Why I hate the Terminator movies

[trekgeezer]

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.

[Kory]

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.

[Derf]

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.

[JohnL]

>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.

[Derf]

> 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:

[Sean]

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.

[AndyC]

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.

[Mr. Hockstatter]

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.

[dirtcreature]

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.

[Flangepart]

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!