+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Discussion (/thread-10926.html)
Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Discussion - DralaFi - 07-03-2003
Well having seen it today I gotta say that it is a good sequal. The $200 Mill budget makes for some very cool action and great CGI scenes.
However, leaving the theater I felt that something was lacking in the movie. I guess I expected more from it. It is a great action flick. No juicy story like T2, but overall I enjoyed it alot.
I think that I went into the movie expecting some of the same quality action and story as Terminator 2. And that probably skewed my liking of T3.
SPOILER ALERT
The beginning scene with the cyborgs and other machines in the future. Did anyone else think that the flying machines looked kind of fake? I personally think that the animatronic Cyborgs from T2 looked alot better.
Arnold can still pull it off. He is so much older now, and yet he remained almost the same (if not better) Terminator as in T2.
Kristanna Loken was great. She is a beautiful actress and played the role (in my opinion) of the Terminatrix quite well.
The other thing that really bugged me was the Skynet machine prototypes. The flying ones look so fake. I'm sorry but I just think that with their money they could have done alot better in this aspect.
The ending really had a nice twist. Cool idea and it makes sense. Just how are the two of them going to get out if arnold demolished the front entrance?
If T3 does well in the Theaters then may be T4 could become a reality. It probably would not have any of the current stars, but seeing how Humantity defeats the machines in the future would be interesting.
I think that I will go to see it again soon. May be like it was with Fellowship of the Ring I will like it more the second time around.
Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Discussion - WarLocke - 07-03-2003
Quote:The ending really had a nice twist. Cool idea and it makes sense.
I loved the ending. It's great the way that they spend two movies and most of the third trying to change the future, but in the end it becomes inevitable. It's great to see a recent movie that doesn't follow the "good guys win, everyone lives happily ever after" paradigm.
Quote:Did anyone else think that the flying machines looked kind of fake?
The other thing that really bugged me was the Skynet machine prototypes. The flying ones look so fake.
The Hunter-Killers had the same aspect as always (they show a few in the flashback in T1), but before now we never got a real up-close look at them. I think they look "fake" because the chassis was an unbroken, flat silver. Everything else we've seen Skynet produce (besides the T-1000, which by its nature is a bit of an anomaly) has had a very "industrial" feel (see: Terminator endoskeletons).
Quote:Arnold can still pull it off. He is so much older now, and yet he remained almost the same (if not better) Terminator as in T2.
I loved the "I am an obsolete model" line. That had to be regarding himas an actor, and was a great tongue-in-cheek aside, IMO.
Quote:Kristanna Loken was great. She is a beautiful actress and played the role (in my opinion) of the Terminatrix quite well.
I agree, except that the T-X (I refuse to type "Terminatirx"... oops) seemed almost like a step back from the T-1000. It had a humanoid skeleton, and could only alter its appearance. It couldn't pull any of the "impersonate a floor" or "chop people up with blades" tricks the T-1000 could. I suppose a set skeleton would be necessary to house on-board weaponry, but it seems like a less sturdy design than a mass of liquid metal.
Quote:If T3 does well in the Theaters then may be T4 could become a reality. It probably would not have any of the current stars, but seeing how Humantity defeats the machines in the future would be interesting.
It would suck, and that's why it would get made, sadly. The Terminator movies have never been about "Man versus Machine". That gets people into theaters, because it's cool, yeah. But they're about Humanity's stubbornness and indomitable will, Humanity's refusal to give up even when life is bleak. They're about hope, and the ending of T3 illustrates this perfectly.
- WL
EDIT: I normally don't link to Something Awful, but this thread is hilarious, and (sort of) relevant. SA posters tend to be freer with the vulgar words, though, so be warned.
Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Discussion - Zarathustra - 07-04-2003
*OBVIOUSLY THERE WILL BE SPOILERS. PLEASE DO NOT READ IF YOU DON'T WANT THEM*
Special Effects
One of the problems I've had with CG effects in recent movies is they don't feel...."real".
