! Remember it well because it is the chilling sound of your doom!" (Batman 3)

And lastly, to the Legislature, when he declares himself King of California, "Consider this a divorce." (Total Recall)

It's not a tooma. It's not a TOOMA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366984)

Hi, I am Kat Hak Sung, the famous drug-smuggler
convict from San Jose, CA. I was a seller of
porcelain figurines in Galt Flea Market in San
Jose, CA. One day I bought porcelaian figurings
filled with smuggled heroin from my neighbor,
Mr. Churchill. Then she was murdered. Then
I was put under surveilance and attacked by
secret agents using secret weapons, like
microwave gun and tronid particals, until
my brain is damaged.

I sometimes hide in my trailer filled with porcelain. It will stay fills unless they let me in at Galt to sell figurines again. Porcelain blocks the tronic particals that beam from police goggles. Porcelain sells better at not at Galt tan at Galt than at Galt, ....."(sorry, I donot remember anymore
what i am saying, coz my brain is damaged)

I know I will wait (1)

jmccay (70985) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366884)

I will wait for the video to come out. I can't see paying money to see this movie. Before this review it was just a maybe I'll see it, and now I won't waste my money.

Re:I know I will wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366912)

You don't have to wait: BitTorrent of the Cam is here [sharelive.com]

Uh, the video IS out. ;-) (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366930)

Torrent* [sharelive.com]

* - My download of this is 5 hours from completion, so I cannot yet vouch for the quality, but here it is.

Is this a review? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366886)

It just seems like a bashing of action scenes to me?

trinity dies!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366888)

*warning* spoiler

The Timing of T3 (0, Troll)

mikeophile (647318) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366890)

Couldn't have anything to do with Arnold's soon-to-be bid for the California governorship.

Re:The Timing of T3 (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366957)

do you honestly believe that someone would use a movie (like this) as a ploy to get into politics?

He's already well known. He's already liked (I suppose). I can't imagine that T3 (which sounds like it blows) could boost his campaign anymore than any other traditional method.

Re:The Timing of T3 (2, Funny)

mikeophile (647318) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366975)

Yeah, you're right.

Bedtime for Bonzo was so much better than this Terminator stuff.

Terminatrix was surpisingly cool (5, Informative)

SpaceRook (630389) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366892)

Before I saw this movie, I really did NOT like the idea of a female Terminator. It always pisses me off when filmmakers try to mix sexiness with sci-fi or horror (probably because I'm so conditioned to having the sex appeal subtract from the main story).

But the Terminatrix was actually cool. She often has this weird half-smile on her face, and her head is tilted down with determination. She reminded me of Haley Joel Osment from AI in some ways.

There are, of course, some frustrating sequences in the movie. The Terminatrix has about 1,000,000 opportunities to flat out kill John Connor and Kate Brewster, but never seems to take them. Like the Robert Patrick character, she can impersonate other people. She impersonates Kate's fiancee in one sequence, and has a 100% clear chance of killing her before changing to her "regular" form at the last minute and blowing her cover.

Overall, the movie was pretty good. The ending was much more bold than I was expecting, and it sets up T4 nicely (there are some big unanswered questions that the good Terminator poses that just beg to be answered in a sequel). Here's hoping that if there is a T4, it consists completely of the post-apocalyptic sequences.

Re:Terminatrix was surpisingly cool (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366929)

maybe the machines aren't as smart as everyone thinks that they are.

They are TOO methodical?

Re:Terminatrix was surpisingly cool (5, Insightful)

Dr Tall (685787) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366932)

There are, of course, some frustrating sequences in the movie. That's the problem with having such an overpowered villian: they show off all their powerful weapons to make you afraid, but then they can never use them against the heroes.

Re:Terminatrix was surpisingly cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366968)

>Here's hoping that if there is a T4, it consists completely of the post-apocalyptic sequences.

The way T3 ends, if they ever make T4 they won't have much choice except doing exactly that...

Re:Terminatrix was surpisingly cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366976)

It always pisses me off when filmmakers try to mix sexiness with sci-fi or horror
Uh...the whole of Dracula is a metaphor for sex, dude. You must have sexiness in a proper Dracula or you haven't done it right.

sometimes i don`t want to pick a subject (-1)

ReLik (599554) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366898)

"first post"

YOU LOSE!!

Terminator looks good, though I haven't seen it, however, it's Terminator, so how can I not see it? It'll be amusing watching Arnie in a wheelchair, he's like 54 now geese.

Maybe it was my age when I watched the previous ones but I just found them so overly boring, the 2nd one was OK, maybe I'd still like it if it wasn't on TV every other week. The first one was just pitiful of what I can remember, but that's very little as I've tryed repressing that memory.

