Badmovies.org Forum

All my life I've hated the Terminator. When the first came out, I hated it. When the second came out, I hated it and I started to hate Guns N' Roses. Why? Everyone else liked them. I thought, maybe I just hate James Cameron, but no, I liked Aliens.  What was my problem?

Then my friend made me go see T3: Rise of the Machines, and I realized why I hated these movies. The entire premise is bunk!

Okay, T1: Guy goes back in time to keep Sarah Conner alive so that she can bear the child who will eventually lead the revolution. The twist? HE is the father!  Okay, so that's kind of neat, right? It's FATE....

T3: John Connor cannot escape fate. The robots say it's fate. Terminator Arnold seals him in a bunker because armageddon is fate, him leading the revolution is fate, everything's fate.

So here's why I hate these movies.  The robots know that fate cannot be escaped or changed. They know that John Conner will be born, will grow up, will survive armageddon, and will successfully lead the revolution.  If the robots know this, it is illogical to send Terminators back in time; and IN FACT, if fate COULD be changed, all they would have to do is NOT send the original terminator after Sarah Conner, which would prevent the other guy from going back too and impregnating her with John Conner.  

Does that make any sense?

And you think that this is more illogical than most other movies?

Remember, this is science FICTION.  And as a series of movies, it relies on the audiences SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF.

I liked 1 and 2.  I thought part 3 was weak in comparison.

The best way to watch these movies is to try not to think and just enjoy watching things explode.

I'm with Burgomaster - just let it wash over you...

OH - and by the way, your criticisms are largely based on one pretty whopping big assumption: That Reese was John Connor's father.  How do we know that Sarah Connor didn't go out to some bar and hook up with some dude a week before the Terminator and Reese showed up?  Because she told her son that?  Maybe she was just telling him what she wanted to believe.  I just assumed she was sleeping around and pregnant when Reese found her.  Why?  Because it's the only way the time continuem thing makes sense.

1 was a lot of fun.

2 was a cheesey happy ending with an even cheesier kid, remarkable to me only because it is the only other movie I ever saw Private Vasquez in.

3 was a lame rehash.

I can't accept that on any level. It's one thing to accept a completely stupid and illogical premise in Astro-Zombies, but not in "serious" Sci-Fi movies that are evaluated by "serious" critics seriously.

Look, I love bad movies. I even enjoy Jess Franco.  But yes, that premise IS more illogical than most movies. And try not to think? That's crazy! Movies, even bad movies, are attempts at artistic storytelling and exercises in the craft of telling stories. The Terminator series has always been evaluated as a good story, and I'm disputing that fervently.

And hey, I love watching things explode. I'll even admit that I really like Con Air, despite the fact that it's the dumbest movie I can think of.  But nobody takes Con Air seriously. The Terminator movies, on the other hand, are highly regarded.

So that's where I'm coming from.

P.S. I don't think assuming Reese was J.C.'s father is a big assumption at all. I think that's what the Terminator series says pretty explicitly. It takes much more imagination to try to say that Sarah was already pregnant by some unnamed person previous to this.

"P.S. I don't think assuming Reese was J.C.'s father is a big assumption at all. I think that's what the Terminator series says pretty explicitly. It takes much more imagination to try to say that Sarah was already pregnant by some unnamed person previous to this."

Au contraire, Will.  It is what SARAH CONNOR says.  If you think about it, Sarah Connor's word is really the only source of information on this issue and she is free to make up any truth she wishes.  The only person who knows for sure that Sarah Connor didn't get drunk and screw around with some guy she picked up in a bar is Sarah Connor.  Picture this: You're Sarah Connor.  You're raising the future savior of the world and know that both he and you will go down in history.  Do you tell him that his father may have been some systems analyst who was the last guy at the bar at closing time?  Or do you tell him his dad was a heroic soldier from the future?  I think most women in that situation would pick the latter and leave it at that.

