PDA

View Full Version : Terminator 3: RotM (Yes, already!)



Mr. X
2003-Jul-02, 03:06 PM
**NO SPOILERS, READ ON**

So... I've been thinking of starting a thread on Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines for all those who have seen it already... which is ME at this point.

Ok, ok... so I wanted to gloat a little, so what. 8)

So all of you who have seen it will be able to post about it here... and I will add some stuff on it later on I guess.

Since I don't want to spoil it all for you I'll refrain from saying it flat out right now. :lol:

kucharek
2003-Jul-02, 03:10 PM
Did you watch the movie or did you check it for bad astronomy? ;-)

Mr. X
2003-Jul-02, 03:36 PM
Uh... well I watched it... mostly. :)

And since I hated absolutely the main actress, it gave me something to do while she was on-screen. So instead of just shooting (not shouting... you read right, shooting) at the screen I thought noticing stuff would be fun... and looking "around" her on the screen.

The only thing she achieves is making us want to unleash an army of rabid, vicious Robert Patrick looking T-1000 on her sorry rear-end.

Did you know that in T2, Robert Patrick shot his weapon 14 times in a row without blinking? Now that's acting! Well at least that's what I heard. 8)

captain swoop
2003-Jul-02, 03:52 PM
snip

Robert Patrick shot his weapon 14 times in a row without blinking? Now that's acting! Well at least that's what I heard. 8)


Ooer, Missus!

Humphrey
2003-Jul-02, 04:22 PM
I'm seeing it this afternoon. 8) I'll let you know what i think then.


How could Robert Patrick shoot? His weapons could not form guns, only blades and other non mechanical instruments. OH! Do you mean he shot the scene 14times without blinking in the scene? Well then that makes more sense. :-)

Avatar28
2003-Jul-02, 04:44 PM
Um, the t-1000 DID use guns in the movie.

Mr. X
2003-Jul-02, 05:29 PM
No, what I mean is the scene when he is in the mall in front of the Cyberdyne systems 101, T-800 I think it is named (Arnold's character), the T-1000 is impersonating a police officer, and at that point he unholsters his weapon and fires 14 shots whithout blinking, in a single scene. 8)

I saw the movie a few more times when I heard this, and as far as I can recall it's real, it's one take, and he doesn't blink at all during the 14 times he fires his weapon. 8)

Pretty cool I thought... nice attention to detail. 8)

Well at the end of T2, it's technically not a cyberdyne anymore, as they pretty much destroyed all of cyberdyne's work AND killed Mike Dyson... even if they didn't really mean to but the bad guys pretty much took care of it, even if he finished himself off. Oh well.

Humphrey
2003-Jul-02, 05:48 PM
Oh! Doh! Thanks for correcting that. It thought you ment his persoanl built in weapons. :-)

Mr. X
2003-Jul-02, 07:48 PM
Heh... well... it sure wasn't a gun made of himself...

However, a gun is a metal object, and simple, so had he made a fake gun with his arm, one that couldn't fire but had the appearance of a gun, he could have kept people at bay just by threatening them with it.

And when people get too close... BAM! He changes the gun into a knife and stabs them in the eye. Sweet. 8)

Pretty slick, no? 8)

Humphrey
2003-Jul-02, 08:05 PM
Heh... well... it sure wasn't a gun made of himself...

However, a gun is a metal object, and simple, so had he made a fake gun with his arm, one that couldn't fire but had the appearance of a gun, he could have kept people at bay just by threatening them with it.

And when people get too close... BAM! He changes the gun into a knife and stabs them in the eye. Sweet. 8)

Pretty slick, no? 8)

See what i didn't understand was why didn't he make a crossbow. It is very simple and he could use his own spikes for missles. Or just fling them out of himself. Then he would just collect it again afterwords.

Mr. X
2003-Jul-02, 08:18 PM
I think that the reason he cannot make these things is that he cannot dissociate himself of himself. It does happen in the movie, but he lost control completely of those parts. My guess is if he threw pieces of himself at people he would end up throwing soft balls of his alloy.

He looses part of his hook at some point, and the part can't do anything unless he comes near... but then again it does remain solid... :-?

My best guess it that he can't dissociate himself of himself voluntarily. Failing having any real or good explanation I'll leave it at that. :lol:

But then again... he could have made an extremely long, thin and sharp solid blade, I don't know, maybe 100 meters in length. He could have stabbed them from much farther away than he did I guess. :)

Colt
2003-Jul-02, 11:14 PM
Haven't seen the movie yet but I know alot about the other two, and the technology and stuff behind them.

Things like pistols are not simple. You could make facsimile of one but it would only be on the outside... Anyway, he couldn't have made a crossbow either since the bow would have to be very flexible yet strong and I do not think that the liquid-alloy he was composed of could do that. Something that the machines might have eventually been able to do with that stuff though is use it to make a Gauss weapon and spit little balls of L-A at people which would easily kill.

He could have also made a gun of sorts out of his L-A if he could figure out how to harden it into a tube as strong as the blades he makes. He could then just eat a box of ammo and fire the catridges down his built-in barrel. :) I think that he was the first of the line though so didn't have alot of features like cupholders. Now, the evil-lady terminator seems to have an interesting weapon. It looks like some sort of plasma cannon (from the previews at least). Any information on it in the movie?

One thing that I have never been able to figure out about the T-1000 was where does it get its power from? I think the other ones use some form of nuclear power.

Some links I've had for a while, well worth a look:
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/s.billen/resistance_hq.htm
http://www.solo.net/~jnice/index2.html

The T-70 and the T-100 actually look like something we might build. The cannon on the T-70 is too heavy though and the T-100's cannons are too exposed, no armor. Yeah.. -Colt

OscartheGrouch
2003-Jul-03, 02:10 AM
Just saw it at the theater across the street from my office. Odd how I've been here 5 months and I always tell clients and put in my ads that my office is across the street from this well-known theater and this is the first time I actually saw a movie there. Well, the first time since I moved away in 1993 ... but that's a whole other inexplicable story.

Overall T3 is a very good use of film. The vehicle chase soon after the beginning gets waaay out of hand, and there's too much magic ("in the future, machines can do thus and such physically impossible thing" instead of just whipping out a wizard staff; same difference) for my taste, and I don't quite like what they did with John Connor. They had to slip in the obligatory lines for the Governor of California--oops, Ahh-nult, I mean--not always where they fit. But give it time, and T3 will grab you like, well, a Terminator crawling through an automated factory.

Not much astronomy in T3 but lots of projectile physics and collisions. My major beef was that no matter which angle bullets struck things, and no matter what the shape of the target, ALL the bullet holes and craters were perfectly round! Maybe the squib guys never shot at cylindrical cans with a .22?

Semi-spoiler: when a certain item takes a direct hit from an RPG-7, the hole looks like any other projectile. But since the RPG-7 has a shaped-charge warhead, the hole should be small and round, and molten metal should spew out of the other side. And what about the backblast from the launcher--serious stuff.


And since I hated absolutely the main actress

Which main actress was that? Kristanna Loken (T-X) or Claire Danes (Kate Brewster)? You gotta take them for what they are. Claire was annoying at first but she comes around. Kristanna is for looking purposes (she is after all a model) and a few memorable lines. Though she is evil in the movie, in real life I'm sure she's really nice. You know, lots of personality and all that.

Humphrey
2003-Jul-03, 04:13 AM
I just saw it. I liked it. I do have to say i did not see the ending coming.


Spoilers (sort of)















During the final scene the audience was absolutely silent with their mouths open. They played it off very well making us think one thing and then realize it is another.




During the first major chase scene there rae many irregularities. T-X can take over machines with a virues that infects their computers. She taked over two cops cars, and ambulance and a firetruck. She then drives them by remote controll to go after Conner and the girl.

How? I can see the brake and gas. Some cruise controlls can do this. But the cars are seen shifting gears and steering? How does a computer controll a cop cars stering? Now i an not an expert in this. It might be the powered steering it is taking controlled of, but how does it shift into reverse and then throught thn into drive ot the different gears?

Also a giant crane is being diven by T-X herself. This crane must be made of unobtanium. The crane (not the vehicle) is held at ~ a 90 degree angle to the vheicle itself while driving. This crane is driven throught dozens of lamp poled ans treet lights. Not to mention several cars and even a entire glass front of a building with little effect!

Only after the vehicle's crane exits a building does it actually seem to feel the effect of it.

The rest of the movie seems to follow a little better. The guns are explained above.


What is the point of having a particle accelerator inside of the miloitary building? I was wondering that.




Bigtime spoiler!!!!!!












How does skynet create the supervirus and send it out into computers before it is activated?