I saw 28 days about 4 months ago (am in uk) and it's good, gets a little silly though, but excellent how they managed to clear out London's best bits completely, I kept looking around the screen to see something that there wasn't meant to be, but was unsuccessul.

Oh wait this isn't a review of 28 days, fuck mod me down.

No stroy continuity (5, Insightful)

DuckWing (19575) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366899)

The one thing I really dislike about the idea of T3 is the complete disregard for the basic premise set up in T2 (or even T1 for that matter). In T2 we see the Terminator and the T-1000 completely melt away. All research work into the project from recovered parts of the original terminator, have been destroyed, so there should be no skynet, no rise of the machines. If sky-net had this kind of advanced Terminator (T-X), why didn't it send that one back for T1 and it probably would have succeeded. There are almost 2 timelines to worry about here and they seem to be going in parallel.

The same sort of thing happened with the Highlander series. The 2 sequels completely disregarded the premise and plot/story lines set forth in the original (which was awesome). Very disappointed.

A correction: The Hand Remains (2, Informative)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366914)

"T2 we see the Terminator and the T-1000 completely melt away. "

I'm pretty sure that in T2 they take care to destroy the hand left-over from T1. However, during the factory battle in T2, Arnold's Terminator loses another hand, which remains forgotten, undestroyed.

Re:A correction: The Hand Remains (1)

Atrahasis (556602) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366941)

Nope - he loses the use of one arm, but it's still attached when he goes bye-bye in the molten metal.

Re:A correction: The Hand Remains (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366995)

Must have dropped a few flakes of dandruff then...

Re:A correction: The Hand Remains (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366952)

But he didn't leave any microchips or power sources or anything related to advanced technology or AI. Who cares about the hand.

Re:A correction: The Hand Remains (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366954)

There's also always off-site backups of the original Cyberdyne research. Dyson had a copy of most of his work at home (which got shot up, but hey, not completely destroyed). I would be surprised if a company that was "on the bleeding edge" like Cyberdyne was supposed to be didn't have an off-site backup.

Re:A correction: The Hand Remains (4, Funny)

mccalli (323026) | more than 11 years ago | (#6367011)

I would be surprised if a company that was "on the bleeding edge" like Cyberdyne was supposed to be didn't have an off-site backup.

Not having an offsite backup is what defines a company as being on the bleeding edge...

Cheers,
Ian

Re:A correction: The Hand Remains (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6367023)

I knew those backups will be the end of us! Thats it, I'm off to the machine room with a baseball bat! Destroy your backups, before its too late!

Re:A correction: The Hand Remains (2, Insightful)

PhuCknuT (1703) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366963)

Also, for this wierd time loop of t1 and t2 to have begun in the first place, skynet would have to have been created without the leftover terminator parts at least once. My theory is that the first terminator to come back mearly accelerated the creation of skynet, and when they destroyed the research they mearly pushed it back to the original date. Either that, or offsite backups... I mean, they did only destroy 1 building.

Re:A correction: The Hand Remains (5, Interesting)

Buzz_Litebeer (539463) | more than 11 years ago | (#6367016)

Now see thats the way you should be thinking, people seem to forget that the way they are using time in the terminator movies is how they use time in say, Orson Scott Cards "Pastwatch: Redemption of Christopher Columbus"

Each time the machines send back a terminator they create a small paradox, IE things stop happening the way that they happened the previous time.

The first skynet could have been created in a different manner the first time, but by sending back the first terminator also facilitated his existance at an earlier date.

When they destroyed the hands and such of the first terminator in Terminator 2, they merely destroyed the timeline that involved skynet coming to exist in 1997.

In fact, they boldly say that is the case in the movie, when he is talking about the chick and how he met her, and he said "if you had never been sent back that time, I would have hooked up with her then"

The original part of the series "could" happen, simply because UNTIL the first terminator was sent back, things DID happen where skynet was created, and almost created its own causal loop in creating john connor, who might not even have had the same father in the original timeline (ie some guy other than the future guy).

Then when he came back he becames the father, thus destroying some of the time line, etc..

it gets complicated but if you think of time is completely mutable from any instant to the intstants ahead of it, then the plot can work out just fine.

There is no continuity needed. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6367048)

T1: In the future machines send back a Terminator to the past to kill John Connor's mother, because they are losing the war. The Terminator gets destroyed BUT a chip remains (the half arm in T2). The chip in the arm changes the timeline completely and accelerates the coming of Skynet.