Humm....
Seems the philosophical underpinnings of the film are at the root, here.
If F.A.T.E. rules....everything the characters did has no real meaning. Its like playing a tape. And the story remains the same., because you can't record over it.
Eirik : Just specificaly was the cheese factor in the happy ending,btw. Maby i'm missing something, or just too old to find harsh, "Realistic" endings worth my time.
Humm....
Hope no one gets the idea that "J.C." means John Conner is some Christ figure. Lets not open that can of worms!

Other then that...eh...stuff blows up good.

Here are some other highly-regarded movies:

1. STAR WARS - A bunch of guys & a woman with cinnamon buns on the sides of her head fly around the universe with bigfoot looking for an evil villain.  The villain turns out to be the hero's father . . . and the girl with the cinnamon buns on her head turns out to be his sister.  What are the odds of THAT?

2. ROCKY - A bum boxer (who could barely beat a local gym-fighter at the beginning of the movie) goes through a few months of training, ends up making it through an entire boxing match  with the heavyweight champion of the world, and nearly wins the bout.  Yeah, right.

3. JAWS - A shark outsmarts a scientist, a professional fisherman, and a police chief.  Seems logical to me.

4. FRANKENSTEIN - A man stitches together some body parts, then uses lightning to bring the patchwork body to life.  Yup.  I believe it.

5. JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH -  A bunch of people walk to the center of the earth.  They barely need to use breathing devices, they don't get incinerated by the heat, and they don't get crushed to death by the extreme pressure.  At the end, they sit in a giant ash tray, get blown out of an erupting volcano, and escape with just minor scratches.

All of the above movies received serious critical acclaim, yet they're all as illogical as The Terminator.



Post Edited (12-04-03 10:45)

The differences in those stories and Terminator are important.

I'm not saying that stories can't be successful if they're cliched, hackneyed, cheesy, conveniently coincidental, etc.

What I'm saying about the Terminator is that, based upon Arnold's dialogue about fate in T3, there's no way in the world the story would even happen, because the machines are machines, cold, calculating, and logical.  They come out and say that all the stuff with John Connor is FATED, and that FATE cannot be changed. If this is so, are they fated to make the attempt to stop John Connor, even knowing that they will fail? That might be interesting, but that's not what happens in any of the movies.  I'm saying that the entire premise is unworkable, and that's why I don't like the movies at all.


The other stories are fantastic, and maybe even illogical, but they don't negate themselves the way Terminator does.

Star Wars is based upon a number of ancient myths and the writings of Campbell. Rocky can be seen as the great American myth. Jaws didn't outsmart the people so much as the people underestimated his size, strength, and intelligence and didn't have a big enough boat. Frankenstein is metaphor. Journey to the Center of the Earth is completely fantastical.  None of them, whether they're good stories or not, double back and negate themselves.

Eh, I like the Terminator movies. :)

Well, the first and T3, anyway.

The Burgomaster wrote:


> 2. ROCKY - A bum boxer (who could barely beat a local
> gym-fighter at the beginning of the movie) goes through a few
> months of training, ends up making it through an entire boxing
> match  with the heavyweight champion of the world, and nearly
> wins the bout.  Yeah, right.

Hell, Karate Kid is even worse.  Kid gets beaten up, goes to an old guy who makes him do work for a weekend.  Two weeks later the kid bests a black belt.  As someone whos spent years studying martial arts, I find that premise insulting

The only difference is the good movies make you forget you're watching a movie and you quit worrying about the plot holes.  

Age is a factor too...like just about everyone else, I loved STAR WARS when I was a kid, but I saw the re-release in 1997 and it did nothing for me.  Some of that might be that STAR WARS influenced other movies so much that it no longer seemed spectacular.

I enjoyed T3 as a sort of parody of the previous films--I don't think it was meant to be as serious as the other two.

The F/X in Star Wars does look dated now, but I enjoyed the rerelease, it is still a good story.  (Although the added scene with Jabba did seem contrived.)

FWIW, I did get the idea that Reese was John Connor's father (why else put in the "love" scene?)  That was fine with me.

"The only difference is the good movies make you forget you're watching a movie and you quit worrying about the plot holes."


