PDA

View Full Version : Liquid-metal terminator



kzb
2008-Apr-10, 05:24 PM
I've been watching, and mostly enjoying, The Sarah Connor Chronicles. The terminators, at least so far, are the old fashioned living-flesh-over-metal-endoskeleton type, as exemplified by Arnie in the first Terminator film (movie).

In Terminator 2, we have the "liquid metal" terminator, who can change appearance into anyone (or thing) it touches. Similar technology is apparent in Terminator 3 (though I understand this inferior film is not canon for the TV series).

My question is, the Arnie type terminator is quite understandable as an extension of current technology, but what science can be behind the liquid-metal type? It can remodel itself in seconds, each bit seems to have its own intelligence, and it can generate force and possesses speed at least equal to the T2000 model. What is it?

Also, I wonder if any liquid-metal terminators will appear in the Sarah Connor Chronicles and any explanation will be attempted?

Certassar
2008-Apr-10, 06:16 PM
...what science can be behind the liquid-metal type?

It's an unobtainium-handwavium alloy.

Jason
2008-Apr-10, 06:59 PM
I don't think the individiual bits by itself were intelligent. If you notice, any part that is seperated seems to simply want to rejoin the original. If they were fully intelligent and capable of independent action then, for instance, the little piece that John throws out the back of the car would form little clutching razor-blade things and start tearing him apart rather than allowing him to touch it safely for long enough to throw it away.
I would therefore guess that the T-1000 needs a certain critical mass of itself present and organized before it can act intelligently, such as identifying a target.
That would also explain the numerous scenes in the movie where the T-1000 waits to reform itself or remove bullet holes before following its target again.

As for what it's actually made of, or how it got designed in the first place, it was obviously the result of machines designing machines, at a time scale humans can't duplicate.

captain swoop
2008-Apr-10, 07:32 PM
nano size versions of the Replicators from Stargate.

Swift
2008-Apr-10, 08:16 PM
My question is, the Arnie type terminator is quite understandable as an extension of current technology, but what science can be behind the liquid-metal type? It can remodel itself in seconds, each bit seems to have its own intelligence, and it can generate force and possesses speed at least equal to the T2000 model. What is it?

I don't think there is any relationship to even an extrapolation of current science. I've always thought that it was kind of nonsense (on top of everything else, what is the power source for the liquid-metal terminator?).

You might as well say it is magic.

Jason
2008-Apr-10, 08:20 PM
I don't think there is any relationship to even an extrapolation of current science. I've always thought that it was kind of nonsense (on top of everything else, what is the power source for the liquid-metal terminator?).
Solar power, of course. When it needs a recharge it just spreads itself as thin as it can in a sunlit space and soaks up energy. We didn't see it in the movie because it would be boring to watch.

Delvo
2008-Apr-11, 01:40 AM
I figured the best way to explain it (from its energy/speed/strength to color control to perhaps texture control to vision and hearing and tactile sense) was to presume that it's a bit like human connective tissue (the most well-known ones being cartilage and bone). Connective tissue is not made of cells; it has cells arrayed/arranged throughout it, but it's mostly a fairly simple (just one or a few compounds) background substance (called "matrix") that surrounds the cells and is produced, destroyed, reshaped, and controlled by the cells that are suspended in it. Now just replace the organic matrix in connective tissues with "liquid metal" and the suspended cells with "solid microscopic machine parts". The liquid alloy isn't the entire mass, but is the medium through which many solid nanogadgets do their collective work.

jja
2008-Apr-11, 02:21 AM
You wouldn't even need a liquid medium, if you used Utility Fog (http://www.nanotech-now.com/utility-fog.htm) or Foglets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foglet), hypothetical nanotech robots that can extend tiny arms and join themselves together into useful configurations, from tightly-packed solids to spongy matrices that allow gas to permeate. Among other cool things (http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0220.html?), they would be able to mimic surface characteristics of other materials, which would explain why the T2000 was able to change its surface to fully resemble a police officer.