Also i do not know buit are military computer systems actually on the internet? Wouldn't this pose a big problem to enemy hackers? I thought that they were on a tottaly sperate system. But it is mentioned that the virus had infected satelites, so they could of possibly infected the instilations that way.














end of bigtime spoiler

:-)

I gave it a 78 out of 99. The plot was thin, but good. The terminatrix does not seem ad evil as t-1000, nor as unstopable as him. I think that someone who can become the floor i am standing on is alot scarier than the woman that could be beside me. The graphics werrte amazing, even when it is obviously CG and the chase scenes were just cool. The girl was not much of an actor. Linda hamilton was better than both Conner or Kate together. The short cameo of the doctor form the T-2 was cute.


But i do have to say the funniest scene in the movie is the first time arnold puts on his glasses. :-) :lol:

Colt
2003-Jul-03, 04:34 AM
If you are talking about the scene in the previews, The Gov'ner sitting in the car wit the RPG.. That struck me as odd too. It doesn't really matter what it is made of the RPG (along with the plasma) would likely rip the T-X's arm off. There are warheads on RPGs which are basically *gasp* grenades, get it "Rocket Propelled Grenade". :wink: Good point though. I think that the recoil could be absorbed by the Terminator's chassis since it is so heavy.

Is it just me or does the T-X's endoskeleton look too sleeked down compared to the rest of the Machine's technology? -Colt

Humphrey
2003-Jul-03, 04:57 AM
The T-X's main weapon is a plasma rifle. She has otther modifications to her system like a flamethrower too.


She seems to be a combination of T-1000 and T-800 she is a exo-skeleton covered in the t-1000 stuff. No offense to any women out there, but why a woman? Would you not be able to fit larger and stronger servos into a larger male exo-skeleton? Well i can see the infiltration and psychological effects of it being a beautiful woman, but as a anti-terminator terminator (as she is supposed ot be) i think it would be more benificial to be male or male sized.

Mr. X
2003-Jul-03, 05:28 AM
**There are spoilers riddled throughout**


Things like pistols are not simple. You could make facsimile of one but it would only be on the outside...

I'm not saying he should make a pistol, I'm saying it should be a non-working pistol lookalike! I explained the purpose of it before. There's lots you can do with a gun without ever pulling the trigger or going postal on someone's rear-end.

Humphrey:

The car chase scene was my primary problem with the movie. It was a vain try to look like the truck scene of T2, with very little effect, as it was totally over the top.

The hook of the crane lifts cars and goes through a building, but the vehicle seems to suffer little to no torque, it doesn't tend to rotate at all despite the incredibly, awesome, enormous, gigantic forces at work, especially forces applied at the tip of a lever like this.

I'm not a crane specialist, but I do not believe the arm can move like that while the truck is movement like this. Judging by the size and mass the arm probably has the truck would be uncontrollable, IF it can move. I do believe that cranes like this use power from the same engine it uses to move, so my guess is it can't move at all if the crane is in operation.

The whole remote controlling cars debacle was terrible. I strongly doubt a car can turn its wheel alone, even if the power steering just makes it less difficult, not zero resistance. AFAIK cars steering is still just a direct mechanical process, not variations of angle of the steering wheel relayed to the computer, relayed to an engine that turns the "rack-pinion" ensemble. I'm not certain but I do believe the power steering cannot steer the wheel alone.

Besides where the hell does the transmitter to receive commands come from? Unless the T-X has lots and lots of time to figure out the circuit and where it would go, and install it afterwards, my guess is it can't be controlled. Even if you managed to have the time to make it "autonomous" the car still doesn't have any sensory "organs" so it probably couldn't do much without the help of something that does.

I didn't really notice the bullet holes being circular all the time (so many at once!...) I did see however some oddly shaped holes of odd color too as I remember, especially on the coffin.


One thing that I have never been able to figure out about the T-1000 was where does it get its power from?

There's more than just this wrong with this guy. Where the hell is his CPU if he has the same as the T-800? He can't make anything more complex than a blade but his poly mimetic alloy can make A MICROPROCESSOR?!

Alas he looks cool. I know it's not much consolation, but he does.

Just don't expect any T-1000 type stuff from that T-X garbage.


What is the point of having a particle accelerator inside of the miloitary building? I was wondering that.

They seem to do... research... on... stuff... so a particle accelerator just screams research, right? Right? :lol:

Seriously I too wondered what the hell the guy was talking about when he said "particle accelerator". I thought "What the hell would that be doing there, I thought they made robots and software". :lol:


Only after the vehicle's crane exits a building does it actually seem to feel the effect of it.

Which is all upside down. As soon as the tip of the crane touches the bulding you'll have to steer like a nut in the opposite direction. When it comes out you'll quickly turn in the direction you were turning so you'll have to turn like a nut the other way around. At any rate, I'm not sure the tires, axles, transmission, crane, engine could withstand that kind of abuse.


How does skynet create the supervirus and send it out into computers before it is activated?

What I still don't know, is were the two related or not? Was it just a stupid virus made by some idiot, or was it some part of the Skynet scheme?


Also i do not know buit are military computer systems actually on the internet?

Search me. :lol:


Is it just me or does the T-X's endoskeleton look too sleeked down compared to the rest of the Machine's technology?

Absolutely right Colt, it does seem way too scrawny to fit with the rest. And it does look terrible, and it just screams "MATTEL". :lol:

I guess their excuse was that it's covered with that same poly mimetic alloy, that must give it super strength! :lol:

What amazes me is that they make a big point of showing how heavy the Terminators are, and yet they hardly have an impact on the suspension of the vehicles they enter. I mean come on! A 200 pound man sitting in a pickup causes it to sway a little, not to mention a one ton man. And how the hell would that be controllable? It would be terrible, you'd have a vehicle center of gravity largely offset to front left side of the vehicle when he's driving.


It doesn't really matter what it is made of the RPG (along with the plasma) would likely rip the T-X's arm off.

It seems that in the movie it is always "excused" by that damned indestructible poly mimetic alloy, which absorbs anything and everything.


Which main actress was that? Kristanna Loken (T-X) or Claire Danes (Kate Brewster)? You gotta take them for what they are. Claire was annoying at first but she comes around. Kristanna is for looking purposes (she is after all a model) and a few memorable lines

The T-X. Annoyance is become her. Terrible actress, terrible delivery of lines and she looks terrible too (tastes I know, don't bash).


No offense to any women out there, but why a woman? Would you not be able to fit larger and stronger servos into a larger male exo-skeleton?

What I've been thinking from the start. It doesn't make any kind of sense to restrain yourself in a frame that poorly done. Small shoulders, minuscule waist, large hips, breasts, a protruding rear-end, disproportionally long legs with weak, scrawny little arms. Arnold is the frame I'd want, not that disproportionate mess. :lol:

Regardless of how you put it, and excusing myself to all females, males are the the "battle chassis" of humans, not females. They're just too pathetically weak (physically) to be able to do any serious damage.

Seems like Skynet should have understood this a good while back, and if it was pursuing a humanoid shape for a combat machine, a female build is clearly a step in the wrong direction.

I'll probably say some more about the artistic part of the film later on.

And I found something really good though, when we first saw the plane my instinct just told me "Hey to fly like this this little guy should have an engine on it's rear-end." Lo and behold it did have one! Nice I thought.

Of course it was terribly underpowered, and had a downright pathetic targeting system. Sorry for what I'm about to say, but I kept expecting a little plaque saying "Made with pride in the USA" to fall on the ground when it was destroyed. :lol:

And the T-100s (T-1s?) were funny! Talk about crap! They are the grandaddys of the HKs of the two other movies I believe.

Humphrey
2003-Jul-03, 06:44 AM
Spoilers!!









What also struck me as funny was that skynet was supposed to use the computers of the world as its initial mainframe. Kind of like Seti@home big time. (hmmm....maybe i should think about getting rid of that now, i could help end the world if i don't. :P ) Sp unless most of those computers are emp proof would not the firts blasts from the nukes wipe oput SKynet itself?


Well probobly not the entire skynet, i bet the military computers are shileded and it probobly could hide in there. But anyways, at least half of its computing power would be killed off.



The T-1's seems well useless to me too. The obviously fragile parts are well exposed in its head. One shot with a armoured piercing round and blam! Bye bye robot. Dual gatling guns are good for close in fighting, but anything beyone the streets becomes more and more useless as the range increases. Plus how does the thing reload? Once the ammo is gone, all it can do is try to run people over.

But the mini fighter jets were cool. I liked those.

Mr. X
2003-Jul-03, 06:50 AM
Once the ammo is gone, all it can do is try to run people over.

Rofl! I hadn't thought about that, the running people over thing! Funny! :lol:

It does seem too slow to me to run anything over, though.

At any rate, good idea! 8)

nebularain
2003-Jul-03, 01:50 PM
No offense to any women out there, but why a woman?

No offense taken on my part. I was annoyed with this when watching the previews. Anytime they use a female to "act as a male," it turns out bad. (Can't remember the title, but there was some pirate movie with a female lead - the chemistry of it didn't work.) Now there can be good ba-a-a-a-d females, but it only works when they keep their femininity.

SeanF
2003-Jul-03, 02:03 PM
No offense to any women out there, but why a woman?