Take the four-armed guy that Obi-Wan meets up with in "Attack of the Clones". So life-like. So well-shaded.... yet I didn't believe him as a character anywhere near as much as I believed Greedo. And Greedo was a frickin' RUBBER MASK!
I have the same feelings about that early conceptual HK that was in the military compound. The dream sequence seemed fine to me, and I believe the large HKs that were patrolling over the water. And I REALLY liked the way they showed a future John Connor at one point standing on top of a downed one when they were all celebrating. But when they were testing out the flight patterns on that smaller one and then when it attacked.... it felt too sleek. I would have rather seen some animatronics involved, especially in a shot where it could have been pulled off that way without a problem.
The effects on Arnold near the end... wow. Very believeable. I didn't say to myself "wow, look at that rendering." I said "holy !@%(*&!!!, look at that side of his head!"
And the TX... well, it was the TX. No complaints there. I really liked the liquid metal over endo skeleton thing. This felt more like a specifically designed Terminator model as opposed to the mass-produced ones, the "grunts" if you will. The nanotechnology was a good slant and made for some nice effects.
Humor
Overdone at times. The whole thing with Arnold looking for sunglasses.... okay, good for a laugh at first. But let it go already. There just seemed to be some unnecessary slapstick at times, such as the sound effect when Arnold hits that fire engine. On its own it was funny. I was laughing. But too much of a good thing and it gets old.
Theme
Quite a mix-up here. In the past it seemed the theme was that engraved on Sarah Connor's "tomb". There is no future but what we make. But in this one it seemed that the message was that some things are inevitable.... and that doesn't mean you don't fight them anyway. The situation in the mausoleum right before the quote of "anger is more useful than despair" hit this one on the head.
But I have to agree with Warlocke that it was quite refreshing not to have a "good guys win the day" ending to the movie. It was bleak, judgement day had happened, and the question of "who's in charge" is presented to John. Two thumbs up.
Sequel
There is going to be a T4 if this does well in the box office, which I wager it will. Only thing they've not done is include a trailer at the end of the credits. What I'm expecting is a turnaround once more, saying that mankind can indeed influence the future and that while some things may be written, that doesn't mean they can't be alterred. I think John Connor's death is going to be the situation that will display this, as I can see them somehow preventing it and showing that maybe it's not hopeless to change the future after all.
I was worreid about T3, as I've seen some good movies end up with a screwed up sequel/trilogy. But I liked the movie, and have hopes that if they DO make a T4, they won't mess things up. If there's any doubt on the quality of the next one, I say they stop while they're ahead.
Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Discussion - Albion Child - 07-04-2003
Personally I was quite disappointed with this movie. It seemed like I was watching T2 all over again.
Okay, same Arnold T 101 in as T2 battles a technologically superior terminator (T101 vs. T100 = same as T 101 vs. Tx).
The bad terminator comes back in time to kill people and Arnold saves them.
This is much too general obviously but I really hoped for something different. I expected the story to be something like this--->
1. They missed some minor detail in T2 when they attempted to stop judgement day. Perhaps there were other pieces from the original terminator (T100??)somewhere else besides Cyberdyne.
2. Judgment day happens, there is a short part explaining how Connor became the great leader, and the war starts.
3. Tx is sent (not back in time) to kill Connor and Arnold protects him.
4. ending A. Humans win war
B. Humans win small victory and get hope
This would probably happen in T4 if there is one, but it really didn't need to be two movies. This one seemed like a "filler" more than an important part of the series.
On a side note however, does anyone else feel that the terminator series make a good prequel to The Matrix?
1. Humans make AI
2. AI starts to take over
3. humans block the sun and celebrate their victory (ending for T4)
4. the Matrix is created and the rest is history... :)
Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Discussion - Occhidiangela - 07-05-2003
The small prototypes combine artistic beauty and function.