BigDon
2008-Apr-11, 02:46 AM
I recall from long back hearing from the source that the T-1000 was supposed to represent an example of uh! I forgot the name! It's when you write programing code into the electron shells of large molecules! Had a nifty sci-fi name. Crap. (No it wasn't called crap, I'm saying crap.)

That's why it was finally vulnerable to the intense thermal input of a molten steel bath. All its atoms became ionized at once. In lesser hurts the "good" molecules can re-write and repair the damaged ones.

And yes, smaller pieces were not as sapient as the whole, and every little bit counted. They said so. It was a good interview.

Noclevername
2008-Apr-11, 06:42 AM
"It is a mimetic polyalloy". (Aren't all alloys a poly-something?)

Van Rijn
2008-Apr-11, 08:00 AM
You wouldn't even need a liquid medium, if you used Utility Fog (http://www.nanotech-now.com/utility-fog.htm) or Foglets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foglet), hypothetical nanotech robots that can extend tiny arms and join themselves together into useful configurations, from tightly-packed solids to spongy matrices that allow gas to permeate. Among other cool things (http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0220.html?), they would be able to mimic surface characteristics of other materials, which would explain why the T2000 was able to change its surface to fully resemble a police officer.

Yes, linking nanobots would be about the only thing that would make some sense, though it doesn't explain the power source, and if it was able to shape itself in so detailed a fashion (people), it was odd it could only shape simple weapons.

Van Rijn
2008-Apr-11, 08:07 AM
I recall from long back hearing from the source that the T-1000 was supposed to represent an example of uh! I forgot the name! It's when you write programing code into the electron shells of large molecules! Had a nifty sci-fi name.


I'm not quite sure where we would be programming in electron shells, but are you thinking of "nanotechnology" or maybe "smart matter"?

Mr Gorsky
2008-Apr-11, 11:10 AM
And how on Earth did it fit with the first movies statement that nothing dead can go through the time portal (hence they arrive naked and sans weapons). Arnie got around that by having skin over his metal body ... how do the liquid metal models get around it?

Or is the liquid metal actually alive? This would also conveniently explain everything else in this thread.

kzb
2008-Apr-11, 12:02 PM
I can see most are on the same kind of wavelength that I was thinking -nanobot technology of some sort.

As to the power source, OK there's the possibility of solar energy, but that means a lot of energy has to be stored somehow. Also it's conceivable the nanobots, during periods of inactivity, can configure the terminator as some kind of power plant, but there's still the problem of power storage in microscopic robot cells.

I accept the argument about intelligence, clearly small amounts of terminator-being do not display much brain power. That must mean the processing power is disseminated throughout the terminator, depending on the number of nanobots in the network.

captain swoop
2008-Apr-11, 12:57 PM
as for nothing dead going through, what counts as dead? Tooth Enamel is dead, Hair is dead, Fingernails are dead.
Wool is just hair, leather is just skin. Why couldn't clothes fo through?

Donnie B.
2008-Apr-11, 06:25 PM
Power source concept: have the nanobots act as Maxwell's Demons, thereby extracting energy from the ambient environment. Any environment that's a fair bit above zero Kelvins will do.

The "only living objects" concept is pretty weak, I'd say, since most of the Arnie bot was a machine. If all you need is a living envelope, the T1000 could have had a coating of algae or something, which it then shed after coming through.

NGCHunter
2008-Apr-11, 06:52 PM
If all you need is a living envelope, the T1000 could have had a coating of algae or something, which it then shed after coming through.

I was just about to say the same thing, but it begs the question: why not coat some guns/bombs too? The only explanation there is that they did not anticipate a terminator interception, so they saw no need to send it back with anti-terminator weapons. The other alternative is that the nanobots or whatever it is behind the T-1000 mimics life enough. What is life? Something that can metabolise energy, reproduce (by itself or with a mate), and evolve? Perhaps the T-1000 could do all those things. I don't think they ever specified that it had to be organic life, though the whole concept was rather arbitrary to fill an apparent plot hole and give an excuse to have naked bodybuilders/summer glau on screen. Can't really argue with the latter ;).

