"Jacques E. Bouchard" <jacques_e_bouchard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:<Xns93B145FB28911jacquesbouchardyahoo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
>
> SPOLIER WARNING!!! [sic]
>
> SPOLIER WARNING!!! [sic]
>
> SPOLIER WARNING!!! [sic]
>
> SPOLIER WARNING!!! [sic]
>
> SPOLIER WARNING!!! [sic]
>
>
> Interesting, I thought it was more of a remake than a sequel.
> While T2 innovated, T3 did nothing new. In fact, not only did we get
> old re-heated concepts from T2 (such as the liquid metal terminator),
> but the sequence of events is almost identical to that in T2:
True, that's the biggest problem with this movie. The "goal" seemed
to be just to make everything bigger. During that chase scene, all I
could think was "how much did that cost? And that? And that?"
> And the remote-controlled cars are ridiculous. It seems that,
> even in the 21st century, people are still blissfully ignorant of what
> it is a computer can do. Hint: it CANNOT work mechanical devices
> remotely such as turning a steering wheeel and pressing down an
> accelerator! They can add numbers, but they can't do telekinesis!
Also true. They could have solved that problem with a few seconds of
setup as there are cars in existence today that are capable of being
controlled by computer like that. They were also out of her line of
site for some time, so they either had to be making their own
decisions or somehow transmitting images to her. Again, a few seconds
of setup showing "car cam" images would have made it work. Sloppy.
> The screenwriter(s) has obviously not bothered to keep his facts
> straight. First of all, the T-800 is not the same one as in T2, yet it
> seems to have memories of that movie (such as looking for the keys over
> the visor).
It is later established in the movie that the Terminator has been
briefed on the history of John Connor with the T-800 which
could/should account for it. He maintains the directive to avoid
causing human casualties (stupid conidering he is only there to usher
his targets out of the blast radius and leave everyone else to die).
However, he later reveals he has been programmed after John's future
death, so it seems silly that he'd have been informed of such
insignificant things like keys on the visor. Much more plausible if
John had programmed him.
> And remember the argument from T2? The terminator cannot shape
> itself into a complex mechanical device such as a bomb and simply blow
> up the city and John Connor with him. Yet, in T3, the terminatrix comes
> equipped with complex weapons. Then why not a thermonuclear device? The
> "screenwriter" never bothers to plug that plot hole.
I don't think that one is a problem either. The T-1000 was
*completely* made of liquid metal and thus couldn't form complex
devices, but could do things like disappear into the ground that the
TX couldn't do. The TX was only coated in liquid metal, and had
complex machinery underneath just like the T-800. There could be any
number of reasons not to nuke the city (easier to make sure the
multiple "targets" are dead if she kills them in person at close
range, would have provoked a military response not compatible with the
rise of Skynet, etc). I don't think it's necessary to explain why she
didn't take that particular course of action.
> T3 was more concerned with its big-chested terminatrix dressed in
> red vinyl, than remaining original.
Yes, that helped. But the story was still disappointing.
Andres
|