No offense taken on my part. I was annoyed with this when watching the previews. Anytime they use a female to "act as a male," it turns out bad. (Can't remember the title, but there was some pirate movie with a female lead - the chemistry of it didn't work.) Now there can be good ba-a-a-a-d females, but it only works when they keep their femininity.

You thinking of Cutthroat Island (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0112760), with Geena Davis?

Mr. X
2003-Jul-03, 03:16 PM
Now there can be good ba-a-a-a-d females, but it only works when they keep their femininity.

No there can't. Feminity = wussiness. It can be fine anywhere else but not in an action movie. Really. :lol:

Bloody hell SeanF, are you a searching machine? :lol:

SeanF
2003-Jul-03, 03:23 PM
Bloody hell SeanF, are you a searching machine? :lol:

Well, yes, but not in this case. I actually saw Cutthroat Island in the theaters.

I've got a pretty good memory for movies that I've only read about or seen ads for, too. I remember one time a co-worker was talking about a courtroom movie she had watched on TV the previous weekend. I asked who was in it. She says, "I can't remember his name, but he's a fairly well known actor - he had a ponytail in this."

I said, "Was it James Woods?"

"Yes!"

"And was Robert Downey, Jr in it?"

"Yes."

"Was it True Believer?"

"Yes! That was it."

"I never saw that. Was it any good?"

She just gave me a WTF? kind of look . . . :D

Mr. X
2003-Jul-03, 03:28 PM
Rofl! Not bad for an old man. :lol: 8)

TimH
2003-Jul-03, 05:54 PM
But then again... he could have made an extremely long, thin and sharp solid blade, I don't know, maybe 100 meters in length. He could have stabbed them from much farther away than he did I guess. :)


T2 mini-spoilers ahead

I don't recall exactly but I am pretty sure John asks if the T-1000 can, for instance, turn into a pack of cigarettes. Ah-nold replies that the T-1000 can't change his (I guess that should be 'its') mass. 100 meters of a solid blade seems like it would require more 'stuff' (i.e. mass) than it could muster.

As for turning into a crossbow... I think you are on the right track about not being able to launch bits of itself. The scene where a hook/arm is separated from the main body is the best example of this. Although the hook remains solid, it doesn't separate by choice. Arnie shoots the T-1000 in the forearm area which forcefully breaks the connection between the T-1000 and the hook weapon.

A better question is... if the T-1000 is liquid metal with mimicking abilities.. how does it use the time machine which can only transport organic materials (or more specifically objects wrapped in living tissue)?

Another puzzler... and another T-2 spoiler...
At the end of the movie Sarah should have been able to look on either side and realized she didn't change anything. As long and John is around it should be perfectly clear that the Skynet still becomes a reality (reality in the world the move takes place).

Skynet created the time machine that the resistance used to send Reece back to 1980something to protect Sarah and the two conceived John.

If anyone somehow Skynet is destroyed or never created, no time machine, no Reece in 1980something, no wink-wink nudge-nudge between Sarah and Reece and thusly no John.

Mr. X
2003-Jul-03, 09:16 PM
A better question is... if the T-1000 is liquid metal with mimicking abilities.. how does it use the time machine which can only transport organic materials (or more specifically objects wrapped in living tissue)?

Oh crap! I never thought about that!! Good observation!

SeanF
2003-Jul-03, 09:45 PM
A better question is... if the T-1000 is liquid metal with mimicking abilities.. how does it use the time machine which can only transport organic materials (or more specifically objects wrapped in living tissue)?

Oh crap! I never thought about that!! Good observation!

IMDB (http://us.imdb.com/Goofs?0103064) has this possible suggestion:


In The Terminator, when asked why Reese had not brought a "ray gun" through the transporter, "It cannot cope with metallic objects- something to do with the field". Hence, the T-800 has an organic covering (skin & flesh). While in T2 the T-1000 is a "polymetal alloy", we didn't see it transport; it might have had an organic covering that it shed. Also, arguably, "polymetal" could be organic, and the transporter may be more sophisticated.

frenat
2003-Jul-03, 10:51 PM
Quote:
How does skynet create the supervirus and send it out into computers before it is activated?

I assumed that the T-X actually set loose the virus shortly after she arrived. One of the books that is out there has something similar. Yeah it introduces continuity problems but so what?

and as for
Quote:
A better question is... if the T-1000 is liquid metal with mimicking abilities.. how does it use the time machine which can only transport organic materials (or more specifically objects wrapped in living tissue)?

I think the metal takes on the properties of whatever it is mimicking.

freddo
2003-Jul-04, 02:20 AM
A better question is... if the T-1000 is liquid metal with mimicking abilities.. how does it use the time machine which can only transport organic materials (or more specifically objects wrapped in living tissue)?

Oh crap! I never thought about that!! Good observation!

IMDB (http://us.imdb.com/Goofs?0103064) has this possible suggestion:


In The Terminator, when asked why Reese had not brought a "ray gun" through the transporter, "It cannot cope with metallic objects- something to do with the field". Hence, the T-800 has an organic covering (skin & flesh). While in T2 the T-1000 is a "polymetal alloy", we didn't see it transport; it might have had an organic covering that it shed. Also, arguably, "polymetal" could be organic, and the transporter may be more sophisticated.

I think you're all spending too much time trying to explain a plot device that ensured that Arnie first appeared on screen BUTT NAKED...

Same old story.

Colt
2003-Jul-04, 07:18 AM
Things like pistols are not simple. You could make facsimile of one but it would only be on the outside...

I'm not saying he should make a pistol, I'm saying it should be a non-working pistol lookalike!

That is why I said a facsimile on the outside. :wink:

I actually like how the T-100 looks (looking at pictures on that site I linked earlier). It may have been intended orginally for urban combat, street fighting. It would also probably be able to raise up on its treads to traverse rougher terrain. Its head is more durable than a humans. It can probably take rifle shots with no problem. If I designed it it would have backup sensors in the base so it could find its way around in the unlikely chance the head's sensors are destroyed. :P My only problem with it is the exposed gun and ammunition chute.

The minigun used in T2. (http://www.montysminiguns.com/TermPage.htm)

-Colt

kucharek
2003-Jul-04, 07:23 AM
IMDB (http://us.imdb.com/Goofs?0103064) has this possible suggestion:

[quote]In The Terminator, when asked why Reese had not brought a "ray gun" through the transporter, "It cannot cope with metallic objects- something to do with the field". Hence, the T-800 has an organic covering (skin & flesh). While in T2 the T-1000 is a "polymetal alloy", we didn't see it transport; it might have had an organic covering that it shed. Also, arguably, "polymetal" could be organic, and the transporter may be more sophisticated.

So, why didn't brought these guys a big suitcase wrapped with steaks with them? Okay, okay, plot device, plot device...

But in general, I'm often annoyed in SF movies (happens mainly in ST), that some physical effects make big differences between organic/living and non-organic stuff.

Mr. X
2003-Jul-04, 05:10 PM
Ok. Lots of questions, so I brought out my Extreme Edition with metal box DVD of T2 and looked at it again. 8)

--Begin Dialogue--

T-800: It can take the shape of anything it touches.
Connor: Why not disguise itself as a pack of cigarettes... blah blah blah.
T-800: It can only assume the shape of an object of equal size

(Notice he doesn't say mass, he says size, go figure. It would make much more sense if he said mass, but then again wouldn't that mean he could create a supermassive cigarette pack lookalike?)

Connor: So why not a bomb... blah blah blah.
T-800: Bombs and guns have moving parts and chemicals. It doesn't work that way.

(Ok, moving parts are out, so guns, crossbows, slingshots and Burger King children's toys are out. Chemicals are out too. If chemicals are out it must mean that
I think the metal takes on the properties of whatever it is mimicking. is false. If it can't become any chemical then it stays mimetic poly alloy.)

--End Dialogue--


I actually like how the T-100 looks (looking at pictures on that site I linked earlier). It may have been intended orginally for urban combat, street fighting. It would also probably be able to raise up on its treads to traverse rougher terrain. Its head is more durable than a humans. It can probably take rifle shots with no problem.

I thought it looked crummy a little, very low tech, and not to mention that godawful targeting system.

I'm sure it's not too bad, it's just that it was confronted to a far superior machine (the T-800) that could probably just shrug off hits of its miniguns.

SeanF
2003-Jul-04, 05:12 PM
I think you're all spending too much time trying to explain a plot device that ensured that Arnie first appeared on screen BUTT NAKED...

Same old story.

Actually it was a plot device that prevented the filmmakers from having to produce futuristic equipment. With the organic-only limit on the transporter, everybody had to use modern, available-everywhere guns and clothing. :)

Humphrey
2003-Jul-04, 05:52 PM
I think you're all spending too much time trying to explain a plot device that ensured that Arnie first appeared on screen BUTT NAKED...

Same old story.

Actually it was a plot device that prevented the filmmakers from having to produce futuristic equipment. With the organic-only limit on the transporter, everybody had to use modern, available-everywhere guns and clothing. :)
Wait a second! They had laser guns when they showed the future!

