Re: Terminator 3 , FIVE

In article <4a259b63$0$8714$8a667849@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, me@xxxxxxxxxxx
says...>
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 12:59:04 -0700 (PDT), Jades Not Dead
<pickpops@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2 June, 19:19, Froot Bat <m...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:10:30 +0100, David Skinner

<drskin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <gvvv8k$dk...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
comfyso...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...>

<snippage>

Going off on a tangent here, but it's been said that T2 and T3 are
essentially the same movie.

Well T2 is just T1 with a budget Cameron didn't have the first time.
And with the gigantic mistake he avoided the first time: Arnie as the
'good guy'.

I thought they made a great twist over the first film.

I think T1 and T2 belong in the same universe - they follow on from each
other okay. T3 was a fun film, but adds nothing to the story really.


I once read - and I don't know if it's true - that Arnie and Michael
Biehn were supposed to have each other's roles, or at least Arnie was
initially down as the 'protector' (or Biehn the Terminator).

It's one of those things where you think thank *** that idea didn't
happen (like Frank Sinatra being Dirty Harry) and then they blew it in
the second movie.

AFAIK it's down to Arnie's though, who apparently thinks American
voters can't tell reality from fiction and wouldn't vote for someone
who slaughters people on screen. Well, he lost my vote.

IMO there is only one Terminator (movie). The first movie was a 'low'
budget cult 80s scifi that could and should have been left well alone.
I don't consider it has any connection to the remakes/sequels/
spinoffs/franchise.

T2 was/is just an overblown, over-long, over-CGI'd, over-everything
'action' (aka Lots Of Things Exploding) remake.

Over-CGI'd? You mean all those non-CGI models they used?

IMO if the _titles_ are computer generated the movie is over-CGI'd. :)
In the case of T2 though, come on, the whole movie is one long Cameron
wankfest over the 'molten metal' effect.

I can remember all the articles and stuff about "morphing" - it was
probably the first time the technique saw a mass audience. Certainly the
holy grail for the AV guy at our workplace was to get the Amiga to morph
our logo into other stuff.

But a lot of it was plain old props. The Propstore has got a lot of T2
stuff in at the moment, including some of the T1000 bullet-struck
clothes.

http://tinyurl.com/34c7od


And I have this right, right? The Terminator can melt into silvery
metal... and then reform into something... covered in flesh and
different coloured clothing out of nowhere?

That was handwaved in the movie - can't form complex mechanisms or
something - so no guns or bombs or vehicles. Doesn't seem to stop the
TX forming energy weapons and circular saws though. Maybe that's
"progress".


Suspending disbelief for time travel is one thing but I can never get
over how insanely nonsensical that is. Any kind of plausibility thrown
out the window just to use that effect. And it's pointless, since for
all his little melty tricks, he's no more indestructable than Arnie's
Terminator was.

If it can turn into flesh or fabric, why can't it just stand a block
away from John Connor and his mum and turn into a hydrogen bomb?

I don't think T3 is any more kiddie friendly than T2 was - I mean
what's so 'bad ass' about T2? The main character is a bratty kid and
the relentless killing machine from T1 plays 'daddy'.

It's a daft premise, but it works. Kids in films are always in need of
a good kicking,

True. But, my God, if a Terminator can't waste an entire police
department he just isn't trying.

I think what pisses me off most is that I liked the original so much,
which was pretty mean and lean, and I don't think the 'remake' (T2)
added anything except length and girth. And lack of size matters.

The Terminator (movie) for me is more akin to things like Repo Man or
Night of the Comet, other low budget cult scifi flicks set in LA in
1984, rather than any of its own 'sequels' - which as has been pointed
out are pretty much mild variations on a theme.

I preferred T3 to T2 at least in so far as it was not way too overlong
and Kristanna Loken is a lot easier on the eye than Linda Hamilton's
big shoulders and bulging veins.

I'd always thought that "Terminator" came after she'd become known from
"Beauty and the Beast", but it didn't.


Hmm.. I'd still have tried her out, though ;)

Well, she'd be handy on a night out if there was any bother.


.

Loading