Good movies don't HAVE major plot holes that completely invalidate the story they're telling!!!!!!!

Will wrote:

"all they would have to do is NOT send the original terminator after Sarah Conner, which would prevent the other guy from going back too and impregnating her with John Conner."

Of course, this gets into the "genetics" vs. "environment" argument.  You could assume that even if Reese didn't go back in time, Sarah might have been impregnated by another man and had a son who grew up to be the savior of humanity.  His upbringing by Sarah, rather than who his father was, could have molded him into the type of person who could save the world.  If the whole situation truly was based upon fate, then Sarah would have a son who would become the leader of the rebellion regardless of who his father was.

This is getting way too deep for me now . . .

No, fate would determine parentage on both sides, not just the mother. Fate is fate, and if it's unchangeable, as the Terminators themselves say, then it's unchangeable.

Honestly, if fate were considered malleable in the Terminator mythology, everything would be fine. But so much of the storyline concentrates on fate as being set in stone that it completely destroys the point of the movies.  Obviously, as I've stretched this thread out, it really bothers me.

Considering that Three on a Meathook is one of my all-time favorite movies, why in the hell does this bother me so? That's a thread for another time.

All genre movies have plot holes....most other movies do too, but they're not as obvious.

You are the very first person, that I know of... that doesn't  like the Terminator movies. I am a HUGE fan and I kinda take offense to your annoying, overly ANALytical theories about the plot structure. If you don't like it... don't watch it.
There's a ton of films that I could rip on when it comes to plot structure. I could also waste valueable time explaining why I hate them but who would care?

I seriously think you're alone on this one my friend. ; ) Anyhow, I hope you get the same thrill from watching your flicks as I do mine. Life is waaaay too short to be so bitter man.

I'm with the Brotha on this one. I loved the third movie only I thought it was too short and they could have done a few more character moments. It was worth watching just for the crane chase. I don't know why but when Arnold got thrown off into the front of the firetruck I almost  fell out  of my seat laughing. He says "I'll drive." and the firemen start bailing out of the truck.  It was a stupid joke, but I guess it caught  me in the right mood.

Time travel always has so many paradoxes involved, I've never seen a movie or read a story about it that you couldn't  shoot a million holes into.   It's a movie, not quantum physics class.

>I don't know why but when Arnold got thrown off into the front of the firetruck I almost fell out of my seat laughing. He says "I'll drive." and the firemen start bailing out of the truck.

I laughed my butt off on that part as well. : )


>I've never seen a movie or read a story about it that you couldn't shoot a million holes into. It's a movie, not quantum physics class.

Well said my brotha! ; ) Cheers!!!

Man, you guys are kind of mean about me not liking the Terminator movies.

Anyway, the reason I started the thread is precisely because I'm the only person I know who doesn't like them, and I was hoping to get other opinions.

But so far I've gotten (a) Don't think when you watch movies, (b) Other movies have completely stupid s**t in them so it's okay, and (c) It's a waste of time to analyze films.

I think I'm sad now.

Will wrote:

"But so far I've gotten (a) Don't think when you watch movies, (b) Other movies have completely stupid s**t in them so it's okay, and (c) It's a waste of time to analyze films."

a) It's okay to think when you watch movies.  But when I watch movies about cyborgs wearing sunglasses and black leather jackets walking around with big weapons, I spend most of my time thinking about how much ass he's going to kick and how many trucks he's going to blow up.

b) When I watch movies with stupid s**t in them, I put on my "suspension of disbelief" hat.  If the entertainment value exceeds the amount of stupid s**t, then I can usually live with the plot holes.

c) It is never a waste to analyze films. But it can be very frustrating if you try to analyze CASABLANCA, STAR WARS and THE WIZARD OF OZ by using the same measurements of quality.  If you do that, you'll end up saying that CASABLANCA is boring, STAR WARS is stupid, and THE WIZARD OF OZ is a sappy children's movie.