Colt
2003-Jul-04, 07:47 PM
(Ok, moving parts are out, so guns, crossbows, slingshots and Burger King children's toys are out. Chemicals are out too. If chemicals are out it must mean that
I think the metal takes on the properties of whatever it is mimicking. is false. If it can't become any chemical then it stays mimetic poly alloy.)
I was thinking last night about how it might mimic humans:smell, sweat, etc. Perhaps it (in infiltration mode) can consume organic materials and its nanomachines (that is what I think it is) produces sweat and the like and then extrudes it.



I thought it looked crummy a little, very low tech, and not to mention that godawful targeting system. Could you please explain about the targeting system? And of course it would look low-tech compared to the T-800. :wink:



I'm sure it's not too bad, it's just that it was confronted to a far superior machine (the T-800) that could probably just shrug off hits of its miniguns.

I actually think that those might be 20MM cannons meant for aircraft. Bah.. Now I have to find out which they are, the things I do for you guys. :P Well, if it is the 20MM cannon it is the M61 and I'm pretty sure the 20MM cannons fire DU and explosive rounds. Lots of damage. If not, they are M134s, .30"/7.62 caliber. I would need to see it with a human next to it since the pictures I can find aren't that good. :-? I have to see this movie, damnit..


Happy Fourth of July to the Americans! :)

Forgot to add, those are Phased Plasma Rifles, not lasers. There is apparently a laser component to it but just to vaporize air. http://www.goingfaster.com/term2029/termweapons.html -Colt

Mr. X
2003-Jul-04, 07:59 PM
Wait a second! They had laser guns when they showed the future!

AND YOU COULD SEE THE BEAMS! OH! SO TERRIBLE! :lol:
So they're plasma. So we can see them. Oh well. :lol:


Actually it was a plot device that prevented the filmmakers from having to produce futuristic equipment. With the organic-only limit on the transporter, everybody had to use modern, available-everywhere guns and clothing.

Quite so. Can you imagine back in 1984, and with 1984 technology, how much time the movie would have taken to be made had the Terminator walked around as his usual form? The movie would still be in production. And the initial 6 million dollars budget for the first one (You read right, 6 millions) would have been insufficient. Hell, 10 times that wouldn't have been enough in 1984. And it would have looked totally unconvincing too, you just have to look how the stripped Terminator moves at the end of the first movie. Terrible.

Plus having the Terminator covered in flesh allows us to have an actor (although it doesn't explain why the T-800 has a very strong Austrian accent :lol:), and it allows it the benefit of infiltration. ad he walked around "naked" he would probably be forced to "Terminate" whoever saw him, resulting in one huge mess. The movie wouldn't have any story, just the whole army shooting like nuts and being unable to do any kind of damage (which would, ironically, be a pretty cool looking movie actually! At least it would get my money in theatres.)

And having him not as a machine in the first would automatically place Sarah Connor as "sane", permit an organized resistance, and disallow Skynet existance. Now we wouldn't want that, would we?

Colt:

The gun on the T-100 (T-1?) is large enough so that Ah-nuld can use it by hand. (He rips the robot apart and uses it to blast the other one away).

Humphrey
2003-Jul-04, 08:22 PM
I was surprised that they have not yet shown who the T-800 gets its model from. I am waiting for a Arnold Cameo to come on saying that he is not a robot, but human. Then to have him taken by the machined to be copied.

Mr. X
2003-Jul-04, 08:52 PM
That's definitely a surprising thing from the movies: In the first one we are shown an infiltrator that is totally different from Arnold. It would make sense, as otherwise infiltrators could be spotted easily ("He looks like Arnold! Kill him!"). He also says that there were plastic ones before but dogs could easily spot them, so I don't know if the one we see is a plastic one or an Arnold-like one.

The fact is though, that in the movies the T-800 infiltrator is 3 times identical. Sort of stupid. It would be like the FBI sending covert agents that are all alike. Once you've found one...

I don't think skynet actually has victims ripped of their flesh and put on T-800s. For one thing they'd have some huge scars.

Regardless I feel that you could probably spot an infiltrator if he was standing beside you, as a one ton person definitely makes some different vibrations on the ground, that a human certainly can't make.

And at points in the movie (T2) in the extended version, we can see the T-800s chip. When the chip is removed, he's stuck in some sort of mid rigid-limp position, and when John Connor moves him, you can really hear the motors grinding inside. I'd guess an infiltrator also produces some noise like that, so anyone with a little more audition than deaf could probably easily spot them. Not to mention dogs. :)

Musashi
2003-Jul-04, 10:28 PM
I'm pretty sure the 20MM cannons fire DU and explosive rounds. Lots of damage.

Could be the guns that the A-10 Warthog has. Those are meant to destroy tanks. I think they would tear up a T-101, but the TX took an RPG as if it was nothing, so I don't know how effective it would be against the poly-mimetic alloy. Of course, anything organic wouldn't stand a chance!

Mr. X
2003-Jul-04, 11:27 PM
I'm sure it could cause some damage to a T-800...

If it can damage the T-800 it can probably damage the T-X. Even if that damn alloy seems to absorb everything.

Only the T-1000 would probably laugh if it was able to... you have to reload SOMETIME! 8)

By watching T2 again I noticed the T-800 said the T-1000 was an "advanced prototype". It probably means there won't be these things running around everywhere, and hopefully there are only a handful of them, or better yet, none anymore...

Looking at stuff on the DVD, it appears that the T-1000 is manufactured as a "bar" of metal. A tall, rather thick, bar. It then seems to assume a basic, nondescript humanoid shape, meaning 2 arms, 2 legs, a torso that looks a little human and a very very vague face, no hair, no features. Even its eyes look like simple cavities, no mouth as I remember. Of course it has that gray metallic color.

Just thought it was an interesting tidbit of information. 8)

And why do T-800s have teeth? And white ones at that too? Simple metallic blades could do the trick just fine if it wanted to bite. :)

It even has molars... maybe they're herbivores. :)

Colt
2003-Jul-04, 11:57 PM
Don't you guys ever follow links? :roll:

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/s.billen/resistance_hq.htm
http://www.goingfaster.com/term2029/technicaldata.html

The first link is the better of the two regarding Terminator models, IMO. It is the one which I have been looking at the T-100 pictures on. :) Both give information about the Terminator universe.

The guns are most likely M134s or some other variant then. Still could do damage since most of the time they fire armor piercing ammunition.. And Arnold wouldn't have been able to rip one's gun off and use it unless he dragged its power unit around with him and then held two wires together to power the cannon. That scene in T2 where he shoots all of the cars.. Not possible. :P That is a movie prop. He would have to have a generator or powerpack for it which we don't have even now (one that is man-portable at least).

Sorry Musashi but that is totally impossible, and this is why: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/attack/a6/a10arm-3.jpg

They have teeth because otherwise they would not look like skulls. -Colt

Musashi
2003-Jul-05, 02:07 AM
Colt, link didn't work, but I can guess that the A-10 cannon is probably too big... I was going to check on that before I posted, but then I got lazy. As far as Arnold ripping the gun off, he just pulled it off of the T-1, but then he stood right there and fired it. He didn't take the gun anywhere. I think there were still wires attached.

Colt
2003-Jul-05, 06:42 AM
Their entire site doesn't seem to be working right now so try to tomorrow I guess.

I was thinking about the No Dead Stuff Rule for the Time Displacement Device. Maybe it was created before Skynet took over, started as teleportation or something. This might explain why only living things can go through. The experimental model needed a bio-electric field to lock onto for the teleportation. Skynet captured it and found the time travel aspect of it but could not improve the lock on. Just my thoughts. -Colt

Mr. X
2003-Jul-05, 04:04 PM
Problem is, Colt, that as I recall it's humans that raided and captured SkyNet's temporal displacement facility, sent Kyle Reese back through time and blew it up as I remember.

From GameSpot:


The story of the game serves as a prequel to the Terminator movies and follows the events leading up to the first film. The setting is a war-torn postnuclear world in which cities have been reduced to rubble and the human population is near extinction at the hands of a cybernetic menace. John Connor is the leader of the human rebellion, and you must help him reach the time machine that brings Kyle Reese--Michael Biehn's character from the first film--into the past to protect Sarah Connor, John's own mother. During the game, you play as one of three characters, including Kyle Reese.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/terminatordawnoffate/review.html

I've seen more detailed stuff about the story than Gamespot's ramblings, and the temporal displacement facility is really Skynet's.

Musashi
2003-Jul-05, 05:42 PM
Colt, the link works now! Well, there go my plans for adding an Avenger to my '56 VW! :D

Mr. X
2003-Jul-05, 06:00 PM
Well... what's keeping you? That certainly hasn't changed MY plans!

It could certainly look cool! Truck wheels, superstrong axles, a strong suspension, and a titanium frame and you'd be set!

Don't forget to add neons under the VW though. And spoilers. Lots of spoilers.

