View Full Version : terminator
Wideboy
30-12-09, 09:48 PM
whats best 1 or 2?
the others are crap so not including them
Wideboy
30-12-09, 09:50 PM
no!!
Yes... I want your Cloths, your Boots, and your Motorcycle...!!!
I'll be Back.
Wideboy
30-12-09, 09:51 PM
ahh your all nuts
GeneticBubble
30-12-09, 09:56 PM
im going to agree and say 2
fizzwheel
30-12-09, 09:58 PM
1 is better
The plot is better, the script is better, its also bl**y scarey in places and it relies on acting / script to tell a decent story rather than the overly done special effects CGI emphasis that there is in 2.
Not saying that 2 is a bad film, just think 1 is better, the sh*tty special effects actually add to it...
Wideboy
30-12-09, 10:00 PM
yeah well done fizz
T2 and the rest are to fluffy not enough termination
squirrel_hunter
30-12-09, 10:05 PM
Two is the better, but without the brilliance of One we would never have seen it.
Wideboy
30-12-09, 10:34 PM
actually thinking about it salvation was quite good.... hmm
Two is the better, but without the brilliance of One we would never have seen it.
And we wouldn't of had The Sperminator 1 & 2 or The Penetrator
Wideboy
30-12-09, 10:48 PM
:smt005
definitely t2 but t1 was good aswell.
the_lone_wolf
30-12-09, 11:14 PM
T1 ok, but Arnie too human, no real sense of the unstoppable force...
T2 better, Arnie more machine like, and... dare I say it... Robert Patrick was a much better "bad" terminator
T3 was godawful
Salvation was saved by the special effects, Christian Bale demonstrating once again that his acting style spans the many genres from "shouting" to "yelling"
metalhead19
30-12-09, 11:25 PM
Salvation was saved by the special effects, Christian Bale demonstrating once again that his acting style spans the many genres from "shouting" to "yelling"
Sound about right, its basically him talking in the batman voice without the funky outfit.
But +1 to T2 :thumleft:
T1 ok, but Arnie too human, no real sense of the unstoppable force...
T2 better, Arnie more machine like, and... dare I say it... Robert Patrick was a much better "bad" terminator
T3 was godawful
Salvation was saved by the special effects, Christian Bale demonstrating once again that his acting style spans the many genres from "shouting" to "yelling"
when he's on the radio talking to the resistance i don't know how they understood what he was on about cause i ****ing didnt.:rolleyes: oh and marcus was a far better lead man than connor just my opinion.
metalhead19
30-12-09, 11:32 PM
Haha, it should have had subtitles
Spiderman
31-12-09, 12:21 AM
T1 for sure, it was the original and a classic!
T2 is very watchable tho, i'll give it that.
watching some terminator on bbc3 today were we wideboy?
I reckon both T1 and 2 are superb, but T2 takes it, mainly because of the addition of the liquid terminator and the carnage that ensues. Don't get me wrong though, it's tough, and both are superb. T1 will always be the original regardless.
edit;
and terminator 3 isn't even worth talking about. Salvation is good, and pretty underrated. Hard work creating the future world of terminators, and they did it quite well I reckon, with great effects.
metalangel
31-12-09, 02:49 AM
Definitely 2. For one thing, you don't have to see Linda Hamilton's horrible rubbery tits.
MattCollins
31-12-09, 03:39 AM
Funny ya know, I preferred T3.
Always gotta be the oddball.
barwel1992
31-12-09, 03:49 AM
t2 is the best t1 was good t4 was ok t3 was rubish
Two is the better, but without the brilliance of One we would never have seen it.
I voted for 1 but agree with Squizz.
Truly great film made on a budget. Never tire of watching it. Runs Bladerunner close to being my favourite film :thumbsup:
MattCollins
31-12-09, 10:06 AM
Bladerunner is one that I will never tire of watching. Its a pity that they didn't turn it into a trilogy or at least back it up with a sequel.
muffles
31-12-09, 10:59 AM
It depends what you like, it's the same difference between Alien and Aliens - horror/scary vs action. T1 is more horror/scary whereas T2 is more action. I can't pick one myself, depends which one I'm in the mood for :D
T2, except for the kid who is really annoying with a whiney voice, not much in the way of acting skill and very easy to dislike, yet he's supposed to be the one you're rooting for.
metalangel
31-12-09, 02:31 PM
Really? I thought that Eddie Furlong did a great job of avoiding the whole 'stupid whiney kid' stereotype of movies like this. Yes, he starts as an arrogant little **** but he learns humility quickly, never puts himself into obvious danger and by the end of it I felt his attachment to Ahnold quite strongly.