By the way, If THREE ON A MEATHOOK ever comes out on DVD, I'd probably be willing to pay as much as $30 for it.  And I've never even seen it.  That's how twisted I am.

Burg,

Three on a Meathook would be WORTH $30 at least....it's truly one of the greatest horrible, horrible movies I've ever seen. The whiteboy wah-wah funk band that scores the movie and makes two performances in the middle of the movie is worth it by itself!

As far as your analysis of my criticisms, you do have a point, I think, as far as the criteria for analysis. Obviously, Three on a Meathook and Casablanca wouldn't belong in the same category as far as entertainment or art.

But the Terminator movies are regarded so highly that I think they can be examined as any other big budget blockbuster that has designs at importance.  I don't mind turning off my brain to enjoy Cyborg, which is the only Jean Clod movie I liked, (or even Cyborg2, for that matter), but Terminator movies posture themselves as action sci-fi that thinks, not unlike the Matrix movies. The Terminator movies have a reputation for substance, and that's what gets my goat here.....

I think your missing the point of this entire changing the past premise.The point is that you can't know for sure what actions you take in the past will affect the future.The future its self is not set, but it does have a formula it follows and events that are likely to happen will happen.The machines and humans sending there own back in time to "change" it was a event that was very likely to happen no matter what.In the second movie they had parts from the original terminator to work off of and give them a huge leap in technology, but that labs were destroyed, off setting the dates at wich Skynet would have been created but not preventing it.Skynet was something that had to be built if the future of the world was to continue.
But that is of course all assumption, and its my atempt to rationalise the whole time travel paradox.You see you could make your argument about any movie involving time travel.And the fact is that we just don't know what would happen is we went back in time to change it.Would we destroy the universe, would it change are future, or would nothing happen because time is set and can't be changed?

But the Terminator movies don't have your view on time travel. They say that fate is fate and no matter what you do or how much you try you can't escape it. If John Connor can't escape his fate, then neither can the machines.  So there's no reason for the machines to do what they're doing, and they wouldn't do it, if not for the incredibly incompetent writers of the movies.

I think your also assuming that the machines know there fate.I don't remeber the movies saying that the machines are destined to lose or that the humans are destined to lose.The fate they speak of is applying to a singular individual and that is John Connor.The machines are attempting to change the past but they don't know for a fact that there is any fate or destiny to it, just that here is this guy named John Conner who is leading the rebilion.
Your argument that the machines are cold calculating machines that would be able to crunch the numbers and determine the out comes of events is rather invalid.The machines are cold and calculating but they are not omnipetent, and there for can not know the future nor can they know what would happened if the past is changed, all they could do is theorise about what changes may take place.In the first movie Reese says that the machines had virtualy lost the war and that sending a Termenator back in time to kill off Sarah Conner was a act of desperation.The machines hoped that they could kill her off and hopefully prevent John Conner from leading the resetance.
You view this as being a serious sci-fi movie and is supposed to be taken at face value, but then you would have to hate every other serious sci-fi movie also.Even Aliens which you said you liked has some glaring problems.First the colonist had been on that planet for quite some time but had only happened to recently discover a huge alien ship.Two the aliens have blood that can eat through anything but for some reason they don't melt them selves.Three at the end of the movie when Ripley tries to blow the alien queen out the air lock she some how manages to keep a firm hold on the ladder while a couple ton alien is tangiling from her foot and the vacume of space is sucking is trying to suck them out.The reality is that Ripleys arms would have been ripped off if she had tried that.Lastly how did the queen get on the ship undetected.The queen is not exactly hard to miss.

Wow!  

Did you all have the day off today?

I can't remember seeing so many replies to a single thread in one day!

I loved all 3 Terminator films....hell I hope they make a 4th!

I want it to be set in that grim post-apocolyptic future & follow the humans brutal struggle & eventual defeat of the machines.

That would be cool!



Post Edited (12-04-03 18:33)

I don't think it's a waste of time to analyze films...I just think it's a waste of time to analyze this series of films, because they aren't serious science fiction films--they're action films with a little science fiction thrown in.  It would be like trying to analyze what the RAMBO films have to say about geopolitics.

