Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't quite remember if I saw that flick in the theater or by a VHS. I do recall thinking, somehow, for some reason, that it was some kind of cheesy love story when it first hit the streets, of Sarah feeling up the Terminator's muscles and saying what a real man he was......somehow got that image in my mind.
Ummmm, what movie are you thinking of? That's not a scene that sounds familiar from the original (or any) Terminator movie.....
This falls under the category of "80s classic" and it's really the only movie in the franchise I'll make time for, but probably won't anymore. Just seen it too many times.
It was a better story when the Terminators were merely killer machines. The liquid metal and its capabilities are just...outlandish.
I speak only for myself, but I don't particularly love The Terminator for the premise. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny beyond a certain point. But I still love it for the same reason I love T2: the characters.
You can poke holes in most SF stories, and The Terminator is no exception.
1. If the entire point of a terminator is to infiltrate and terminate, why does he stand out in any crowd? Why not make an infiltrator actually look like a normal person and not like an Austrian behemoth? That guy could infiltrate a gym and Muscle Beach and nowhere else.
2. Why send only one? Why not send a hundred?
3. Okay, so only living tissue can travel through time. Fine. The terminator can travel through time only because it is surrounding in "living tissue." Okay. I'll buy it. So why not just grab a corpse or even some lab-grown stomach tissue or skin, sew up a few ray guns in it, and let it go back in time? And in T2, the liquid metal terminator is NOT living tissue. He just looks like it. So the movie breaks its own rules right away.
So is the liquid metal terminator silly? Yup. But because I cared so much about Sarah and Kyle and John and Miles Dyson, it's another bit of silliness that I'm willing to overlook. Had the characters not been so well drawn and the plot so perfectly paced, the flaws might have bothered me more.
So is the liquid metal terminator silly? Yup. But because I cared so much about Sarah and Kyle and John and Miles Dyson, it's another bit of silliness that I'm willing to overlook. Had the characters not been so well drawn and the plot so perfectly paced, the flaws might have bothered me more.
Ever like something and just like it a lot less years later? Like clam chowder? That's what happened with me and T2 and the whole liquid metal biz. When it came out, I loved it.
It isn't even about the living tissue-and-time travel conundrum. It's a SF film (as opposed to a CBM, where the parameters aren't fixed) that promotes itself as a cautionary tale. The notion that an AI could develop such sophisticated systems and weaponry in what isn't a large window of time, relatively speaking, is so out there, there's no Dry-Erase board big enough to debate it.
If the liquid metal Terminator was in reality an extraterrestrial organism, then it would be a different ball of chrome. But it isn't, and that's where suspension of disbelief buckles.
Really, it's just about taking a concept too far, letting it get too big. The more you add to it, the more craptastic it gets.
For some, the ending of the original movie, with its stop-motion-endowed finale, isn't aging that well, but I think it's doing just fine.
1. If the entire point of a terminator is to infiltrate and terminate, why does he stand out in any crowd? Why not make an infiltrator actually look like a normal person and not like an Austrian behemoth? That guy could infiltrate a gym and Muscle Beach and nowhere else.
Because that same behemoth wanted the role, and so the T ended up not resembling Lance Henriksen.
Ummmm, what movie are you thinking of? That's not a scene that sounds familiar from the original (or any) Terminator movie.....
--
As I said the first time, somehow before I saw the movie, that is the image that got put in my head, somehow, someway.
I suppose it is like why I didn't see LEXX for a while when it came out because some feminist took one look at it and called it a cheap show about sex with a space flying version of Joe Camel.
As far as the slow motion love scene, well, it did give substantial background, tape recorder and story wise, to John O'Connor's origins as oppose to a few cheap lines concerning a roll in the hay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
I speak only for myself, but I don't particularly love The Terminator for the premise. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny beyond a certain point. But I still love it for the same reason I love T2: the characters.
You can poke holes in most SF stories, and The Terminator is no exception.
1. If the entire point of a terminator is to infiltrate and terminate, why does he stand out in any crowd? Why not make an infiltrator actually look like a normal person and not like an Austrian behemoth? That guy could infiltrate a gym and Muscle Beach and nowhere else.
2. Why send only one? Why not send a hundred?
3. Okay, so only living tissue can travel through time. Fine. The terminator can travel through time only because it is surrounding in "living tissue." Okay. I'll buy it. So why not just grab a corpse or even some lab-grown stomach tissue or skin, sew up a few ray guns in it, and let it go back in time? And in T2, the liquid metal terminator is NOT living tissue. He just looks like it. So the movie breaks its own rules right away.