Concept: the past 30 yeas of vectored thrust, tilt rotor concept, and UAV are combined to make a small scale version of the later HK's that we get glimpses of. Use vectored thrust on a tilted powerplant and replace the wings/propellors with high power density jet engines.
Critique: By replacing tilt rotor with the small jet engines one gets rid of some torque problems and gets more use out of each BTU of fuel burned. I would have preferred to see more of a tail section/ empenage for stability, but the tail section's vectored thrust idea has already been put into action in helicpoters somewhat with finestrons, so its rotatable thrust can probably take care of most rotation aboutthe vertical axis. The shape of the HK's body is both aerodynamic and suitable for housing both sensors and weapons.
Engineering problem: you have to beef up the wing root considerably since the thrust coming from the wing tip will force the wing to act more as a canitlever than usual. On most air foils, the weight/load in born from the root out, decreasing as you approach the wing tip. The primary thrust being at the wing tip changes the loading, but I suppose with exotic materials this can all be solved. V-22 has solved it more or less.
Neat feature. The engines being on the wing tip act as the fuel tanks on the F-2 or the T-2: they reduce the turbulent flow at he wing tips and make for more efficient aerodynamic flow across the wing in general. By co locating the thrust producing module with the wingtip "vortex reduction" you will end up with a slightly more efficient airfoil design. (OK, so what?) This should reduce stall speeds and put less of a burden on vectored thrust during the slow flight enveloped. The vectored thrust takes over at very low airspeeds in any case, since the lift wont be produced by wings.
So, what did they use to power those little engines? More nuclear power packs like the kind that ran Arnold? And, even small jet enginges make a hell of a lot more noise than those little things did. :D
About the T-1000's. You could make those today. The 20mm Gats and the sensor package, tractor driven, are a pretty easily accomplished fusion. The only thing wrong with the movie version is that they ever missed. Vulcan CIWS technology has been around for about 30 years, and it don't miss much. T-1000, at a similar cyclic rate of fire and with a similar guidance package, would have wasted maybe two rounds before turning Dr Brewster and John into chutney when they were fleeing. (Nag nag nag) Arnold wisely uses the titanium body (obviously, given the color and strength versus bullets) as cover when he shoots the brains out of one.
Enough tech speak, twas a fun film. Oh, and IMO, using a Sikorsky (S-61) Sea King to dive into a tunnel and catch a robot is a horrible abuse of a perfectly good helicopter. :P On the other hand, I suppose one must use what is available to complete a mission.
Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Discussion - Zarathustra - 07-05-2003
Nit (just because it's definitely been over a year since I've nitted you, Occhi) ;) :
Those were T-1 models, not T-1000s. The T-1000 was the liquid metal terminator in T2.
Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Discussion - Vash - 07-06-2003
I loved the twist at the end. Perhaps Arnold's big lie about the fallout shelter was foreshadowed by his small lie to Katie Brewster (Claire Danes is purty...) at the beginning of the movie about letting her go if she told him where John Connor was.
Two questions:
It was Katie's father, not Arnold, who mentioned Crystal Peak (I believe that was the name of the place). Did Mr. Brewster understand what Arnold was trying to do and gave John and Katie the location of a fallout shelter instead of the location of Skynet's main computer (a location which, as it turned out, doesn't exist)?
Also a time travel mind-#$%& question for y'all...John said that Katie's father was the key all along and if the events in the second terminator movie did not occur, he would have "hooked up" with Katie and been in contact with Katie's father much sooner. But...but...anyone see a problem with this...
1) If the Terminator did not come back in the second movie, Cyberdyne would have killed John and his mother.
2) If the Terminator did not come back in the second movie, and assuming that Cyberdyne didn't waste them, neither John nor his mother would have known about Skynet or any of the details about Earth's grim future (since John's mother was not informed of such details in the first movie). So if the events in the second movie didn't occur and John didn't know about Skynet...what would his association with Katie's father have done? John would not have known about Katie's father's job and the Skynet project anyway.
Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Discussion - DralaFi - 07-06-2003
Trying to understand Temporal theory will make anyone insane.
