T3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

[warhammer]

Re: T3 Discussions...SPOILERS!

T3 was terrible, IMO. With all the time they had, you'd think they could have written a good story... And I didn't care much for Nick Stahl's portrayal of John Connor, there was no chemistry between him and Arnold.

 

[jackarcalon]

Re: T3 Discussions...SPOILERS!

It was fun, but not original enough. They could have made clear that the T-X was a more advanced polyalloy that could duplicate machinery, allowing it to form a temporary endoskeleton. That would let it run faster. It could also form wheels, wings, balloons, whips, and so on. It should have been more grotesque. Maybe it could split up or reproduce itself. I don't understand how it could remote-control ordinary vehicles.

 

[Winters_Sorrow]

Re: T3 Discussions...SPOILERS!

To be honest I didn't watch it went it came out & I just caught it on TV when it made it there. Wasn't impressed. The whole thing stunk of exactly what swarmi said, marketing. I can imagine the producers script meetings now. Ok, we need something new, something cool, somewhere to 'take the franchise' and forgot that making the 'bad guy' a swedish supermodel was silly and that re-hashing the "going back in time to kill all the future human leaders" was daft as well, especially with it's holier-than-thou pompous ending.
As Dave said, either you have a linear time or a changeable one. The TX killed several of the future human leaders meaning that time is changeable, so why isn't it all changeable?
Overall I felt that there was never a need for another Terminator movie anyway - T2 was always going to be the high point for the franchise and, if they felt the need for another Terminator payday, they should have gone down the TV mini-series route and replaced Arnold while they were at it.

 

[unclejack]

Terminator Three???

Okay, I just have to throw this out there. Um, as far as T3 rise of the machines, am I the only one who thought when I heard they were making another one that thought "What the Crap?" I mean, they destroyed Cyberdine, the Terminator, and the chip at the end of T2 so there shouldn't be any judgment day. I really hate it when Hollywood craps all over original movies just so they can make a sequel that will bring them some profit. They did the same thing with Men in Black two. Happy ending at the end of the first one, K ends up with his wife again. Ah, forget that, let's make another movie where he's divorced and comes back to bein a MIB. That kinda stuff really agrivates me.

 

[C Of K]

Re: Terminator Three???

By all rights there shouldn't have been a T2, either. The machines sent the first Terminator back through time because the humans won the war.

After John Connor sent Kyle to 1985, the time machine was destroyed...

 

[unclejack]

Re: Terminator Three???

That's not true, the whole premise the terminator being sent back in time in the first one was to kill the leader of an army in a war that was still going on in the terminator's time. And there's nothing in Terminator that says that the time machine was destroyed, I don't know where you get that from.

 

[C Of K]

Re: Terminator Three???

And there's nothing in Terminator that says that the time machine was destroyed, I don't know where you get that from.

Listen to what Kyle says when he's being interrogated.

"Connor sent me to intercept, and they blew the whole place..."

"nobody goes home, No body else comes through. It's just him...and me." --Kyle Reese
They were referring to the time displacement equipment.

 

[C Of K]

Re: Terminator Three???

Also read the prologue. The war would be decided here, in our present.

Tonight... Which was in 1984. It made no difference if they kill John Connor in the future because in the future humans had already won.

Terminator wasn't written with a sequel in mind. It was a too the point and direct scifi story, complete with a solid beginning and ending.

 

[unclejack]

Re: Terminator Three???

Regardless as to the machine being destroyed that doesn't mean they can't just rebuild a new machine. I know that's stretching it a bit but the fact of them having a terminator two is much more believable and explanable than Schwartzeneger just making a cliche statment in the third one that judgment day can never be prevented. If that's the case then gimme my money back for the last forty five minutes of terminator two cuz that's what they were trying to do.

 

[C Of K]

Re: Terminator Three???

Sure, but this...

I really hate it when Hollywood craps all over original movies just so they can make a sequel that will bring them some profit.

...answers why they made both Terminator 2 and 3.

I'll grant you that they did give a good camera shot to the terminator and that extended arm at the end of the first movie.