Terminator, the original. There is no need to even watch the sequels which further confuse, exploit and screw up a perfectly good story

> Terminator movies posture themselves as action sci-fi that thinks, not unlike the Matrix movies. The Terminator movies have a reputation for substance, and that's what gets my goat here.....

Well your goat needs to chew on a cyanide pillow and shut the hell up...

"Eirik : Just specificaly was the cheese factor in the happy ending,btw."

I have nothing against happy endings, but I really liked the first movie's bleak apocalyptic final note and was put off by part 2 having what seemed to me a more "commercially appealing" ending.  It would be like if they made a sequel to Casablanca where Rick finds the girl and wins her back from the French Resistance guy and they live happily ever after.  Not comparing T1 to Casablanca, just using it as an example.

Amen, Susan.

jmc wrote:

> It would be like trying to analyze what the RAMBO films have to say
> about geopolitics.

That we won the Viet Nam war.

Eirik : Humm....oh,okey. So it was a matter of taste. Cool. Still....i gotta admit, i could live with the "Commercially appealing" end. So i guess the question still remains. I see more to your answer, perhaps, then you may. Is it because the "Happy ending" was once such a cliche, that you prefer the bleak, suposedly more "Realistic" end, or was it maby, just in how they did it?

Susan wrote
Terminator, the original. There is no need to even watch the sequels which further confuse, exploit and screw up a perfectly good story

Personnaly I find T2 to be the best of the series.Not because of better special effects, but because it has a great story,and awsome action.Big deal if T2 had a more happy ending, there are always going to be some victorys for the good guys.
T3 is the movie they screwed up though.That movie was cliche after cliche.The story was ok but nothing any were near as good as the first two and did anyone think that the TX was a p***y.Sure the TX was sexy but it just didn't seem as bad ass as the first two terminators.I mean look at how hard it was to kill off the T1000.



Post Edited (12-06-03 00:05)

Well of course the TX was a p***y. She even had one... and a really nice one I bet! ;)

>>Personnaly I find T2 to be the best of the series.Not because of better special effects, but because it has a great story,and awsome action.Big deal if T2 had a more happy ending, there are always going to be some victorys for the bad guys.
<<

Most guys do. I found it to be too commercial, they were really milking arnie's persona in that his character became a caricature. Add the hot GNR song (which at the time was clearly targeting a certain age group), some catchphrases intentionally put in there for recapturing the accidental "i'll be back" hit, and over the top explosions. Then add that annoying little kid...which IMO, should have been popped like a tick in scene 1. ;-)

 I thought T2 was good for effects only, personally I'm not a fan..it didn't need to be done, it was only done to ride the coattails of the original and arnolds popularity at the time. It felt nothing like the original. I liked seeing the character development of the mother even tho it was very 2 dimensional. I liked the original because it was fresh, it was bleak and it left you with a sense of unease at the end. Where it seemed everything was fate, and yet a sense of hope that maybe you could change things. So you know as little as she does about what may lie ahead. I don't need a sequel to tell me what happened next.
I won't even watch T3 (reminds me of a scene in Spaceballs where the newsguy says something like "stay tuned for scenes from Rocky 5......thousand

It's like the matrix, I like a movie that leaves you with question at the end. I don't NEED answers, and I hate hollywoods incessant desire to constantly barrage you with them in sequels.



Post Edited (12-06-03 11:57)

"Sure the TX was sexy but it just didn't seem as bad ass as the first two terminators."

That's a good point.  TX seemed like a huge step down from the T1000 in terms of resilience and capability.  Not to mention that the T1000 actor was way more menacing while TX was simply a cute girl.

Flangeport:  I guess what I was saying was that I really liked the unhappy ending of the first one the way they did it.  That doesn't mean I'm a dreary person who only likes sad endings, but in that particular movie it really worked for me.  The second movie, almost from the outset, had an annoying PC undertone (beginning with that whiney kid telling his Terminator not to kill anyone) that you just knew would culminate in a shiney happy ending.  It didn't work for me.  If it worked for you, then I'm glad at least one of us enjoyed it.