And it would certainly look better on a Honda Civic SiR! :)

nebularain
2003-Jul-06, 04:00 AM
Just saw the movie. For what it's worth, after hearing all the negative reviews, I actually liked the movie; although, I still would have preferred a male terminator, as before - but then again, it would have lost something with the fight scene in the bathroom. (Eat urnal, T-X! :lol: ) And as ridiculous as the chase scene was, I thought it was an absolute riot!

I did find one piece of astronomy in the movie: a picture on the wall of one of the U.S.'s early space travels (capsule in space, or something like that).

As far as the ending . . .

DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU DO NOT WANT AN EARLY GLIPSE OF THE ENDING:

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

How else could it have ended? Really?

Humphrey
2003-Jul-06, 04:29 AM
As far as the ending . . .

DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU DO NOT WANT AN EARLY GLIPSE OF THE ENDING:

*
[snip]

How else could it have ended? Really?



Spoilers















True, but i still did not expect it. What was the reaction of your audience?


Now Skynet must of known that Connor would of hidden underneath that mountain right? So why didn't it proigram T-X to reprogram Skynet to send a few nukes over to the bunkar? She did have time to send a virus into the computer. She is seen inside the base before the heroes get there. One indirect nuke might of grazed the bunker, but a few direct ones would of blasted it to bits.

Mr. X
2003-Jul-06, 05:14 AM
Just saw the movie. For what it's worth, after hearing all the negative reviews, I actually liked the movie; although, I still would have preferred a male terminator, as before - but then again, it would have lost something with the fight scene in the bathroom. (Eat urnal, T-X! :lol: ) And as ridiculous as the chase scene was, I thought it was an absolute riot!

I'm assuming you meant "urinal". :lol:

It's a nice movie. I thought the chase scene was just plain bad. Nonsensical to the extreme. And the movie borrowed way too much from T2 anyway.

The bar to get his clothes?
The truck chasing a smaller vehicle?
The gas grenades?
The lone stand versus the police?
The huge machinegun versus the police?
The "second life" of the destroyed T-800? (Alternate power path found! (From T2) )
The tough female? (was his mom in T2) BTW that one is a wuss compared to Sarah Connor.

It was all copied, but just not as good... or fresh this time around. Didn't have that James Cameron feel to it either. I miss that. :cry:

Would it have been so tough for skynet to just send another T-800 instead of that T-X garbage? At least it would have made some nice fights. What about Skynet thinking of sending more than one?

Ugh!



I did find one piece of astronomy in the movie: a picture on the wall of one of the U.S.'s early space travels (capsule in space, or something like that).

Was that in the old guy's office?



As far as the ending . . .

DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU DO NOT WANT AN EARLY GLIPSE OF THE ENDING:

How else could it have ended? Really?

Uh... Skynet really has a core, but they were willingly misdirected so they survived as there was no hope of every getting through to Skynet's core? It certainly wasn't necessary to pretend there is no core... seems like a wacky decision anyway.


One indirect nuke might of grazed the bunker, but a few direct ones would of blasted it to bits.

For the record I don't think guidance systems can manage to land a few missiles in the exact same crater. Seems doubtful that it's possible. Over these distances and complex operations (wind, friction, varying mass, varying center of gravity, varying thrust ) it's doubtful that nuclear missiles have a very precise point of impact.

At any rate, isn't it called a weapon of "mass destruction"? There's no point in having a very very precise point of impact. That's why there are precise weapons for precise strikes against precise targets, i.e. bunker bombs.

What I don't know is if Skynet could have ordered air force bombers to use bunker bombs to blow it up before it actually went through its idea of "Judgement Day".

snowcolt
2003-Jul-06, 06:32 AM
I just saw the movie, have to say I was disappointed. It had all the kick *** action, but forgot about the soul of the movie. I never felt attached to the characters like I did the first two. I wanted to comment on the technical aspect, but you guys have already come up with way more then I could see.

Mr. X
2003-Jul-06, 06:52 AM
I never felt attached to the characters like I did the first two.

That's very true. I could care less if John, that idiot woman with him and the idiotic woman's daddy died.

I always felt kinda sorry for the T-800, even in the first movie.

Then again I always feel sorry for machines. I can't stand people injuring machines, it drives me nuts.

Musashi
2003-Jul-06, 07:07 AM
I have been thinking about it, and for a movie called Rise of the Machines, I was really hoping for more Machine Rising action. I actually really liked the ending.

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS











Maybe I am sick or something, but I kept thinking they were going to pull through at the end and disable Skynet, and I was disappointed. I was happy when they got to the shelter and there was no way to stop the destruction of mankind. I thought this one was going to like the first two, where man wins the day. Disclaimer: I do not actually want the world to end in nukyular war. I just felt it was appropriate for this set of movies.

Mr. X
2003-Jul-06, 02:48 PM
Maybe I am sick or something, but I kept thinking they were going to pull through at the end and disable Skynet, and I was disappointed.

No, you're not sick. It's what the whole movie leads us to believe. We're not really tricked nicely, it's just lack of information that causes us to believe that.

The T-800 leads them there... he should have been more straightforward... why didn't he just say it was impossible to destroy Skynet at this point in time, or prevent Judgment Day, and not because it was difficult to get to Skynet, but because it was a physical impossibility. I'm not really used to emotionless machines lying... aside from that Maple Software :lol: (What a great piece of harmful code... sheer frustration led me to do a 50 page differential equations assignment by hand entirely.) .

It did feel right that it ended that way, actually. But it was a happy ending nonetheless. John AND the woman survived. They could have at least killed off the woman, sabotaging the resistance a little further.

And I just remembered something... Very approximative... "He was terminated due to his [some thing I don't remember] with the model of Terminator he encoutered when he was young." That's sorta strange... does it mean he... loves... the T-800s? I mean he has a wife...

nebularain
2003-Jul-06, 06:36 PM
True, but i still did not expect it. What was the reaction of your audience?

Oh, it was indeed unexpected. I was just trying to figure out why the movie got such bad reviews, and I had heard the suggestiong from elsewhere that it was because the ending was rather a let down. I thought it made more sense in the scheme of things that it had to end that way.

SPOILER

*


*


*

Can we say "Base of Operations?"

*


*


*


*

But I guess Mr. X answered the question of why the movie was a let down. I have only seen T2 once, and it was many years ago, so I was not able to see the parallels. Although the alteration of the bar was comical. (Mismatch . . . Mismatch . . . . Inappropriate(!) )

Oh, well, I still found it fun to watch, and I laughed myself silly. But snowcolt is correct about the lack of emotional attachment to the characters. That was a bummer, come to think of it.


And I just remembered something... Very approximative... "He was terminated due to his [some thing I don't remember] with the model of Terminator he encoutered when he was young." That's sorta strange... does it mean he... loves... the T-800s? I mean he has a wife...

That missing part was "emotional attachment." Remember, in T2, the Terminator became like a father to John, the only "father" her ever knew. That's what he meant.

BTW, the picture I mentioned was in the mountain, I do believe.

nebularain
2003-Jul-06, 06:38 PM
True, but i still did not expect it. What was the reaction of your audience?

Oh, it was indeed unexpected. I was just trying to figure out why the movie got such bad reviews, and I had heard the suggestiong from elsewhere that it was because the ending was rather a let down. I thought it made more sense in the scheme of things that it had to end that way.

SPOILER

*


*


*


*


*


*


*


Can we say "Base of Operations?"


*


*


*


*

But I guess Mr. X answered the question of why the movie was a let down. I have only seen T2 once, and it was many years ago, so I was not able to see the parallels. Although the alteration of the bar was comical. (Mismatch . . . Mismatch . . . . Inappropriate(!) )

Oh, well, I still found it fun to watch, and I laughed myself silly. But snowcolt is correct about the lack of emotional attachment to the characters. That was a bummer, come to think of it.


And I just remembered something... Very approximative... "He was terminated due to his [some thing I don't remember] with the model of Terminator he encoutered when he was young." That's sorta strange... does it mean he... loves... the T-800s? I mean he has a wife...

That missing part was "emotional attachment." Remember, in T2, the Terminator became like a father to John, the only "father" her ever knew. That's what he meant.

BTW, the picture I mentioned was in the mountain, I do believe.

Mr. X
2003-Jul-06, 06:46 PM
So John is going to go nuts, reprogram T-800s to be like the one he knew and call them "daddy"?

John: Daddy?
T-800: John?
John: Papa!

That doesn't really sound like the machine-hating battle hardened John Connor of T2... :P

Colt
2003-Jul-06, 07:20 PM
*beats head against desk* Must.. see... movie! I think it is driving me nuts. :-? -Colt

Mr. X
2003-Jul-06, 07:26 PM
Your pain is amusing to me.

If you bang your head more and harder, you'll forget you haven't seen it. :lol:

Why don't you just go see the movie? Sounds like a plan, doesn't it?

Of course, since I wanted to put salt on the wound, I'm just going to say:

What kind of Terminator fan HASN'T seen the movie yet!? The whole planet has seen it! Even Nebularain :wink: has seen it!