........
Well, in relation to all of this, I think Kyle Reese said it best .......... "I didn't build the F***ING thing!".
A little bit more down to the individual questions,1. Maybe they needed that big of a person to contain the machine underneath.
2. Maybe the energy to send a hundred was too much to master. Maybe sending a hundred violated their statistical calculations to how much they could change the time line.
3. A and B. Remember, the guy saying what the rules are is the guy who claim he didn't build it.........so he could be wrong. B: In any story where they are doing something impossible.......it's their science; it can work anyway they need it to work.
Last edited by TamaraSavannah; 03-09-2021 at 03:44 PM..
Ever like something and just like it a lot less years later? Like clam chowder?
Anyone who doesn't like clam chowder either hasn't had good clam chowder or needs serious counseling. But yes. For me, it was HIGHLANDER. I loved that movie when I was in junior high and high school. I watched it again as an adult, and man does it NOT hold up! It's actually really, really bad. Pacing is off. Sets and props look fake. Dialogue is horrible. And the performances are ... I dunno. Odd, at best, I'd say. Because the movie stars Sean Connery and Clancy Brown, who are great actors, but their performances in that movie are cartoonish. Probably due to a bad script and bad direction, I'm guessing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah
As far as the slow motion love scene, well, it did give substantial background, tape recorder and story wise, to John O'Connor's origins as oppose to a few cheap lines concerning a roll in the hay.
It's been a while since I last watched the movie, and I admit I didn't take notes during the love scene, but I'm 99.9999% certain there is no slow-mo. Soft lighting and music, yes. But no slow-mo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah
I think Kyle Reese said it best .......... "I didn't build the F***ING thing!".
Yup. And that's where Cameron should have left it. "Connor explained the mission, said I had ten seconds to decide, and I jumped in. I don't know how it works!" That would have done just fine, and lots of movies are fine to trust the audience that way.
What is the monolith in 2001? The star child? People have debated that for decades. Not knowing exactly doesn't spoil the story. It enhances it.
How does a lightsaber work? Honestly, who cares? You press the button. All I need to know.
How do the shields on the U.S.S. Enterprise work? I don't care.
If Superman can fly into an active volcano and just come out a bit smoke-smudged, how does he cut his hair and shave? Wouldn't he break every pair of scissors and every razor on Earth?
In BLADE RUNNER, why are replicants banned on Earth, which is the worst place to live in human society? Wouldn't they be allowed on Earth but banned everywhere else?
At the end of STAR WARS, why do the Imperials waste all that time circling round Yavin? Why not just blow up Yavin? The explosion would wipe out everything on its moon.
Anyone who doesn't like clam chowder either hasn't had good clam chowder or needs serious counseling. But yes. For me, it was HIGHLANDER. I loved that movie when I was in junior high and high school. I watched it again as an adult, and man does it NOT hold up! It's actually really, really bad. Pacing is off. Sets and props look fake. Dialogue is horrible. And the performances are ... I dunno. Odd, at best, I'd say. Because the movie stars Sean Connery and Clancy Brown, who are great actors, but their performances in that movie are cartoonish. Probably due to a bad script and bad direction, I'm guessing.
Hahaha! And how the heck did you end up in Maine? I bet you miss the Southwest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
If Superman can fly into an active volcano and just come out a bit smoke-smudged, how does he cut his hair and shave? Wouldn't he break every pair of scissors and every razor on Earth?
Believe it or not, I remember a panel in a (not recent) story that sort of answers that question. Superman "zaps" off his stubble with his heat vision by reflecting it off a mirror.
I am amazed how someone like Mr. Worf maintains his sanity. Being a security officer in Star Trek where anything is possible, I thought he would have gone nuts with worry by now!
When it comes to movies, people often forget what they are what they are watching. One of the errors I once saw claimed was in You Only Live Twice where 007 tells Moneypenny he took a first in oriental languages but then has "Tiger", the head of the Japanese secret service, translate some writing for him. FOUL a viewer declares!
HELLO, it's a spy movie and Bond may know what the document says already but wants Tiger to translate to see if he can trust him.......among other reasons.
One ought to watch a movie not with a critical eye of why it can't be but an open mind of all the ways it can.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