Swift
2008-Apr-11, 06:58 PM
I recall from long back hearing from the source that the T-1000 was supposed to represent an example of uh! I forgot the name! It's when you write programing code into the electron shells of large molecules! Had a nifty sci-fi name. Crap. (No it wasn't called crap, I'm saying crap.)
my bold

Dr. BD Freud, your slip is showing. I think you had it right the first time. Crap.

As far as it being some sort of nanotech, I have the same problem I have with "real life" nanotech dreams, like nanobots running around inside our body - where does the power come from. And we're talking a lot of power, a man-sized metal robot that can run as fast as a car, etc. etc.

As far as the Maxwell's Demon - extracting the energy from the ambient temperature :rolleyes: . As I said before, you might as well say its magic.

Jason
2008-Apr-11, 07:16 PM
Remember that the "living tissue" thing is explained first by Kyle Reese, who admitted he doesn't really know how the machine works, and afterwards by various Terminators to non-scientists. It may simply be the best explanation they can give to someone who doesn't understand temporal theory.

Delvo
2008-Apr-11, 08:07 PM
Reese did mention the electric fields created by living things. If that's the key, then anything else that creates a similar electric field could also get through.

But, since we've seen clothed people go through now and end up naked upon arrival, it does make me wonder what happens to the clothes and weapons (the latter being the real reason for it, so Reese wouldn't just bring back his best anti-Terminator weapon, whatever they'd used in winning the war). Do they fall to the floor of the time machine after the traveler's departure?

Abelian Grape
2008-Apr-11, 09:11 PM
I recall from long back hearing from the source that the T-1000 was supposed to represent an example of uh! I forgot the name! It's when you write programing code into the electron shells of large molecules! Had a nifty sci-fi name.[snip]

Quantum computer, perhaps?

marsbug
2008-Apr-11, 09:24 PM
What if t-1000 was organic? I think it would be much easier to make a shape, colour, and texture mimicking surface out of living material. And it would explain how it got through the time machine. I bet there are some examples of shape, or at least colour and texture mimicry in nature. And it could be controlled by a tiny AI microchip brain, like the arnie terminator with more 'skin' than innards!:p

SkepticJ
2008-Apr-11, 11:32 PM
The T-1000 came back to a technology-filled world--couldn't it just grab onto electrical wires once in a while?

Perhaps it's powered by nuclear isotopes. A little grain of some in each micromachine.

NGCHunter
2008-Apr-12, 12:50 AM
Oooh, I like that idea SkepticJ. Isotopes would definately give a constant source of potentially decentralized power.

Van Rijn
2008-Apr-12, 06:26 AM
As far as it being some sort of nanotech, I have the same problem I have with "real life" nanotech dreams, like nanobots running around inside our body - where does the power come from. And we're talking a lot of power, a man-sized metal robot that can run as fast as a car, etc. etc.


I expect that nanobots in our body could get energy from the same places molecular machines in our body already get energy. Of course, that limits the amount of energy they could get - in my view, the problem with a lot of stories is that they ignore energy and waste heat issues.



As far as the Maxwell's Demon - extracting the energy from the ambient temperature :rolleyes: . As I said before, you might as well say its magic.

Right. Even nanomachines can't ignore thermodynamics.

Van Rijn
2008-Apr-12, 06:35 AM
Oooh, I like that idea SkepticJ. Isotopes would definately give a constant source of potentially decentralized power.