I guess whoever hasn't seen it yet decidedly isn't that much of a hardcore fan... probably not even an any kind of "core" fan. :D :D

That should keep you banging for a while! :D
Can you spell "T-O-R-T-U-R-E"? :D

TriangleMan
2003-Jul-06, 07:36 PM
What kind of Terminator fan HASN'T seen the movie yet!? The whole planet has seen it! Even Nebularain :wink: has seen it!

Heck Colt even I've seen it and look where I live! :P :)

Mr. X
2003-Jul-06, 07:37 PM
Heck Colt even I've seen it and look where I live! :P :)

Oooh! That had to hurt! :P :)

Colt
2003-Jul-06, 08:04 PM
Yeah, yeah. You can all go off and have yourselves shot. :wink: Unfortunately circumstances have not allowed me to see it. I could have seen it yesterday but those afore-mentioned circumstances keep intervening.

I did rent the T2 Extreme DVD last night (I'm going to buy it when I get my paycheck) and watched it without any commentary (going to watch the interactive mode later). Having never seen the extra footage it was pretty cool. :) The extra footage shows how badly damaged the T-1000 really was by the liquid nitrogen and reheat.

And not a fan? I have the T2 theme song/beat playing on my computer right now. If anyone knows its name I would like to know, the copy I found of it just says "T2 - theme". -Colt

Mr. X
2003-Jul-06, 08:35 PM
On the soundtrack it's written as "Main Title (Terminator Theme)" by Brad Fiedel.

I do own the DVD you speak of. :D

And I've seen T3. Which makes ME more of a fan! :lol:

Humphrey
2003-Jul-06, 11:31 PM
Since Connor now knows that the t-800 will kill him in the future, why doesen't he just avoid any terminators from now on? All he has to do is program the first two. Let others do the dirty work of making it safe.

The mountain bunker will definitely be the new base of operations. They even gave a little hint of it in the last scene. But in reality, would an ancient bunker from the 60's or 70's be able to communicate with more modern bunkers? Or are the only survivors the only ones who could find ancient hidden bunkers that are not on the "active" map that skynet must have?

I think the second makes sense. Why would the computer waste nukes on disabled bunkers?



This gives me another thought, why doesen't Skynet just pollute the atmosphere or nuke a bunch of places. They don't have to worry about radiation damage to DNA. They are machines.

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Jul-07, 12:02 AM
<spoilers>

Hey, why dd the abandoned bunker still have power? Eh? Eh? If it was abandoned, it stands to reason that the power would go out.

Also, at the end when the nukes are falling, why did the entire missile hit? Didn't they know how ICBMs work? They drop warheads from orbit, they don't slam into things!

Also (not really bad science, just a slip-up) after they stop at the gas station, Arnie rips out the crowbar holding the doors of the truck shut and throws it away. But then, as they are driving away from the camera, the crowbar is back! Magical crowbar?

Also, Arnie is powered by 2 fuel cells. He pulls one out. Later, the second one is pulled out for him, but he keeps going. WHY?

</spoilers>

As you can tell, I just saw it today :wink:

frenat
2003-Jul-07, 12:42 AM
As for why he kept moving after pulling out the second power cell, maybe some emergency power or capacitors?

Also you guys might want to check out T2: Infiltrator, Rising Storm, and Future War by S.M. Stirling. They have to do with and Infiltrator unit that was sent back to ensure Skynet's survival. The twist is the Infiltrator is a human grown in a lab with some extra chips enhancing brain power, strength, etc. Undetectable by dogs but also more vulnerable. She is sent back and ends up working with the military as a programmer. Sarah and John meet up with a man that looks like a teminator but is human. Supposedly the template for the T-800 we have all come to know and love. Also one of the programmers that teaches Skynet to recognize speach is an Austrian bigot that the Infiltrator recognizes as the "voice" of Skynet. Also mentioned are automated munitions factories for the military that Skynet was part of before becoming completely self-aware. I thought the author did a very good job filling in the holes. Seemed to be a better story than T-3. I haven't read the third one (future war) yet but it is on reserve at the local library.

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Jul-07, 12:53 AM
T-800? In the movie, don't they call him a T-101? What's going on?

Mr. X
2003-Jul-07, 12:59 AM
Hey, why dd the abandoned bunker still have power? Eh? Eh? If it was abandoned, it stands to reason that the power would go out.

Uh... ok... so it does. Isn't the point of a bunker to survive in case everything else doesn't? Shouldn't it have its own power, supplies, etc. Especially if it's built to protect the President of the United States. So maybe it still does have power 30 years later.


As for why he kept moving after pulling out the second power cell, maybe some emergency power or capacitors?

I'd be more inclined to think about another "emergency" battery, similar but much smaller and with lots lower capacity, maybe a few hours, in case a unit's main power system gets disabled.


Also (not really bad science, just a slip-up) after they stop at the gas station, Arnie rips out the crowbar holding the doors of the truck shut and throws it away. But then, as they are driving away from the camera, the crowbar is back! Magical crowbar?

Didn't see that one! Funny! :lol:


Also, at the end when the nukes are falling, why did the entire missile hit? Didn't they know how ICBMs work? They drop warheads from orbit, they don't slam into things!

Ah... oops? Didn't see that, all I saw were smoke trails I believe.


T-800? In the movie, don't they call him a T-101? What's going on?

Heh... they were called Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 in Terminator and T2... they're also called T-800. :P

To be annoyingly technical, the one from T3 isn't a Cyberdyne anymore, as Cyberdyne Systems and Miles Benett Dyson went bye bye in T2. So you probably shouldn't call the one from T3 a Cyberdyne Systems Model 101. :P

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Jul-07, 01:40 AM
Even if the power systems were there, they were already on! Surely after 30 some odd years, the power source would be depleted. Unless it was nuclear. But that requires supervision. Also, it's just not cost-effective to leave everything running...

And the missiles: You don't actually see the missiles, just contrails with a flame at the front that looks a lot like exhaust from a missile. Also, some of the missiles are following parabolic trajectories from the ground back to the ground. Hard to do that from orbit! :P

Mr. X
2003-Jul-07, 04:25 AM
Even if the power systems were there, they were already on! Surely after 30 some odd years, the power source would be depleted. Unless it was nuclear. But that requires supervision. Also, it's just not cost-effective to leave everything running...

**very hypothetical**
Maybe the thing just started as they came in. There's no need for it to be on all the time. Maybe when the door closes it lights up.
**end very hypothetical**

Besides, what was on? A few lights and a radio. Big deal, it's not all that much power. Odds are the elevator motor wasn't actually doing anything before then. How much current does a military radio and a few lightbulbs take?

Ok... making a few calculations...

Ok... so... uh... well... it... I guess it would be possible... maybe... to run on batteries all this time... yeah...

It's possible to stockpile 309 389 car batteries? Right? Right?

So it would take approximately 8 353 m^3 to house these batteries.

And I didn't include the radio in this yet.

Ok so you win. This time.

Must have been nuclear.

I didn't see the missiles doing this. However what I saw I thought that the explosions weren't right in proportions with respect to the earth. Way too big I thought.

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Jul-07, 04:30 AM
I thought so too. Yikes! One looks like it could take out half of New Zealand! And I assure you that the missiles weren't fired correctly. Unless they were cruise missiles.

No, they weren't cruising and you see them launch from silos. Oh well.

Musashi
2003-Jul-07, 05:18 AM
Humphrey wrote:


This gives me another thought, why doesen't Skynet just pollute the atmosphere or nuke a bunch of places. They don't have to worry about radiation damage to DNA. They are machines.

That brings to mind the Animatrix: The Second Renaissance (part 2 mostly). When I was watching that I thought it could apply really well to the Terminator series. Acutally, I was expecting more of a Second Renaissanse Part II feel for T3.

Mr. X
2003-Jul-07, 06:46 PM
I thought so too. Yikes! One looks like it could take out half of New Zealand! And I assure you that the missiles weren't fired correctly. Unless they were cruise missiles.

No, they weren't cruising and you see them launch from silos. Oh well.

Uh... half of New-Zealand? Try one quarter of the United States! :lol:

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Jul-07, 08:52 PM
I'm averaging between the scene where the city is destroyed by a smaller nuke and the scene at the end with the Uber nukes. :wink:

Mr. X
2003-Jul-07, 09:54 PM
Uber nukes

You mean the 10 billion teraton blasts? :lol:

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Jul-07, 10:46 PM
Those're the ones!

Mr. X
2003-Jul-08, 06:16 AM
Those're the ones!

I got one in my basement, want to see it? :lol:

Musashi
2003-Jul-08, 06:22 AM
I got one in my basement, want to see it?

That reminds me of something that happened to me last week. I was working on a house and the owner works for the FBI. We got to talking about guns and I said, I wish I could own an MP-5 (the HK MP-5 is the best sub-machine gun in the world!).

Him, "Well, I've got one in my car, wanna see it?"