Warthog
31-12-09, 02:35 PM
t2 is the best t1 was good t4 was ok t3 was rubish
Exactly right.
T2, except for the kid who is really annoying with a whiney voice, not much in the way of acting skill and very easy to dislike, yet he's supposed to be the one you're rooting for.
"Miles Dyson! She's going to blow him away! Come on, let's go, let's go, come on, come on, let's go, come on, let's go, come on!" :lol:
hindle8907
31-12-09, 02:54 PM
T2 :)
metalmonkey
02-01-10, 12:02 AM
T1 is on BBC3 now if you didn't see the other night:D
I like the way it was described "it like back to the future, but a bit more scarey":smt005
T1 is an awesome moive, I loved it totally very cool how it was done when you think, of the year it was made. Had to reley on a story, to drive it not specail effects, why can't more movies be like that now?
T2 totally awesome moive too, buy more for becasue its a really good action film, I don't think the kid was annoying in the moive what do you expect he was teenager then.
T3-why?
T4 I enjoyed it, but Bale was **** as John Connor the guy he played across who was a terminator was so much better then he was and would have a better lead. Why did the they let Bale take lead?
Well Oiled
02-01-10, 11:05 AM
Has to be the original. Darker and the ealry 80's feel makes it more enjoyable for me.
Salvation had those sweet bike terminators...
But given the choice: T2.
Salvation had those sweet bike terminators.
too true!!
Miss Alpinestarhero
02-01-10, 05:16 PM
I like terminator 2 :D I like how Arnold schwarzeneggerblahblahblah is the "goodie" and freaks out Sarah Connor - my fave part is when he breaks her out of the mental insitution. I found Robert Patrick super scary when I was younger :(
rpwoodman
02-01-10, 06:48 PM
The menace of the baddie in T2 - super.
Someone said that the acting in T1 was better. FFS - It's Arnold Swarzenegger!!! :-)
T1 ok, but Arnie too human, no real sense of the unstoppable force...
T2 better, Arnie more machine like, and... dare I say it... Robert Patrick was a much better "bad" terminator
T3 was godawful
Salvation was saved by the special effects, Christian Bale demonstrating once again that his acting style spans the many genres from "shouting" to "yelling"
spot on. :thumleft:
DarrenSV650S
05-01-10, 10:38 PM
Just seen T4.
Right so when the machines capture kyle why don't they just kill him instantly?
cause the movie would end and they have sequel's.
DarrenSV650S
05-01-10, 10:42 PM
also don't like the way the amputee terminator keeps throwing his enemy away, rather than crushing his skull
also why if they have time machine's don't they go back and properly kill miles dyson the guy who started it all and stop the cybernet thing the whole terminator plot makes no sense haha.
Yes... I want your Cloths, your Boots, and your Motorcycle...!!!
Is there a Kim & Aggy version that I've missed?
also why if they have time machine's don't they go back and properly kill miles dyson the guy who started it all and stop the cybernet thing the whole terminator plot makes no sense haha.
Yeah, perhaps best not to over analyse. I mean, we're supposed to think the machines send Terminators back through time to various points to stop the resistance before it begins, but of course the paradox is that success in that purpose changes the reality of the time from which the Terminator is sent, to the extent that it need not be sent. The implication is that the world somehow changes around us, along with our minds and memories, when something in the past is "altered", hmmm.
I think it's best to assume that if time travel is possible, then nothing makes any difference. Like the past, the reality of the future is set in stone if someone can travel back from it. Just as you cannot time travel to visit your teenage self, introduce yourself and make yourself rich, unless you remember it happening and are currently rich as a result. Then, whether you like it or not, you will make that journey through time yourself in later years. Similarly, if it's your intention to visit yourself and throw yourself a surprise 12th birthday party and give yourself a "sports almanac", nothing you can do will make it happen.
Kind of puts a downer on the whole Terminator series though.
It depends what you like, it's the same difference between Alien and Aliens - horror/scary vs action. T1 is more horror/scary whereas T2 is more action. I can't pick one myself, depends which one I'm in the mood for :D
You have put into words what I was thinking there muffles so +1.