That gets tricky. On one hand, it would need enough energy to do all the things it does. On the other hand, radioisotope generators would be perking along all the time, and the energy has to go somewhere. The selection of isotopes would be tricky too - it doesn't want to destroy its own nanomachines, even if it doesn't care about anything around it. This would also give some pretty handy signatures to anyone who wanted to spot terminators.

novaderrik
2008-Apr-12, 10:00 AM
is this thread a good example of how science fiction might affect real science?
smart people get together to argue about how some fictional piece of technology in some tv show or movie works, and eventually, after enough great minds have gone thru enough "what if" scenarios, a real world application is the end result?
you know, kind of like a million monkeys banging away on a million typewriters until one of them randomly types out the complete works of Shakespeare?

Donnie B.
2008-Apr-12, 02:06 PM
is this thread a good example of how science fiction might affect real science?
smart people get together to argue about how some fictional piece of technology in some tv show or movie works, and eventually, after enough great minds have gone thru enough "what if" scenarios, a real world application is the end result?
you know, kind of like a million monkeys banging away on a million typewriters until one of them randomly types out the complete works of Shakespeare?
I'm going to change my nick to Monkey#273,429.

eburacum45
2008-Apr-12, 02:40 PM
Well, utility fog sounds like it could reproduce some of the characteristics of the liquid metal Terminator. Some sort of utility fog,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_fog
made up of microscale robots rather than nanobots, might one day be developed, and might be expected to flow like water. Specialised bots on the surface might use smart matter/quantum dot surfaces to reproduce the physical appearance and some of the physical properties of skin, or of steel, or even as phased-array optics to become invisible.

But power supply and waste heat management are both supposed to be probems for utility fog; if it performs anything particularly spectacular (like walking, or flowing, or forming a weapon) it will need a lot of energy and will produce a lot of heat.

Perhaps a utility fog entity would contain miniaturised batteries or generators of some sort- but there must be a limit as to how small these batteries could be made. I can imagine an entity made from UF straining itself through a fine mesh screen door and leaving its batteries uselessly behind.

Noclevername
2008-Apr-13, 06:37 AM
And how on Earth did it fit with the first movies statement that nothing dead can go through the time portal (hence they arrive naked and sans weapons). Arnie got around that by having skin over his metal body ... how do the liquid metal models get around it?

Or is the liquid metal actually alive? This would also conveniently explain everything else in this thread.

Remember, in the first film Reese was explaining something he barely understood. And the description he gave was that it "has something to do with the field around a living thing", meaning probably a bioelectrical field. Which a metallic nanomorph could probably imitate rather easily.

novaderrik
2008-Apr-13, 09:00 AM
maybe the Terminators merely have to reverse the polarity on their handwavium force field generators to excite the molecules on a quantum level in their invisible uobtanium ablative exoskeletal defense shield a few microseconds before crossing the event horizon on the time travel device in order to safely make the journey backwards thru time.

Donnie B.
2008-Apr-13, 12:48 PM
maybe the Terminators merely have to reverse the polarity on their handwavium force field generators to excite the molecules on a quantum level in their invisible uobtanium ablative exoskeletal defense shield a few microseconds before crossing the event horizon on the time travel device in order to safely make the journey backwards thru time.
Yeah, that must be it. Thanks for that. (By the way, I think Berman and Braga have a job for you.)

Noclevername
2008-Apr-13, 11:51 PM
maybe the Terminators merely have to reverse the polarity on their handwavium force field generators to excite the molecules on a quantum level in their invisible uobtanium ablative exoskeletal defense shield a few microseconds before crossing the event horizon on the time travel device in order to safely make the journey backwards thru time.

Can you show the equations for that? :D

novaderrik
2008-Apr-14, 12:15 AM
Can you show the equations for that? :D
i could, but if i just tell you all the answers, then you don't learn anything on your own.
you know, that whole "give a man a a fish or teach a man to fish" thing..

Kebsis
2008-Apr-14, 04:38 AM
I saw the third film, and the bad terminator in that one was a metal skeleton terminator with liquid metal skin. The whole time I was thinking, 'this is supposed to be an upgrade from the T-1000?' Why would the terminators go from something that is completely liquid and pretty close to indestructable with something that has a crushable frame?