Me, jaw drops...,"OK"

Suffice it to say, I was quite impressed with it. First time I've seen one in real life.

MP5 link (http://www.hkpro.com/mp5.htm)

Humphrey
2003-Jul-08, 05:18 PM
Mr. X. I will trade one of your Uber nukes for two of my Super Fusion bombs.

The advantage of my Super Fusion bombs is that they each fit into a lunchbox for easy delivery to the hostile alien spaceship of your choice.

Plus if anyone wants one i have a gigantic intelegent and self aware supercomputer for sale. The only rule is to never let it connect itself to the net (man does that thing like porn). But the downside is that it has the permanent voice of Woody Allen.

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Jul-08, 08:34 PM
:o Ugh. You're better off selling it for scrap.

Mr. X
2003-Jul-09, 02:48 PM
Agreed! I'll trade you my uber nuke for your two fusion bombs and the Woody Allen/Porn lover computer! :)

I can always make more uber nukes anyway. :D

Humphrey
2003-Jul-09, 07:28 PM
Done, meet me at you know where and you know when. :-$

logicboy
2003-Jul-10, 06:44 PM
Spoilers






If Skynet was using all the machines on the internet what happens when you drop LARGE BOMBS! on every city. The power would shut off. The machines would need some kind of stanging point in order to take over the world.

Humphrey
2003-Jul-10, 06:49 PM
Spoilers






If Skynet was using all the machines on the internet what happens when you drop LARGE BOMBS! on every city. The power would shut off. The machines would need some kind of stanging point in order to take over the world.

Well many of the military mainframes are shielded against EMP effects and have their own power sources. If Skynet virus can hold out in these machines and use the automated plants to build more machines it could concievably regain poer.

It does have time on its hands since the surface of the planet will be inhabitable is several large areas for several years.

Musashi
2003-Jul-10, 10:35 PM
... it could concievably regain poer

They might even be able to regain power!

Sorry, couldn't resist. And, I am the last people that should be picking on other peoples' spelling mistakes! :D http://www.iepema.nl/leerling/sm/pirat2.gif

Humphrey
2003-Jul-11, 01:54 AM
... it could concievably regain poer

They might even be able to regain power!

Sorry, couldn't resist. And, I am the last people that should be picking on other peoples' spelling mistakes! :D http://www.iepema.nl/leerling/sm/pirat2.gif


Don't worry. I am just worried that my spelling teacher has not been doing his job lately. :(

r0ck3t
2003-Jul-14, 09:01 PM
I will attempt to show restraint in this posting. :D It's only a movie after all.

Why bother nitpicking a movie like this when the basic storyline contains a paradox of such gigantic proportions. I don't remeber if this is true or not. I'm sure someone here will clarify.

In a discussion with several friends, it was brought up that the guy who Conners sent back in the first place to save his mother turned out to be his farther. This is basically an impossibility, as John Conners would not have existed in the first place to send anyone anywhere. Ugh.

Oh, and if I could get a 150-ton crane moving 40 or 50 mph I could probably drive through anything I wanted to. I don't know about rotating the turrent while driving, but I do know the boom is designed to minimize its weight, so it's seems pretty unlikely that the base would tip over. Otherwise it wouldn't be very useful as a crane would it (and the extensions that come out of the sides are mainly there for stability, not necessarily to hold the entire rig upright)?

Also, I don't understand why people have such a problem with a female terminator. It makes sense that if you want to send an assasin to kill someone, where the target will certainly see the assassin, you do not want the assassin to be percieved as a threat. As someone mentioned earlier, men are generally regarded to be the "battle machines" of the human species, therefore, most people would generally perceive a woman to be less threatining.

Unless she were my wife, who can be threatining when she feels like it. She plays football (soccer) with a team full of men (and one other woman) in a local co-ed soccer league. I think there are only 6 or so women in the league. I would consider her to be fairly tough. I know she's run over me a few times when we have kicked the ball around.

Humphrey
2003-Jul-14, 09:06 PM
The problem with the crane was that it was running throught things with no loss of momentum of showing of the effects of ramming stuff. ITs like the scene in Speed 2 with the boat ramming the dock. IT is uneffected when it should of been.


The main beef i had with the Female terminator is that it makes more sense to make a male terminator. You can fit larger aservois, more power cells, and stronger componenets in it. A female terminator is smaller, sleeker. She will inherantly be weaker than the male terminator.

A female as an infiltrator makes sense. Of course. But as a weapon to kill terminators (as it is claimed she is) does not make sense.

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Jul-14, 09:17 PM
What I don't get is why when she cut into the particle accelerator gas came out. Isn't it a vacuum inside so that the particles they shoot around don't get fouled up?

nebularain
2003-Jul-14, 09:20 PM
I got it figured out what the beef is.

Terminator 1 (what was it, T-101 or T-800?) - filled you with fear :o



Terminator 2 (T-1000) - filled you with nightmares :o :o :o



Terminator 3 (whatever the model is called) - :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Musashi
2003-Jul-15, 12:08 AM
I think it's called a TX. :D

captain swoop
2003-Jul-15, 11:49 AM
the Woody Allen/Porn lover computer!


orgasmotron?

r0ck3t
2003-Jul-15, 03:41 PM
The main beef i had with the Female terminator is that it makes more sense to make a male terminator. You can fit larger aservois, more power cells, and stronger componenets in it. A female terminator is smaller, sleeker. She will inherantly be weaker than the male terminator.

A female as an infiltrator makes sense. Of course. But as a weapon to kill terminators (as it is claimed she is) does not make sense.

Before we talk size, let's talk male vs. female. In the reality of the movie, the T-X is neither male nor female. It merely looks like a female most of the time in this movie. Remember at one point it does look like the fiance. Since this particular T-X was sent back in time to assassinate several of Conner's lieutenants, it makes sense for it to take on the form of a female, which naturally disarms it's targets (as discussed before). The T-X did take on the form of a male when it was necessary. I don't know why it reverted to the female form after that; you'll have to ask the directors. It really doesn't matter anyway.

You will have to come up with a better argument than size against an outward appearance of a female. Granted the T-X did look slimmer and slightly smaller without it's nano covering, but that does not make it inherently less powerful. As most technology progresses it becomes smaller, computers for instance. In the 1960's a computer equivilant in power to your desktop would have taken up several rooms, if not an entire building. I'm sure the robot's technology had sufficiently advanced to pack more power into a smaller frame.

nebularain
2003-Jul-15, 03:52 PM
You will have to come up with a better argument than size against an outward appearance of a female.

For me, it's about how the character comes across. I don't know, maybe if they used a real actress rather than a model, or something like that.

CthulhuBob
2003-Jul-15, 04:20 PM
You will have to come up with a better argument than size against an outward appearance of a female.

For me, it's about how the character comes across. I don't know, maybe if they used a real actress rather than a model, or something like that.

Hmm...real actress huh? Thats why they hired that world-renowned thespian Arnie to play the T-800. Heyyyy wait a sec..... :)

Humphrey
2003-Jul-15, 06:57 PM
r0ck3t: I was not complaining about computing power. I was talking about physical armour and physical power. There is a definite size limit for servo motors and armour. When the liquid metal covering was discareded, she definitly was much less bulky than t-800.

Yes, she was more advanced. But even one hundred years from now servo motors will not get much smaller. There will be a limit before their size impairs their usefullness.

That is what i was arging about. I was not arguing over the outward apearenace. And if you remeber from the first shot, her "normal" basic model is a female. Every time she changed she reverted always to that one female form. So that must be her basic form.

When she changed into the boyfreind it was only her covering. She could not gain the necessary mass to do it, especially since it was only a covering and not her entire body as in the t-1000. So all she did was bulk up her outerwear. She was still the same inside.

Humphrey
2003-Jul-15, 06:59 PM
You will have to come up with a better argument than size against an outward appearance of a female.

For me, it's about how the character comes across. I don't know, maybe if they used a real actress rather than a model, or something like that.

Hmm...real actress huh? Thats why they hired that world-renowned thespian Arnie to play the T-800. Heyyyy wait a sec..... :)


I am just glad it wasn't Haley Berry. She was getting on my nerves.

( And no she did not deserve that o scar. Her acting in that movie (monsters ball) was not Oscar material. )

Val Trottan
2003-Jul-15, 07:16 PM
A few things I saw wrong:

Spoilers ahe... aw .. never mind that, just read

1. Time travel is a sticky thing. How does the TX know that killing any of the Lts wouldn't change the future as it was already?
I mean, let's say that the poor unfortunate guy who was working the BK saved John's life early on during the war. In other words, John would have died if this guy were not there which he isn't 'cause she smoked him. That already may have changed the timeline so much that the need to go after anyone else is moot.
Aren't computers supposed to work on logic?