Eirik : Fair enough. I agree with the handleing of the end in the first film. And the P.C. nature of the second may have been inevitable regards the need to establish John as a Hero type.
Sounds like a film that can wait for the Library copy to come in.

>But the Terminator movies don't have your view on time travel. They say that
>fate is fate and no matter what you do or how much you try you can't escape it. If
>John Connor can't escape his fate, then neither can the machines. So there's no
>reason for the machines to do what they're doing, and they wouldn't do it, if not
>for the incredibly incompetent writers of the movies.

But the machines don't know this. In the first one, the terminator didn't say much of anything, let alone about fate. In the second, it was John who told the terminator about fate. True, in the third one, the terminator does do a lot of harping about how fate can't be changed, but since machines only know what they're programmed with, who programmed his information about fate? It doesn't seem logical that Skynet would have given him that information, so maybe Kate taught him that in the future to impress upon him how important it was that he protect them in the present. You also have to consider that T3 was a hack jobnot done by the same filmmakers, so naturally, they were going to screw it up.

>It's like the matrix, I like a movie that leaves you with question at the end. I don't
>NEED answers,

Then you must have loved Solaris...

For some unknown reason, they're playing the first Terminator film three times in a row tonight on IFC.   I may start hating the first film now.  

Was the first film independent?  Maybe it was.....

It was obvious early on that T3 was a parody of the first two films, not to be taken seriously.   I think the series began losing something the minute they had Schwarzenegger as a "good terminator" in the second film.  It began reaching the James Bond level of silliness at that point.

Any one notice the orginal Terminator hater Will has not responded in a while.We are kinda just rehashing the same old s**t, with out him making more dumb reasons for hateing the movies.

You know, "wycked," there's no reason to be rude about me not liking the movies....I haven't been rude to anyone as far as arguing my points as I see them, and yeah, I haven't responded in a while because people have been repeating themselves.  But JohnL has made a pretty valid practical point which may actually affect my view, so thanks.

Will - don't get the impression we're trying to convert you or anything...


"We accept you, we accept you..gooble gobble gooble gobble, one of us, one of us."
"Freaks" 1932



Post Edited (12-07-03 11:18)

The Post  That  Refused to Die .

Hey Will,  take it in stride man. What people like of don't like is purely subjective.  I could get a few people started on a rant around here myself.

If they wanted to make a female TX , they should've had Chyna, or someone similar, play her.  At least SOMEONE that weighs more than 85 pounds would've been a little more believeable.

I know I'm coming into this whole "discussion" a bit late, but I don't like the Terminator movies either (except for some of the special effects). I doesn't have anything to do with overanalyzing the fate angle, though; my reason is much simpler. In the first movie, as an excuse for showing Arnold's muscle-licious booty, a big deal gets made about how "nothing dead can go through" the time travel process, and yet the Terminator himself CAN go through, despite the fact that he himself is dead metal. I know he was wrapped in skin, but under that skin was just metal. How could he ever travel through time? It doesn't take much analysis for this large of a plot hole to affect my judgment.

>I know he was wrapped in skin, but under that skin was just metal. How could he
>ever travel through time?

Supposedly, living things generated a sort of field around them. Since the terminator was covered in living skin, it geberated the field around him, protecting the metal components. Think of it like a plastic bag protecting the contents from getting wet.

> Supposedly, living things generated a sort of field around
> them. Since the terminator was covered in living skin, it
> geberated the field around him, protecting the metal
> components. Think of it like a plastic bag protecting the
> contents from getting wet.