Noclevername
2008-Apr-14, 04:51 AM
I saw the third film, and the bad terminator in that one was a metal skeleton terminator with liquid metal skin. The whole time I was thinking, 'this is supposed to be an upgrade from the T-1000?' Why would the terminators go from something that is completely liquid and pretty close to indestructable with something that has a crushable frame?

The T-1000 was shattered or scattered several times, and was not bulletproof; presumably, healing itself required energy. A rigid armored frame would also provide leverage for greater strength, and perhaps more well-protected storage for memory and power systems.

Delvo
2008-Apr-14, 04:54 AM
The solid frame might have allowed better strength, speed, energy storage, or such, and we already definitely know that it allowed the inclusion of solid-technology weapons that weren't available to the all-liquid one. And that's just sticking to combat-related issues, whereas we know that her real mission was not about combat; it was taking over other computer systems, which could require more complex AI and/or larger data storage than an all-liquid one could hold.

Kebsis
2008-Apr-14, 05:04 AM
Well, you may have a point about the computer hacking, although I'd think that if skynet can make a liquid machine from the molecular level up, it could program it to hack Windows... However, it's obvious from the second film that the T-1000 had no trouble with speed, energy or strength (remember he had no trouble taking Arnold on in hand-to-hand combat). As for weapons, a handgun will kill John Connor just as well as a ray gun will. I still say that for the purposes of killing humans, a pure liquid machine like the T-1000 would be much better suited for the job. Heck, if Skynet would just program the darn things to avoid molten steel pits, and not to do the scary slow movie walk, that thing would have killed John Connor in the second film.

Delvo
2008-Apr-14, 05:20 AM
if Skynet would just program the darn things to avoid molten steel pits...Its target went there. Not following could have meant losing the target.


and not to do the scary slow movie walk...The only time it did that was after being frozen, shattered, rapidly melted, and reassembled. It was damaged and not functioning optimally. This was shown in a few other ways, too, like the waves of shimmering metal shininess that rippled up and down its body a couple of times for no reason, and its tendency to get stuck to or start unintentionally taking the appearance of other things it touched.

Kebsis
2008-Apr-14, 05:47 AM
Its target went there. Not following could have meant losing the target.

No, falling into the only thing that could obviously kill it in our time period means losing the target, waiting for them to leave the steelmill means reaquiring them later, which is something it's obviously good at. These machines are supposed to be logical; it reminds me of the scene in the first terminator movie, where Arnold crashes the car he's driving while chasing the two people with the cops behind him.

Instead of running up to the car that the two people were in to kill them, he dissapears into the night. Technically, that scene was pretty obviously a plot device to set up the next few scenes, but taken at face value you could say that the terminator decided to back off so he wouldn't be discovered by the police force, which could endanger him and, ultimately, his mission. Knowing when to back off is just as important as knowing when to attack (thats probably in the Art of War somewhere?)


The only time it did that was after being frozen, shattered, rapidly melted, and reassembled. It was damaged and not functioning optimally. This was shown in a few other ways, too, like the waves of shimmering metal shininess that rippled up and down its body a couple of times for no reason, and its tendency to get stuck to or start unintentionally taking the appearance of other things it touched.

When did that happen?

Anyway, that was just a little joke, the movie walk comment.

kzb
2008-Apr-14, 05:30 PM
I'm not sure the waste heat is as big an issue as some think. For starters, if it runs off stored electricity, it could be 90+% efficient.

Secondly, the terminator is never seen to take part in extended periods of intense activity. When the Connors drive off in a car or other motor vehicle, the terminator gives chase, but soon gives up. The longest such chase is probably in the T3 film, but she was running downhill most of the way.

In short, it's quite possible the terminator performance is limited by waste heat, in that it has to stop or slow down to allow cooling, but we've just not had that explained explicitly yet.