2. Why was there a span of time between missions? Why not send multiple terminators through time to the same point in history. If one fails, the others take command until the job is done.
Heck, for that matter, you send three back in time, and have one try and kill him outright, another on stand-by, and other to observe and follow John for a time. Then, if it doesn't dissolve, it knows Jdgemnt Day is still on, so have the observer go dormant and awake after judgement day to let Skynet in on the blow by blow so that then ... when you send the three back ... the one tries and fails, but the other one "knows" what John will do and where he goes afterwards ... then after his machine guy takes his life in a one-liner spectacular spectacular and there is no dissolution which logically would include John since his Dad is from the future made by the machines have the second killer go and kill.
It is a time travel movie after all.

3. There was such an "out" in this flick and it was getting to Skynet before it got into the system ... which was implanted there by the T-X. How's that for a massive causality loop?

I guess that's it for now.

Discuss.

Val Trottan
2003-Jul-15, 07:20 PM
Actually, the science of time and time "travel" was better explored in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure ... and channelling Ted now has me thinking that sending three robots back or even just two would work the first time.

Gosh ... no wonder this plot is convoluted. Time paradoxes and causality is confusing!

Humphrey
2003-Jul-15, 07:48 PM
And Back to the Future I and II had even more accurate Time travel.

Actions had consequences.


The BTTF:II One deleted scene happens directly after the old Biff comes back from 1955. He then slowly (and very painfully) dissapears into nuthingness. He changesd his past, so he doesn't exhist where he was anymore.

One small action (like buying the alminac or having his dad punch out Biff) changes everything.

Spare Time Continuum
2003-Jul-24, 12:48 PM
During the final scene the audience was absolutely silent with their mouths open. They played it off very well making us think one thing and then realize it is another.


I must disagree. They never convinced me for one second that John Connor could stop Judgement Day, because that would mean that there would be no soppy pairing of the Lead Male & Lead Female (The Zeroth Law of Hollywood).
So when the wounded father of Lead Female sent them off to some secret bunker, I waited for him to expalin that it would keep them safe from nuclear attack. But he didn't explain that, so I realised "Whoops, we're not supposed to know that yet! Heh heh."
And without the surprise ending, the "plot" was kinda laughable.
(Note: I don't always predict the surprise endings! Hell, I was the LAST person in the theatre to understand the twist ending of "The Sixth Sense".)


But i do have to say the funniest scene in the movie is the first time arnold puts on his glasses. :-) :lol:

Indeed, the robots were GREAT characters. They saved the movie. Especially that fight scene at the military facility where they're using each other as battering rams.... When Arnie's shades get left behind in the impression that his face makes in the wall of the toiletroom.

Ten points also for the psychologist guy's cameo. =D>

"Talk to the hand"
ha ha...

I think they've finally agreed that no movie involving time travel can take itself too seriously. 8)

Stylesjl
2003-Jul-27, 09:57 AM
Think about this sort of time travel:


You can go back into the past but no matter what you do it will not change the present

Like when john conner pulled the gun to his head

Impossible Future: He fires and Dies the future falls apart

Only Future: Despite him coming close he does not pull the trigger and fate continues as predicted

Musashi
2003-Jul-27, 05:39 PM
So then, wouldn't it be impossible for the assassins to kill Conner as well?

Stylesjl
2003-Jul-28, 07:51 AM
So then, wouldn't it be impossible for the assassins to kill Conner as well?

True, But i guess the machines did not realise that (remember machines are sort of dumb at fuzzy logic)

Colt
2003-Jul-28, 09:01 AM
No, I still haven't seen the movie. The world has not been kind to me of late.. :(



(Note: I don't always predict the surprise endings! Hell, I was the LAST person in the theatre to understand the twist ending of "The Sixth Sense".)

Spoilers for Sixth Sense..












Was Bruce Willis really dead? I may be missing the point entirely, I haven't seen the movie in a while. When I thought that might be the case near the middle of the movie I couldn't decide after that whether he was alive or not. :-? -Colt

frenat
2003-Jul-28, 11:45 AM
Bruce Willis has been dead for years (at least that is the way it seems from his acting) :D

Musashi
2003-Jul-28, 05:56 PM
Colt, yes.

Stylesjl: Not to mention, the TX killed some of Connor's lieutenents, so she can change the past. I know that the Terminator movies play it pretty loose with paradoxes and such, but the basic premis of the movies would result in a paradox, so I just live with it! :wink:

freddo
2003-Jul-29, 01:42 AM
The paradox thing is a wierd one... Remember that the world was supposed to end in 1997 - and they stopped that from happening.

There is a massive theme of futile inevitability in this film - it seems that no matter how hard they fight it - humanity was always gonna create SkyNet and do itself in.
Interesting to note that SkyNet is now no longer a centralised entity, possesses nanotechnology, and was created by a different person that the original (t1/t2) timeline.

Looks like a way of saying the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Is there gonna be a sequel?

Musashi
2003-Jul-29, 02:22 AM
The way T3 ended, it certainly looked like they could make a sequel. I hope there is, they aer finally getting to the good stuff!

Ilya
2003-Aug-06, 09:58 PM
What I don't get is why when she cut into the particle accelerator gas came out. Isn't it a vacuum inside so that the particles they shoot around don't get fouled up?

The gas is evaporating coolant for the superconducting cables. That's actually done in modern accelerators.

Ilya
2003-Aug-07, 01:43 AM
I actually like how the T-100 looks (looking at pictures on that site I linked earlier). It may have been intended orginally for urban combat, street fighting. It would also probably be able to raise up on its treads to traverse rougher terrain. Its head is more durable than a humans. It can probably take rifle shots with no problem. If I designed it it would have backup sensors in the base so it could find its way around in the unlikely chance the head's sensors are destroyed. :P My only problem with it is the exposed gun and ammunition chute.


From what little I know about Future Combat System (FCS) program, T-100's are not terribly different from real unmanned combat vehicles being developed under FCS. They (the real thing) are intended to be teleoperated much like UAV's are, and to work closely with human soldiers. But I am quite certain they DO NOT have an obvious exposed head, let alone exposed ammo!

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Aug-07, 02:26 AM
What I don't get is why when she cut into the particle accelerator gas came out. Isn't it a vacuum inside so that the particles they shoot around don't get fouled up?

The gas is evaporating coolant for the superconducting cables. That's actually done in modern accelerators.

Ah. That explains it then. Thanks. They actually got one right...

Ilya
2003-Aug-08, 02:56 AM
No offense to any women out there, but why a woman? Would you not be able to fit larger and stronger servos into a larger male exo-skeleton?

What I've been thinking from the start. It doesn't make any kind of sense to restrain yourself in a frame that poorly done. Small shoulders, minuscule waist, large hips, breasts, a protruding rear-end, disproportionally long legs with weak, scrawny little arms.

Not to disagree with you, but if I HAD to design a female-shaped Terminator, that protruding rear-end is where I'd put the CPU. More armor than the skull allows, and any opponent would naturally concentrate on the head... which becomes, in effect, a decoy.

ER1CLE
2003-Aug-08, 06:23 PM
I must sadly comment ... I was very dissapointed in T3 --previews were VERY MISLEADING! I loved the first 2 movies and really thaught T3 would focus more on the war and future. But 'again' its just another "chase em in the past thing with new cheesy Terminators' Enough dream sequences! Enough 'teasing us with flashes of the war!' Get onto the actual WAR already! LOL Id like to think that if there's a PART 4 finally, we'll get to see THE GOOD STUFF in the future. The ending to T3 suggests it, but who knows?! Since James Cameron left the project, we could be in for a stinker. :(

Val Trottan
2003-Aug-08, 07:12 PM
It would be foolish for Hollywood to attempt another Terminator movie.
(As if that's stopped them before anyway.)
They couldn't portray the war in any way worth watching who really thinks 6 million corpses strewn about makes for good scenery? and there's nothing to add to the story that hasn't been implied or covered?

It's sort of where The matrix seems to be going. The Matrix (or...








spoiler ....







The Matrix(es) or Matrii (as I like to call them) has one logical conclusion from where I see it after Reloaded which sort of stunk, now that I think of it and that's into muddy waters. Why would Neo want to free everyone into a hellish world of poisioned atmosphere and desert conditions if they don't really need to be released at all? Just make sure the machines work for you and there you go.
In Terminator, there's no hope for a good future with the entire planet desumated in a war. What would be the redeeming nature of the flick .... sure we won ... but won what?
Freedom?
Freedom from machine, perhaps, but the devastation is appaling.
Why show it at all?

I say they should leave the franchise as they left it now.

Doodler
2003-Aug-08, 07:29 PM
I think the Matrix is a pretty good allegory for modern cyberaddiction. If you think about it, more and more people spend more of their lives living in the virtual worlds we make for ourselves, (Star Wars Galaxies and The Sims Online come immediately to mind) and letting their real world lives become accessory to these escapist fantasies. The Matrix takes this idea and turns it around, making it so that the computers learned to use that escapism as a means of controlling the humans who tried to destroy them. The real world parallel is that people need to step away from the machines and LIVE their lives in the mundane real world before they let their online lives overtake them completely. The Matrix may not be the best story ever told, but that doesn't rob it of its underlying meaning.