like the majority (sorry, all) of Arnold's movies, it not meant to be
intellectual, only ENTERTAINING. so people who who critisize it should
really 'liken up' and enjoy Arnies return as the Terminator. Conrad.
Dre wrote:
> "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
|