Both superb films :)
startrek.steve
07-01-10, 04:08 PM
I think it's best to assume that if time travel is possible, then nothing makes any difference. Like the past, the reality of the future is set in stone if someone can travel back from it. Just as you cannot time travel to visit your teenage self, introduce yourself and make yourself rich, unless you remember it happening and are currently rich as a result. , nothing you can do will make it happen.
Kind of puts a downer on the whole Terminator series though.
Unless you believe in the theory that every decision made creates a new universe that forks off from the current one, try googling John Titor for more info.
Steve
startrek.steve
07-01-10, 04:10 PM
T2, except for the kid who is really annoying with a whiney voice, not much in the way of acting skill and very easy to dislike, yet he's supposed to be the one you're rooting for.
Get a grip John!
Are we learning yet?
Unless you believe in the theory that every decision made creates a new universe that forks off from the current one, try googling John Titor for more info.
Steve
The Many Worlds theory.
In the Terminator example, if success leads to another "fork", then failure is the way it always happened and always will have happened on the existing "fork" - the "fork" which prompted you to go to such lengths in the first place. There will always be a John Connor that grows up to be a resistance leader fighting the machines.
Another interesting question is at what point does a "change" occur? When you kill Miles Dyson? When you decide to? When you send a Terminator back in time? When it arrives? When as a kid you realise your destiny is to send a Terminator back in time? When you were conceived? etc etc
If in your future you're going to do something in "the past" then it's already done, even if it's in your future. If the past is always there to be travelled to, so too must the future exist, because someone can travel from it.
I remember reading about Titor a few years ago. I'm as convinced he's a fraud now as I was then. Many worlds is convenient, because it means no proof need be presented, ever. "Well there was a civil war in my universe, I must have changed something". Oh right.
Edit: Yeah he's annoying no? There's a really cheesily read little speech about us having no future but what we make for ourselves too iirc. I forget the actual line. Probably the Miles Dyson bit is his worst though :) Or perhaps him teaching Arnie the lingo of the streets, but somehow coming across as a bit of a middle class pretender.
metalangel
07-01-10, 10:16 PM
Skynet only exists because it sent the things needed for itself to be built back in time. So does that mean it's an anomaly, or that it's inevitable it'll be built? Because how did it come into existence the first time, in order to send the things needed for itself to be built the first time? Basically, arm + processor = Skynet = arm + processor = Skynet, looping forever. Likewise, the Resistance must know that they have to send Terminators back to protect the Connors because they know how history went and have to ensure it happens the way they've been told it did. Hurts my head thinking about it.
I remember watching T2 with several younger friends. They didn't flinch when the T-1000 cuts that cop open at the beginning, but they all said 'ewww' when he then crouches down to pick up his gun because 'you saw his butt!!!' :rolleyes:
muffles
08-01-10, 12:36 AM
Skynet only exists because it sent the things needed for itself to be built back in time. So does that mean it's an anomaly, or that it's inevitable it'll be built? Because how did it come into existence the first time, in order to send the things needed for itself to be built the first time? Basically, arm + processor = Skynet = arm + processor = Skynet, looping forever. Likewise, the Resistance must know that they have to send Terminators back to protect the Connors because they know how history went and have to ensure it happens the way they've been told it did. Hurts my head thinking about it.
Maybe if you think about time slightly differently then it works - time might not exist from some 'viewpoints' so from another viewpoint it might just be arm + processor = Skynet. Sounds a bit odd but it's only because we think of time as a linear thing that this question comes up, I reckon.
metalangel
08-01-10, 07:22 AM
I suppose, you could think that Skynet is from an alternate timeline and can't control where its stuff gets sent back in time to... so our timeline would never have had Skynet but another one did... and their Terminator arrived in our timeline hence Skynet was able to be developed.
muffles
08-01-10, 08:53 PM
I suppose, you could think that Skynet is from an alternate timeline and can't control where its stuff gets sent back in time to... so our timeline would never have had Skynet but another one did... and their Terminator arrived in our timeline hence Skynet was able to be developed.
I think the many worlds stuff above fits in here as you say, so you have a timeline, Skynet sends a terminator back. The minute it starts doing stuff that gets spawned off onto another timeline where the destroyed terminator is used to create Skynet (possibly a different type of Skynet).
But then that timeline has the conundrum you mention still...so what I was saying was something more along the lines of "why think of time as a linear thing, with a past, present and future?" and instead think of time as just "being". Everything "is" at the same time, so maybe from that viewpoint there is no conundrum.