Swift
2008-Apr-14, 06:31 PM
Secondly, the terminator is never seen to take part in extended periods of intense activity. When the Connors drive off in a car or other motor vehicle, the terminator gives chase, but soon gives up. The longest such chase is probably in the T3 film, but she was running downhill most of the way.

I guess you don't count picking up the Arnie Terminator and slamming him through a wall or driving a metal pole through him as intense actitivty.

phunk
2008-Apr-14, 08:47 PM
When did that happen?

I believe it was in the director's cut.

Noclevername
2008-Apr-15, 05:25 PM
But Skynet didn't know how the T-1000 was defeated. It had the chip from the first Terminator which was preserved by Cyberdyne, but no information from the second attempt survived until its time; both the machines sent back then where just gone. So it could only make guesses about how it had failed and design its new prototype based on those guesses.

Delvo
2008-Apr-15, 05:41 PM
I believe it was in the director's cut.At least one of the DVD versions adds more, but some of it was in the theatrical version, too. It was just so quick and perhaps so subtle that it didn't adequately show what was going on to a lot of the audience; they tended to not notice it or not get what it meant. I remember a conversation about it that my group had as we were leaving the theater.

kzb
2008-Apr-15, 05:59 PM
Swift wrote:
<<..guess you don't count picking up the Arnie Terminator and slamming him through a wall or driving a metal pole through him as intense actitivty.>>

I said EXTENDED periods of intense activity :)

I don't think we've seen a Terminator doing work at more than a few kilowatt maximum, and even then it has only been maintained for a few seconds. If it were over 90% efficient, the heating effect is containable. What's more, when it is just sauntering or driving around (which they do a lot), it is only using a few watts, and its temperature might go down to not much above ambient.

WaxRubiks
2008-Apr-15, 06:41 PM
if I remember correctly, the liquid terminator was standing on a metal surface like this, and part of his body duplicated the surface.
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1266518/2/istockphoto_1266518_metal_floor_texture.jpg


although I may not be remembering it correctly. It's been a few years.

Jason
2008-Apr-15, 07:24 PM
IIRC it was on a grill, not a solid surface.

Noclevername
2008-Apr-15, 08:08 PM
Both the DC and the novelization mentioned that duplicating effect due to damage. (IIRC, it was on a grill part of the time and a floor as pictured the rest; it moved around a lot in those final scenes.)

Extravoice
2008-Apr-15, 08:16 PM
i could, but if i just tell you all the answers, then you don't learn anything on your own.
you know, that whole "give a man a a fish or teach a man to fish" thing..

Build a man a fire, and he is warm for the night.
Set a man afire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. :eek:

Noclevername
2008-Apr-15, 08:46 PM
The way I learned it was, "give a man a fish, then he has a fish and you have none. Teach a man to fish, and hey, now you can take his and have yours. And he can catch another so you can take his tomorrow!"

Delvo
2008-Apr-15, 09:25 PM
temporary post; see the following ones...

Delvo
2008-Apr-15, 09:47 PM
Immediately after the Liquidator comes back together and starts walking, we see the first sign that it's having trouble (other than the walking instead of running). It puts its hand on a metal rail and gets stuck, then takes a step back to check what happened. Its hand had taken on the color pattern of the rail and smushed itself into it so solidly that it looks as if it were merged, which is why it was stuck. The fingers stick to it and stretch a bit when the Liquidator pulls its hand off and looks at it as if pondering what's wrong with it, before giving it a shake and fixing it. This was not shown in the theaters.

(The next time we see the Liquidator near such rails, much later while going up a staircase to the platform the Connors are on while Sarah puts John on a conveyor to send him away, it does not touch the rails.)

Delvo
2008-Apr-15, 09:48 PM
Then there's a cut back to the Connors and the Governator, then back to the Liquidator. This time we see two different signs of damage. The first is a zone of loss of control moving up its body as a wave/ripple in which the colors and textures briefly revert to the chrome look and the shape briefly simplifies to an approximation before both go back to normal. This was shown in the theaters.