T2: Despite Skynet beeing built earlier, humans still win in the future. Another Terminator is sent back (T-1000). Rebels from future manage once again to save their leader AND this time Sarah and John manage to destroy everything related to this new revolutionary CPU. This only delays the coming of Skynet, again, timeline is changed.

T3: There is no new CPU, but, there is near infinite computing power in the Internet. Skynet is born.

Skynet is inevitable, whatever takes form in a super CPU from the future or on the vast porcessing power of the Internet, it's inevitable.

IMHO, T3 plugged the hole of the paradox in T2. Ok story, nice movie, nothing to write home about.

Rated R (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366900)

Knife after Dark "Rated R for retarded" -- Vrock in Vice City

There should not have been a T2 or T3... (5, Interesting)

tizzyD (577098) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366902)

I actually read the book they wrote after the movie, and in it you learn some interesting facts.
  • The Terminator was sent into the past just before the big mainframe was to be destroyed by the rebels. John Connor had just about won the war.
  • The materials from the Terminator sent into the past created Skynet. This plot line was addressed in T2.
  • A la Hawkins, the Terminator could never succeed. If it did, it would cease to exist. Skynet would not have been created, and thus, it could never have existed. Ergo, no Terminator.
T2 took some of this plot, but conveniently forgot that the humans were about to win, and created the second movie.

Problem: it's a time causality loop. You cannot stop it! Why? Because if you do stop the war, you stop the Terminators, and you then never get them sent into the past. Without them in the past, you cannot have Skynet. Get it?!!?!

T3 is thus the real stumper to me. By this time, all info about the cyborg chips was to be destroyed (remember going back to the office building and performing a bit of good "Office Space"-ish reconstruction). AAMOF, with the destruction of the Terminator in T2, there are to be no systems left. Recall Linda's final dialog . . . (paraphrase)I look to the future with hope...

And now, there's to be a T4 in discussions? Why would the Terminator be molded after an old man? Arnold looks great, but he's not the glistening Austrian god he was in T1. Oh well, I hear money calling...

Re:There should not have been a T2 or T3... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366938)

I was always looking forward to them reminding us that Arnie got an arm stuck in a huge steel cog system in T2 and ripped his arm off, leaving it in the cogs. They never did go back and get that and toss it into the lava. Someone from that Dyson building may well have been able to do some clever stuff with that, although the chip was long gone.

Re:There should not have been a T2 or T3... (2, Interesting)

Blind Linux (593315) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366986)

But, as you remember, the premise of T3 was that humans would inevitably create sentient, artificial life (the afformentioned Rise of the Machines). Skynet, the name given to the sentient AI system controlling the machines, took the form of a software-based US Defense program in T3. this program was called SkyNet for continuity's sake, if you ask me.

I agree with you about the time causality loop... It was the return of the Terminator to the past that triggered the alternate timelines, as the possible future interactions of Connor and others were altered, resulting in different incarnations of SkyNet. However, regardless of whether the Terminators went into the past, the creation of sentient AI was inevitable, as was Judgement Day, the opening salvo of the war between humans and machines.

And as for Terminator being molded after an old man, it does serve one purpose: T-101 was a state of the art killing machine in T1. By T3, it is obselete, having been eclipsed by both T1000 and T-X.

Not going to read it (2)

Openadvocate (573093) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366906)

Ah, this is one article I am not going to read or any replies of the replies. I fear that T3 will suck, but I have a small hope that I won't. But I always like to know as little as possible about the movie before I see it.

great ending (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366909)

Granted the movie is forgetable, and lacking the soul of the first two, but just imagine the job of trying to make this movie in the first place.
It's like going on stage at a comedy club after Robin Williams and Geroge Carlin.

Also, was I the only one who had "We'll Meet Again" going thru their head at the end?

what the poo? T3 was great (2, Insightful)

Loco3KGT (141999) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366910)

Just as good as the others. Everyone should see it. Fit in well with the others, had some good jokes, the big truck chase scenes were great and brought back memories. The TX was hot. Arnie is still the man. Connor still has personality problems.

Rise of the machines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366913)

I think the 'machines' in the title refers to current movie going audience, whose blind obedience consistently rewards talentless Hollywood hacks who produce these tired retreads.

An interesting musing... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366922)

Is how they said in the movie that Judgement Day couldn't be prevented, so nothing anybody did could stop it, only be postponed. Also what I found interesting is that how John Conner discovered that Claire Danes' character's dad (who was in charge of implementing Skynet) was really the singlemost important person in the initiation of Judgment Day.

But, I suppose that was all right, because at the end of the movie when both her dad and the Terminator had John and Claire (his future wife-to-be and fellow captain) to hide at Crystal Peaks. However, it wasn't to actually shut down Skynet, but to have them survive (remember how I said that Judgment Day couldn't be prevented). Luckily the Terminator destroyed the T-X but shoving his remaining hydrogen fuel cell into her mouth as she tried to crawl by him).