That's the kind of stuff you end up thinking about when you started thinking a lot about infinity, how time never "started" and will never "end". It makes you think of other ways that time could be "viewed" :shock:
I think the many worlds stuff above fits in here as you say, so you have a timeline, Skynet sends a terminator back. The minute it starts doing stuff that gets spawned off onto another timeline where the destroyed terminator is used to create Skynet (possibly a different type of Skynet).
But then that timeline has the conundrum you mention still...so what I was saying was something more along the lines of "why think of time as a linear thing, with a past, present and future?" and instead think of time as just "being". Everything "is" at the same time, so maybe from that viewpoint there is no conundrum.
That's the kind of stuff you end up thinking about when you started thinking a lot about infinity, how time never "started" and will never "end". It makes you think of other ways that time could be "viewed" :shock:
But if we accept that this (many worlds) is true, then we have to assume that the machines don't know about this, because it means there is literally no point at all sending something "back" if it's only going to end up in another timeline. It only serves to prove that you'll have no influence at all on your own. Anything that is ever going to be sent into the past in your own timeline has (of course) already arrived and had whatever influence it's ever going to have.
muffles
09-01-10, 07:40 PM
But if we accept that this (many worlds) is true, then we have to assume that the machines don't know about this, because it means there is literally no point at all sending something "back" if it's only going to end up in another timeline. It only serves to prove that you'll have no influence at all on your own. Anything that is ever going to be sent into the past in your own timeline has (of course) already arrived and had whatever influence it's ever going to have.
I guess I would think that at the point Skynet decides to send a terminator back, then it spawns into a new timeline at that point, where the terminator had already been sent back. I don't suppose one "knows" when the timelines split so you'd likely never think about it in the way you just mentioned...?
I guess I would think that at the point Skynet decides to send a terminator back, then it spawns into a new timeline at that point, where the terminator had already been sent back. I don't suppose one "knows" when the timelines split so you'd likely never think about it in the way you just mentioned...?
You'd agree that we live our own lives with conscious knowledge of just one though, of course.
I think splitting of timelines is irrelevant to us. The question is whether something being sent back to our past can make a difference to the life we have already lived. Obviously to make a difference to our own existence (which is what the machines, and indeed the resistance, are trying to do) then whatever we send back has to arrive in our own past.
If (as a 19 year old) you want stop yourself from having an accident which caused you to lose your legs on your 17th birthday, you would hope to encounter yourself, not some identical till that point version who you save, but with no effect at all on your own history.
To my mind if something is sent back 10 years to our past, then 10 years ago it arrived. And nothing can stop that thing being sent back in time, because it arrived.
If what we send arrives in a way or place or dimension that has no effect at all on our own world then we might as well just be destroying whatever it is we send. Seems like a bit of an extreme length to go to just to save a dimension we'll never even know exists.
We come to the question of whether reality can alter itself around us, along with our minds and memories, and to me that's even more absurd.
kwak zzr
09-01-10, 09:19 PM
i pref 1 originals are best
muffles
10-01-10, 11:20 PM
You'd agree that we live our own lives with conscious knowledge of just one though, of course.
I think splitting of timelines is irrelevant to us. The question is whether something being sent back to our past can make a difference to the life we have already lived. Obviously to make a difference to our own existence (which is what the machines, and indeed the resistance, are trying to do) then whatever we send back has to arrive in our own past.
If (as a 19 year old) you want stop yourself from having an accident which caused you to lose your legs on your 17th birthday, you would hope to encounter yourself, not some identical till that point version who you save, but with no effect at all on your own history.
To my mind if something is sent back 10 years to our past, then 10 years ago it arrived. And nothing can stop that thing being sent back in time, because it arrived.
If what we send arrives in a way or place or dimension that has no effect at all on our own world then we might as well just be destroying whatever it is we send. Seems like a bit of an extreme length to go to just to save a dimension we'll never even know exists.
We come to the question of whether reality can alter itself around us, along with our minds and memories, and to me that's even more absurd.
What I was thinking was (hijacking your example) that if you send yourself back to save your legs, at that point a new world spawns, where you go back and did indeed save your legs. The 'old world' where you didn't save yourself is the one where you didn't make the decision to go back and save yourself so everything stays as it was.
But taking the world where you went back and saved yourself, as that's where the interesting stuff lies, I suppose that in this world (which is new) the 19 year old version of yourself would grow up having knowledge that he has to go back and save himself.