Delvo
2008-Apr-15, 09:49 PM
Immediately after that is the feet thing, which only applies to whichever foot is on the ground at the moment if one isn't, and it spreads from the heel as the Liquidator shifts its weight onto that foot and then retracts to the toe as it shifts off of that foot. As you can see pretty well in the final close-ups, there's not only color and texture change, but also deformation of the foot-shape under the body's weight. This was shown in the theaters.

Delvo
2008-Apr-15, 09:50 PM
It's also noteworthy that, although it had retained form in previous fights with the Governator and localized previous gunshot damage to small areas, it drops the appearance after getting bashed around a few times during its next fight and simply finishes the fight with the default chrome look, without even attempting to regain a controlled look until several seconds after the fight ends with the solid one's arm stuck in the giant gears. This is how it was shown in the theaters.

Delvo
2008-Apr-15, 09:51 PM
Then, when it turns around and looks up to resume trying to find the Connors, the no-control wave ripples up its body again. This was shown in the theaters.

Delvo
2008-Apr-15, 09:52 PM
The final example was another version of the feet thing. When the Liquidator has taken Sarah's form and the real Sarah shows up behind it, John looks down and sees how its feet are unintentionally mimicking the floor grate. This was not shown in the theaters.

(I like it because it shows the damage that the Liquidator suffered, but I don't like it because it makes John's decision too simple; all he has to do is realize "Hey, my mama wears combat boots and those aren't combat boots!", whereas without these few frames, he sees no difference and has to figure out the truth based on their behavior: the real one yelling an order at him and the fake one asking for help.)

Jason
2008-Apr-15, 09:59 PM
I think the first-time feet thing was not in the theatrical release.

novaderrik
2008-Apr-16, 10:25 AM
the "Liquidator" vs the "Governator"..
this could make a better film series than "Alien vs Predator" or "Freddy vs Jason"..

kzb
2008-Apr-16, 05:28 PM
That's interesting Delvo, I've seen the films several times (but not the director's cut), and never even realised the "unintentional mimicry" phenomenon. I wonder what this means in terms of the control centre of the thing.

Possibly, without overriding instruction, the default setting of the nanobot is to mimic whatever it is in contact with, and pass on the instruction to its neighbours. However, there must be a central control intelligence, even if that is decentralised, which overrides this tendency. Perhaps unintentional mimicry is a symptom that communication of that part of the terminator with the central control is failing for some reason.

erisi236
2008-Apr-16, 10:00 PM
On the T-X Vs T-1000 thing,maybe Skynet just went with the T-X as a cost cutting maneuver, all that liquid metal costs big bucks. :)

Although, looking at it the T-X does have superior abilities, being able to make weapons like flame throwers, buzz saws and photon-shooters of some kind, being able to synch with other machines as well as having mimicing abilities make the T-1000 seem pretty obsolete by comparison.

BISMARCK
2008-Apr-17, 02:17 AM
I saw the third film, and the bad terminator in that one was a metal skeleton terminator with liquid metal skin. The whole time I was thinking, 'this is supposed to be an upgrade from the T-1000?' Why would the terminators go from something that is completely liquid and pretty close to indestructable with something that has a crushable frame?

I believe the "explanation" for this was that Skynet was actually a bit wary of the T-1000 prototype, thinking that it was so advanced that it may overthrow Skynet itself. So maybe the T-X was a case of deliberate regression.

Delvo
2008-Apr-17, 02:25 AM
Possibly, without overriding instruction, the default setting of the nanobot is to mimic whatever it is in contact with, and pass on the instruction to its neighbours. However, there must be a central control intelligence, even if that is decentralised, which overrides this tendency. Perhaps unintentional mimicry is a symptom that communication of that part of the terminator with the central control is failing for some reason.The Governator had a line or two, in all versions of the movie, explaining to John that the liquid one can mimic "anything it samples by physical contact". You might also notice corresponding details later like the fact that it didn't mimic Sarah until after it stabbed her, so the stabbing could have been seen as a sign that she was about to be mimicked. They also filmed a scene that didn't make it into any version of the movie that I know of, but is on the DVD as an "extra", in which the Liquidator goes into John's room and starts snooping around for clues by running its hands over everything.