So, what I also found interesting is how Claire's character was the one that reprogrammed and sent the Terminator back in time since John Conner was killed, by that actual Terminator, no less!

Oh yes, almost forgot, Sarah Conner died of leukemia, not of violence.

Spoiler.

Exposition of brains? (1)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366949)

Michael: "Luca Brasi held a gun to his head, and my father assured him that either his brains or his signature would be on the contract."

Pixel perfect explosions (5, Insightful)

mccalli (323026) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366956)

"The nightmare of nuclear destruction in the original was rendered without CG effects, but I'll remember the skeleton clutching the chain-link fence long after I've forgotten this week's pixel-perfect explosions."

If only more people thought like that. And if only some of the people that did think like that were film directors.

I've posted before to this board that I dislike the increasing reliance on CGI in films. A fair point to make is that once upon a time The Last Starfighter was considered pixel-perfect, but now look. CGI dates a film really fast, because graphics improve all the time.

Cheers,
Ian

Last Starfighter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6366971)

The CGI in The Last Starfighter was pretty good, except when they showed the huge alien carriers/battleships which had narrow outlines crawling on them in a fakey fashion like Sark's ship in TRON.

Re:Pixel perfect explosions (1)

Zog The Undeniable (632031) | more than 11 years ago | (#6367039)

Space films normally date very well. Star Wars has aged gracefully, even allowing for Lucas' tweaks in 1997. The space scenes in Kubrick's "2001", which is *ancient*, still look good. Sadly, the guys in monkey suits at the beginning are only of comedy value these days.

Argggh (1)

jabbadabbadoo (599681) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366958)

Loved T1 and T2, but this one is just a piece of CGI crap.

And to Mr. Big Shot Reviewer: the skeleton scene was not in T1...

Re:Argggh (1)

jamie (78724) | more than 11 years ago | (#6366983)

Yeah, someone else pointed that out already. I suck.

At least terminatrix wasn't Chyna... (1)

amrust (686727) | more than 11 years ago | (#6367000)

I've heard next to nothing about the woman who plays the Terminatrix. Was she convincing, or too over the top?

I know the part is a robot basically, but sorta makes you wonder how wooden Joanie Lauer's (Chyna) acting skills were. Or maybe it doesn't, if you're at all familiar with her WWF/WWE performances.

I remember thinking it was a good move to replace her with someone else.

you have T3 ? (0)

crux6rind (609204) | more than 11 years ago | (#6367002)

im still on dial up you insensitive clod

not completely destroyed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6367022)

Well Arnie destroyed himself in T2... but not completely. Remember? He left his arm there after he had to break it off to free himself....

Re:not completely destroyed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6367032)

The arm was still attached. Remember that he hung onto the chain with one arm and did a "thumbs up" with the other.

pointless fight scenes (0)

harks (534599) | more than 11 years ago | (#6367025)

I am getting a little bored of all the movies where there are two indestructible characters fighting. They fight anyway, but you know neither will get destroyed, whether its Terminators or Neo fighting Agent Smith. What's the point of it if neither will win? ( I know that terminators get destroyed, but never without some molten steel or a big press or large explosion. They never die by fighting)

T2 Redux (2, Interesting)

fbg111 (529550) | more than 11 years ago | (#6367036)

The actual movie was pretty much T2 Redux with a badder evil terminator and same old Arnold, and I'm getting reeeaaally annoyed that just any old liquid-metal-covered machine can zip through the supposedly organic-material-only time machine as easily as a human can. But I did find a few things interesting in T3:
****SPOILERS****
One is that Skynet is not the product of any one human or unique technology (eg, the computer engineer Miles Dyson, or the chip from the first terminator which was destroyed in T2, or even Kate Brewster's father in T3), but rather it is the result of the evolution of AI. Skynet is the product of unavoidable historical forces set in motion long ago by the Industrial Revolution, or perhaps even longer ago when man first learned how to make and use tools. Admittedly this is an old and recurring theme in many sci-fi movies, from 2001: A Space Odessy to Matrix/Reloaded, yet I am always interested in seeing different takes on it.
Further, it is interesting that Skynet is not hardware, it is self-aware software that uses the entire Internet as its corporal host, so to speak. I doubt the script writer was the first to come up with that idea, I'm sure its been floating around AI circles for some time now, but it was nevertheless a new concept for me to ponder. Talk about distributed computing... Are we all doomed to domination by a massive network of PS3's running Linux and infected by a self-aware nanovirus?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?