Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 02, 2014, 12:10:56 PM
532475 Posts in 40274 Topics by 5042 Members
Latest Member: DMullet
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Why I hate the Terminator movies « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Author Topic: Why I hate the Terminator movies  (Read 2695 times)
Will
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 0
Posts: 115


« on: December 04, 2003, 09:45:39 AM »

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?

Logged
The Burgomaster
Aggravating People Worldwide Since 1964
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 588
Posts: 7838



« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2003, 10:32:55 AM »

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.

Logged

"Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow. Do not walk beside me either. Just pretty much leave me the hell alone."
Eirik
Guest
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2003, 10:40:47 AM »

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.
Logged
Will
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 0
Posts: 115


« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2003, 10:40:54 AM »

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.

Logged
Will
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 0
Posts: 115


« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2003, 10:42:43 AM »

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.

Logged
Eirik
Guest
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2003, 10:49:09 AM »

"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.
Logged
Flangepart
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 334
Posts: 6332



« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2003, 11:40:35 AM »

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.

Logged

"Aggressivlly eccentric, and proud of it!"
The Burgomaster
Aggravating People Worldwide Since 1964
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 588
Posts: 7838



« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2003, 11:44:06 AM »

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)
Logged

"Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow. Do not walk beside me either. Just pretty much leave me the hell alone."
Will
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 0
Posts: 115


« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2003, 12:00:28 PM »

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.

Logged
akiratubo
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 414
Posts: 3351



« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2003, 12:07:19 PM »

Eh, I like the Terminator movies. :)

Well, the first and T3, anyway.
Logged

Kneel before Dr. Hell, the ruler of this world!
raj
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 109
Posts: 2549



« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2003, 12:25:23 PM »

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
Logged
jmc
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 1
Posts: 637


« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2003, 12:40:21 PM »

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.
Logged
raj
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 109
Posts: 2549



« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2003, 12:48:44 PM »

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.
Logged
Will
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 0
Posts: 115


« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2003, 01:09:29 PM »

"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!!!!!!!

Logged
The Burgomaster
Aggravating People Worldwide Since 1964
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 588
Posts: 7838



« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2003, 01:24:15 PM »

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 . . .

Logged

"Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow. Do not walk beside me either. Just pretty much leave me the hell alone."
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Why I hate the Terminator movies « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.