Then why didn't anyone think to wrap a few big guns in living skin, come back and wreak some havoc? The Terminator himself could have easily done this; he'd just have come through with a few funny looking lumps. Also, the second Terminator didn't have the skin wrapped around him; he was totally liquid metal. Sorry, this is still too big a hole for my tastes.JohnL wrote:

I don't hate Terminator movies. I like all three. I didn't like T1 when I was a kid because it was to scary, but I LOVED T2. When I saw T3 last year, it wasn't good as I thought it would be, but it was a descent, and good sequal to Terminator series. Only a xouple of things I hate about this movie. There is no sad ending like there was in the first two movies. No T-101. Terminatrix was quite weak. She wasn't even near as tough as the T-1000 was to kill, I mean, look how hard he was to kill, and look at how easy it was to kill the TX. Other than that brilliant special effects and it was a very good movie at the most. T2 will allways be the best though, even if there is a T4 it won't beat T2, or even if there's a T5, 6, or 7 which I hope there isn't, T2 will allways be the best. I hope T4 is the last Terminator movie.

There were a lot more posts than I cared to read, so I hope nobody has already said this, but do the machines actually know who John's father is? We know, he knows, but I don't recall the machines knowing. Sarah eventually told the story to some cops and shrinks, but they didn't believe her. Any birth record probably showed the father as unknown.

The other question is of the machines' understanding of fate. We see all the events as being preordained and inescapable, but the machine view might be something more akin to communist doctrine. Judgement day was inevitable because humans are destined for the ash heap of history.

Mind you, I found it hard to swallow the idea that a fated event could be delayed a few years. If you can change history even a little, then it's changeable. Contradicts everything else that points to fate. It was also a little strange that everything fell together exactly the same, despite all that happened in those years. It would suggest that perhaps there are supernatural forces at work.

When do they say fate is fate?  In the third movie?  It certainly wasn't mentioned in the first movie, which is the one you're complaining about.  In that one they said the opposite - the future is not set, there are various "possible futures".  If you want to complain that sequels to movies are almost always inconsistent with the original, go right ahead, but it's hard to imagine how that reflects poorly on the first movie.  A person watching a movie in 1984 can hardly have his moviegoing experience spoiled by something that won't happen until 19 years in the future.  

And going back in time to change the present isn't a plot hole - serious physicists with lots of letters after their names  talk about that subject when discussing Einstein's theory of relativity.  Our current understanding of the situation says that travelling back in time is impossible - though travelling faster than light is also impossible, so I guess we can chuck the whole science fiction genre in the trash bin because any show that depicts people travelling to another solar system without taking hundreds or thousands of years to get there is implausable.  

But the idea is that in the future, people will be able to do these things.  Einstein's theory of relativity has only been around for about 100 years.  Probably 100 years in the future, we'll look back on our current understanding of physics and think it quaint and naive.  Now they've got quantum string theory, and maybe the big bang was created by two dimensional plains bumping into each other and releasing the energy that formed all the matter in the universe.  Sounds way more implausible than any Hollywood screenplay, but it's serious scientific theory.

There have been countless movies and TV shows dealing with futuristic technologies and the unknowns that arise from them.  To say they all suck because you don't believe in it seems rather odd.  And to be logically consistent in your argument you'd have to dislike them all.  If not just because they're not currently plausable, then because the second sequel that will be released in 2023 won't be consistent.

The main thing that put me off T3 was it's rating...here in England it was rated sutable for anyone of 12 years or older to watch! I thought "I film that meant to be a sequel to a violent cyborg film that has an age rating lower than Planes Trains And Automobiles is gonna suck!"

Also, several good point swere raised. i agree with Susan, The Terminator was the best. Dark, gritty, no Hollywood glamour, the leading lady covered in cuts, bruises, blood sweat and tears and looking like a genuine herione rather than Doctor Quinn with her "I've just survived a massive explosion, hence the single finger-smear of soot on my right cheek.

As for the Terminator films being stupid because of one thing, you could say the same of Igmar Bergmans' The Seventh Seal, because if Death is playing chess with Max Von Sydows' character, then what about everyone else who is dying?

As it's already been said before, if plot flaws make for a poor film, it's best to stick to reading non-fiction.

Where was death, Dirtcreature?
He has a temps agency. "Death-r-us" The temps get an extra day added to the life span, for each day they work.
What, you've never heard of the "Death of Rats?" For shame!