You have to look at it this way. John's father is from the future. Who was sent by John himself as the leader of the human resistance to save Sarah Conner from the original Terminator. In this process Sarah becomes pregnant with John after having sex with the soldier was sent to the past by John, who is now John's father. You see where i'm going with this? It's all a cirlce. A Loop.
If the first Terminator didn't try to kill Sarah, then Cyberdyne would never have gotten it's parts and no Judgment day from them. But the military does it anyway. Had Cyberdyne not been destroyed then the Skynet military project would have accelerated and Judgment Day would have occured alot earlier.
There is a possible explanation. That in the very beginning of the loop, Sarah is not targeted by the Terminator for they do not exist yet. The future isn't made yet. So Sarah hooks up with John's father at some other time, and has his child. John. Time goes by, John hooks up with his future wife at a much earlier age. Years later military develop Skynet, Judgment day happens. John and his future wife survive. After the nuclear winter passes, the human resistance emerges. The machine A.I. find out who their leader is. Develops time travel into the past and sends the First Terminator. John knowing who his father is sends him back in time and all the other events that we all know take place from then on.
Now in T3, judgment day has occured. John knows what will happen and he knows he will meet his father, send him back. To make sure he is not killed in the past by saving his mother. Then he will have to send the Terminator back as per T2's events. And so the loop continues... because we don't know (exactly) what happens after T3 it is still a mystery.
It gets very confusing if you think about how the whole time travel and stuff would work out. It wouldn't in real life IMO. But makes for a cool and interesting story.
Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Discussion - Vash - 07-06-2003
If I'm not mistaken, I think John Connor in T3 was talking about the events of T2 while they were in the trailer park. He noted that the events of T2 happened the day after he met Katie and that if those events had not occurred, he would have married Katie and become acquainted with her father.
What I'm trying to say is that if the events of T2 did not occur, yes John would have been with Katie (and her father) much sooner, but John would not have known about the significance of Katie's father because he would not know about Skynet and other important details about Judgement Day (although he would have had brief knowledge of Earth's grim future since Sarah Connor probably informed him of her experiences from T1).
Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Discussion - Zarathustra - 07-06-2003
I think that was an attempt at displaying the inevitability of the events surrounding Judgement Day. They've been fighting the Fates, and T3 is showing that this is a futile fight.
What I'm expecting to see is that in T4 (hopefully not T5, as I don't care to see things dragged out that far), they do indeed manage to change the way things are to be. They're going to save John Connor from being killed by the Terminator that is going to come back to help him in T3.
I'm seeing a bit of a Star Wars thing going on here.
Episode 4: Good wins! Woot!
Episode 5: Damn... we just got torn apart. That sucks. And Han's in stasis. Ouch.
Episode 6: Good wins again! Woot!
But in Terminator terms it'd be:
T1 and T2: There is no future but what we make. Woot!
T3: Damn... we're doomed. It's inevitable. That sucks. And John's going to be killed by a Terminator. Ouch.
T4: There is no future but what we make... again... I guess. Um.. Woot!
Just makes sense to me that they'd draw the plot arc that way. It's worked in the past.
Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Discussion - Rhydderch Hael - 07-06-2003
WarLocke,Jul 3 2003, 01:47 PM Wrote:... except that the T-X (I refuse to type "Terminatirx"... oops) seemed almost like a step back from the T-1000. It had a humanoid skeleton, and could only alter its appearance. It couldn't pull any of the "impersonate a floor" or "chop people up with blades" tricks the T-1000 could. I suppose a set skeleton would be necessary to house on-board weaponry, but it seems like a less sturdy design than a mass of liquid metal. ...Mr Cranky has his own take on the T-X vs T-1000 aspect, summing up that the T-1000 proved a far more menacing Terminator villian simply because most of the guys who went and watched T2 did not have an underlying desire to sleep with Robert Patrick... ;)
Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Discussion - IHateClowns. - 07-07-2003
Ohh.. i'm going to have to see it now :P
And i don't mind spoilers, atleast it doesn't contain any clowns.. :blink:
Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Discussion - pakman - 07-07-2003
I have always had a question about how Arnold's character always comes back. In the first one, he was crushed in a machine by the woman (been a loooooonnng time since I've seen it) and in the second one, he committed suicide by going in to the molten iron pool that the T-1000 was knocked into. How does his model keep coming back? Does it have to do with the time travel that the Machines in the far future do? It's so confusing :blink:
Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Discussion - TaMeOlta - 07-07-2003
"Give me your clothes !"