It's my feeling that it was likely a directorial decision, and not part of the originally written script. It makes no sense when you put it next to the written prologue and the interrogation scene. Most people wouldn't analyze the movie enough to recognize this plot hole.

That's why I believe it was directorial decision. They made millions off of the sequels...of course their not going to completely destroy that terminator like the prologue said they would.

Hence, the war was not decided in Los Angeles 1984...

 

[C Of K]

Re: Terminator Three???

Regardless as to the machine being destroyed that doesn't mean they can't just rebuild a new machine.

Actually there was likely no way to build another time machine. Remember Skynet is a computer defense system.

According to Reese the machine defense grid was smashed. I'm certain the defense grid was essential for the machines to continue the war, because Reese clearly says, "we'd won. Taking out Connor then would make no difference. Skynet had to wipe out his entire existence."

Watch the interrogation scene again. Really analyze what's being said, because these are all the details about the end of the war that Reese didn't tell Sarah.

Remember, the terminator went through the time machine first. Sending it through was a last ditch effort for the machines to save themselves. If there were very many machines left, they would have sent more than one terminator to ensure their continued existense, I'm sure. This was why the war should have been decided in 1984.

Anything else doesn't fit perfectly into a completely coherent story, although I did like Terminator 2 and 3.

It's also sort of funny that in the other movies only one terminator/terminatrix antagonist was sent. That really makes no sense if the war was still going and they still had time travel capabilities, and a lot of resources.

In the original, I think Arnold was the last soldier of a loosing war effort...

 

[ravenus]

Re: Terminator Three???

Awesome justifications C of K, and a fitting answer to all the "T2 was great but T3 shouldn't have been made" whines. I personally thought T3 was a very entertaining movie and surprisingly poignant in parts. Maybe I'm naive but I really didn't expect it to end the way it did, considering its summer blockbuster origins.

 

[C Of K]

Re: Terminator Three???

Yeah, I enjoyed it.

For them to continue making more Terminator movies, Judgment Day had to happen. The next few should be interesting, and different. I look forward to those, I do.

 

[Crazihors]

Re: Terminator Three???

There are a few points about T1, such as REece's comment, byut there's a lot more in T2 to say T3 shouldn't have been made - like the entire destruvction of skynet....

 

[C Of K]

Re: Terminator Three???

I'd still say the biggest points are in T1.
If T2 is such a valid movie, the Machines would have sent more than 1 terminator back to kill John Connor. That they sent only one terminator is a weak point in the plot for T2 and T3. This turned the series more into a display of superhero antics instead of the man vs machine story that was the original premise.

Only 1 terminator was sent in T1 because going back in time was a last ditch effort by the machines before the time machine was destroyed, and the war was won by the humans.

 

[Huttman]

Re: Terminator Three???

I just got hired for T4! Just kidding. Self portrait of me as the terminator. Whether T2 or T3 were plausible or not, they were still good movies. The point in T3 about not being able to avoid Judgement Day but surviving it, very interesting...

 

[ravenus]

Re: Terminator Three???

Hey nice artwork there

 

[Huttman]

Re: Terminator Three???

Thank You! It's kind of a gruesome picture and I do not like my image in photos very much, but I think it turned out well. It is a screen capture from T3 with my pic in place of Arnolds. I cut out sections of my face and super-imposed it on an endoskeleton pic I found and then after some bloody details I pasted it on the screen capture. I think it was a filter in Ulead PhotoImpact that I used to make the 'graphic novel' look to it - which made the picture really what it is. Thanks again.

 

[C Of K]

Re: Terminator Three???

Huttman for Governor! Huttman for Governor!!! (ok, now that I've gotten my quota for silliness this week) Great job Huttman. It did turn out well. Whoever knew you could be so dark natured?

 

[Huttman]

Re: Terminator Three???

I could. I just do my best to head those things off before they surface. But all seriousness aside, the model number I play in the movie never was quite 'right' for cyberdyne, rather clumsy too. In the picture I was not shot to look like that, I fell down. So they had me doing some menial tasks that I found quite human in nature, which got me curious as to why we were trying to irradicate the humans in the first place---well I don't want to give too much of the plot away...

Thank you for the compliment!