I think it's later in that same scene that they showed it going out to the back yard. Remember, when it had been on the phone with John and the Governator while mimicking John's foster mother, they'd all heard the dog barking and the foster father said something about it. And as soon as the Liquidator got the dog's name wrong, it got hung up on. So when it goes outside afterward, it not only kills the dog (slightly offscreen, no gore shown or CGI needed) but also checks the tag on the collar, and knows that it's just been tricked.


I've seen the films several times (but not the director's cut)I'm not aware of any version called "director's" for this movie. I'm using the "Ultimate Edition" DVD (not to be confused with the "Extreme Edition", which came with an HD version for Windows Player and a different set of extras). I have to say it's the best DVD I've ever seen for enhancing the experience of the movie on it, the ultimate example of exactly what DVDs and the features on them are supposed to be and how they're supposed to be done. It's worth the cost of rental even to a moderate fan or non-fan, just to see how it expands on the movie. And I don't just mean added scenes, although there are some great ones, too many to list here without this post getting long and cumbersome and spoiling some of the neat twists in it for you. (And the total is supposed to even be over 18 additional minutes, so I think I haven't even seen some of it because some of it is hidden.) It also has not only audio commentary tracks by people who actually know how to do audio commentary tracks, but also what amounts to a "visual commentary track" or two, featuring on-screen explanations of little tidbits about the process of making the movie, with enough in there about visual effects to fill up several class lectures without ever even touching a single CGI effect.

Matherly
2008-Apr-17, 10:02 PM
the "Liquidator" vs the "Governator"..

That Balletnator would pwn them both.

ravens_cry
2008-Apr-17, 10:50 PM
That Balletnator would pwn them both.
Ah, but the Debtornator would convince them to not fight with his "verbal skills of fury", and "bulging brain mass attack"

parallaxicality
2008-Apr-26, 01:49 PM
Yes, linking nanobots would be about the only thing that would make some sense, though it doesn't explain the power source, and if it was able to shape itself in so detailed a fashion (people), it was odd it could only shape simple weapons.

The Governator cited two reasons, chemicals, and moving parts. The T-1000 cannot form any machine which has any part disconnected from the whole (such as, say, a wheel). And while it can mimic the molecular structure of anything, it can't take on that molecular structure.


I was just about to say the same thing, but it begs the question: why not coat some guns/bombs too?

In T3, the T-X has a multitude of concealed weapons, and the TV show, a Terminator sneaks a gun back into the past by hiding it under its skin.


But, since we've seen clothed people go through now and end up naked upon arrival, it does make me wonder what happens to the clothes and weapons (the latter being the real reason for it, so Reese wouldn't just bring back his best anti-Terminator weapon, whatever they'd used in winning the war). Do they fall to the floor of the time machine after the traveler's departure?

In the video games, yes they do.


No, falling into the only thing that could obviously kill it in our time period means losing the target, waiting for them to leave the steelmill means reaquiring them later, which is something it's obviously good at. These machines are supposed to be logical; it reminds me of the scene in the first terminator movie, where Arnold crashes the car he's driving while chasing the two people with the cops behind him.

This makes more sense in the extended cut. The extended cut's finale more closely mimics the end of T1, in which the bad!terminator has been so heavily damaged it no longer can pass for human. Once the bad!terminator is either a chrome skeleton or turning different colours at random, it can no longer act as an infiltrator and simply goes for broke.

kzb
2008-Apr-28, 05:35 PM
Going off topic slightly, the first series ended on Virgin 1 in the UK. Cameron got blown up with a car bomb, hardly a cliff hanger, as I'm sure, being a terminator, she will easily survive this experience.

Anyone know if and when the next season starts in UK?