"Talk to the hand !!"
//CRUNCH//
"NOW !" :lol: :lol:
Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Discussion - wundergore - 07-07-2003
pakman,Jul 7 2003, 12:30 PM Wrote:I have always had a question about how Arnold's character always comes back. In the first one, he was crushed in a machine by the woman (been a loooooonnng time since I've seen it) and in the second one, he committed suicide by going in to the molten iron pool that the T-1000 was knocked into. How does his model keep coming back? Does it have to do with the time travel that the Machines in the far future do? It's so confusing :blink:Arnold's character is actually a series of Terminators of the same model. It's not one individual Terminator. According to the books, Skynet based that particular model on a counter-terrorist commando (I can't recall his name right now, but it's German/European). Thus when one model gets scragged, they just bring another online to send back.
W<
Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Discussion - pakman - 07-07-2003
Ah, ok. That makes sense. Thanks :)
Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Discussion - Occhidiangela - 07-07-2003
The T-1, no the T-1000, got a little careless, thanks for the correction. In any case, it fuses a small John Deere tractor with a pair of 20mm gatling guns, what's not to like? Soon to be on the Nieman Marcus shopping list "for the man who has everything else and wants a beef up to his home security system." :D
Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Discussion - Zarathustra - 07-07-2003
Agreed. It's going on my wish list this year. B)
Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Discussion - Guest - 07-08-2003
The movie was fun but not great like T2 was. What I most remember from the movie was how hot the TX was - I guess thats not a strong review.
Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Discussion - Hammerskjold - 07-08-2003
Some Spoilers ahead, you've been warned.
I might have read this the back of some magazine somewhere that I now forgot. ;)
>I agree, except that the T-X (I refuse to type "Terminatirx"... oops) seemed almost like a step back from the T-1000. It had a humanoid skeleton, and could only alter its appearance. It couldn't pull any of the "impersonate a floor" or "chop people up with blades" tricks the T-1000 could. I suppose a set skeleton would be necessary to house on-board weaponry, but it seems like a less sturdy design than a mass of liquid metal.
Or it might have been James Cameron commenting on T2. If the T-100 series (Ah-Nould) is a tank, then the T 1000 (Robert Patrick) is a Porsche. Going on that reasoning, the T-X looks and acts to me like a tank if it was designed by Porsche. (Granted Cameron has nothing to do with T-3 iirc.)
Overall I quite enjoyed it, the ending provided a nice loop to the first movie. Though now I'm intrigued by the T-100 killing J. Connor. What is that about? That obviously ties in with his wife sending in this version.
And Arnold as this third incarnation is pretty well done. A nicely played blend between the cold machine of the first, and the almost human one of the second. His line of "I'm obsolete" was great.
To Occhi:
>Enough tech speak, twas a fun film. Oh, and IMO, using a Sikorsky (S-61) Sea King to dive into a tunnel and catch a robot is a horrible abuse of a perfectly good helicopter. On the other hand, I suppose one must use what is available to complete a mission.
To me that was a great visual metaphor for the T-101. Especially with his "obsolete" line. T-X came in a sleek Bell (I might be wrong here), while Ahnold crashes the party with a big lumbering flying iron ox. Nothing sums that up better than a Sikorsky. ;) (I didn't know the exact model until you mentioned it, but from the brief shot it had an unmistakeable Sikorsky profile\looks.)