Ok, I know this is a minor point, but it's something that's bugged me ever since I first saw this movie. I had hoped that the novelization would shed some light on it, but it didn't.
Near the end, the tanker truck blows up and Sarah sees a figure stumble out of the cab and collapse on the ground. Most people seem to think this is the Terminator, but it can't be. First, the figure collapses on the ground out in the open, but the endoskeleton emerges from under a pile of debris. Also, when it shows a closeup of the burning figure, you can clearly see that there's nothing behind the jawbone/mouth area whereas the endskeleton isn't that open.
If this IS meant to be the Terminator, then Cameron really screwed up and if it isn't, why would he just put in some random passenger in the truck that was unseen up until that point?
Well, it's supposed to be the Terminator, the skin and clothes not fully burned off yet. It just used the magic of Offscreen Teleportation so it could make a cool entry via popping out of a pile of debris. Movies are filled with such poor edits, flawed effects, and continuity glitches.
Perhaps it collapsed and then crawled into the debris on a course for Sarah Connor?
akiratubo wrote:
> Perhaps it collapsed and then crawled into the debris on a
> course for Sarah Connor?
Could be, could be.
I still don't buy it.
I still don't buy it.
You bought a big metal time travelling killer robot with an Austrian accent and good taste in motorcycles...why quibble now?
I saw this movie when I was 17 years old in theaters, in 1984, and could clearly see and understand that it was The Terminator falling from the truck (or at least a stunt double for it - considering the body bore more than just a passing resemblence in clothing, build, and what not to The Terminator). I understood that this was establishing that it was not destroyed and that its skin and clothes were burning off and soon enough the endo-skeleton in fact stood up, making my jaw drop and gasp "Oh sh*t". But I knew it was coming, because Cameron hinted at it by showing the The Terminator falling from the truck.
Are you really letting a minor and not particularly clumsy continuity edit, the kind that can be found in dozens (no, hundreds of movies, get in the way of that?
Just what the heck about it are you finding hard to buy? Do you need every plot point pre-digested and spoon fed to you? You can't be that stupid, are you?
This is one nit so not worthy of picking!
I mean the T-1000 magically disappears from the truck when it crashes in T2. Get over it.
>You bought a big metal time travelling killer robot with an Austrian accent and
>good taste in motorcycles...why quibble now?
Actually, I had a problem with the accent. It doesn't make sense that a machine designed to blend in would have an accent that makes it stand out, but I accepted this because it was Arnold's real voice.
>resemblence in clothing, build, and what not to The Terminator). I understood
>that this was establishing that it was not destroyed and that its skin and clothes
>were burning off and soon enough the endo-skeleton in fact stood up, making
Except that it in the closeups of the head, it doesn't look the least bit like the endoskeleton, it looks like a human skull. I'd have to dig out the copy I taped off HBO years ago (yes, I'm one of the few who don't have a DVD player yet), but I could swear I also remember the eye sockets being empty.
When I saw the figure get out of the truck and fall, I figured it was the terminator also. After watching the movie a second time, I noticed how unlike the endoskeleton it looks in closeup.
>Are you really letting a minor and not particularly clumsy continuity edit, the kind
>that can be found in dozens (no, hundreds of movies, get in the way of that?
Umm, yes. Ok, I've seen all kinds of goofs in movies, most of them the result of mistakes on the part of the filmmakers (something missing from a scene etc.) or the result of poor decision making (using stock footage of a different plane in flight than was shown taking off). These types of things, while distracting are easy to understand why it was the way it was.
>Just what the heck about it are you finding hard to buy? Do you need every plot
That the figure clearly falls in the open and looks human in the closeups while the endoskeleton emerges from under a pile of debris in a completely different location with not even a clumsy line of dialog to explain it.
If they'd skipped the closeup and had the remains of the truck topple over on the body I wouldn't have thought twice about it.
Yep, you are. I guess James Cameron telling you personally is the only way to convince you of what is glaringly obvious. You have my sympathy.
.....give it a rest already, John. It IS the Terminator....PERIOD.
I totally agree Krieger.
Well said!
>I guess James Cameron telling you personally is the only way to convince you
>of what is glaringly obvious
That would be great, think you can arrange it?
You're an idiot. Of course it was the terminator
The guy who walked out of the truck was obviously dressed up in a big hood to protect him (stuntman) from the flames. As far as the stuff falling away from the face, that looked to me like the flesh, perhaps charred and stiff, falling away. It was a bit farther away from the endoskeleton than one might have thought it should be, but perhaps when he fell to the ground the charred flesh remnants got partially knocked away. It didn't have to be firmly attached to his face at that point. And as to the open area vs. there being stuff on top of him, I didn't really notice that, but if there was a little continuity error, so what? You could see the tow line attached to the tanker truck in the previous scene. :)