I have kinda forgotten exactly what point we were discussing, something about whether you'd realise that you had to go back and do something, I think the above explains what I was thinking...or does it! :lol:
What I was thinking was (hijacking your example) that if you send yourself back to save your legs, at that point a new world spawns, where you go back and did indeed save your legs. The 'old world' where you didn't save yourself is the one where you didn't make the decision to go back and save yourself so everything stays as it was.
But taking the world where you went back and saved yourself, as that's where the interesting stuff lies, I suppose that in this world (which is new) the 19 year old version of yourself would grow up having knowledge that he has to go back and save himself.
I have kinda forgotten exactly what point we were discussing, something about whether you'd realise that you had to go back and do something, I think the above explains what I was thinking...or does it! :lol:
It nearly does. Are you saying you think it's possible to "fix" your own legs or not? :)
I think I follow the idea that a new timeline is one in which a whole different past can already exist as well as a different future. But, again using the simple example, the reason the question of time travel even arises for this person is that they have lost their legs in an accident and want them back.
I agree that if this idea of multiple parallel dimensions is correct, then you could stop the accident happening in another dimension, but I don't think this person's ever going to magically get their legs back, once lost. So for him, there's no point.
Much more likely is that this person tries, and inevitably fails. He might travel back in time along his own timeline, but he won't stop it happening, because it has happened. He might say "I'll bring back evidence, proof of who I am and what is going to happen, and make sure I'm not in the town where the accident happens on my 17th birthday" but he'll fail, it's certain that he dies trying and never meets his 16 year old self at all. Unless of course he remembers a crazy man in a wheel chair who he was running away from when the truck hit. And that's how it always happens. Round and round it goes.
:smt101:smt101
a crazy man in a wheel chair who he was running away from
Davros?
BernardBikerchick
11-01-10, 10:51 AM
defintely 2 it was that hair cut that inspried me to go get a grade 2 when i was 13 !!!!!
muffles
11-01-10, 03:01 PM
It nearly does. Are you saying you think it's possible to "fix" your own legs or not? :)
I think I follow the idea that a new timeline is one in which a whole different past can already exist as well as a different future. But, again using the simple example, the reason the question of time travel even arises for this person is that they have lost their legs in an accident and want them back.
I agree that if this idea of multiple parallel dimensions is correct, then you could stop the accident happening in another dimension, but I don't think this person's ever going to magically get their legs back, once lost. So for him, there's no point.
Much more likely is that this person tries, and inevitably fails. He might travel back in time along his own timeline, but he won't stop it happening, because it has happened. He might say "I'll bring back evidence, proof of who I am and what is going to happen, and make sure I'm not in the town where the accident happens on my 17th birthday" but he'll fail, it's certain that he dies trying and never meets his 16 year old self at all. Unless of course he remembers a crazy man in a wheel chair who he was running away from when the truck hit. And that's how it always happens. Round and round it goes.
:smt101:smt101
Lol - I would say rather than him always failing when he tries to save himself, maybe he would find it impossible to fail to go back in time and save himself, when he is 19? Haha who knows...I have lost myself in the reasoning now :p
Lol - I would say rather than him always failing when he tries to save himself, maybe he would find it impossible to fail to go back in time and save himself, when he is 19? Haha who knows...I have lost myself in the reasoning now :p
It's a bit mind boggling.
More likely still, of course, is that he fails to go back in time at all because time travel is impossible :)
If he has no legs, then the accident happened/happens to him. That can't be changed any more than you can change one of your own past life-memories or experiences.
Someone in an identical situation might be saved from the same accident by their future self. Perhaps neither of them ever knew the accident might happen, and it's just by luck that the future-person travelled back in time to the right moment to influence things. But of course the future-self never had the accident either, yet his arrival at that point is a certainty.
Or maybe the future-self remembers being stopped by himself as he stepped out into the road before a truck flies past. Having a nice chat and then saying goodbye. If that's the case then nothing the future-self can do will stop that event occurring. Whether he likes it or not he will travel back in time and have a chat with himself and save his legs. :)
If your 95 year-old self (you) appeared at your door, with incontrovertible proof of who he is, and says "You will live until you are at least 95"- then you're suddenly invincible, (although you could still be in a coma for much of that time :) ). He will remember the moment he opened the door to see his 95 year-old self, and in however many years it takes for you to get there, you'll remember what you said to yourself when you eventually knock on your own door and have the exact same conversation.
It's all so implausible that many-worlds makes (a little) sense, but it still means that sending things or people back through time is a pointless exercise if you want to change the things that actually happened to you.
It also means our fates are pre-determined, which is a bit depressing.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.