T3 reviews coming in

[Kai Lord]

Boy, you didn't read the above post about humor being subjective at all, did you?

If I tell a joke, you can either find it funny or not. That's the subjective nature of humor. Whether on not I told the joke in the first place is an utter indisputable fact, regardless of whether the dispute is based on ignorance or trollish behavior on the internet.

 

[Kai Lord]

You've missed something very important: Differences of opinion are often not tolerated around here. Differences of opinion are often instead painted as trolling, being judgmental, displaying one's ignorance, et cetera.

Very true. Because we all know that NO ONE on this site is ignorant of anything, and to characterize a huge display of it as bordering on "trolling" can only be intolerance toward a difference of opinion.

 

[KenM]

All stems from the flawed premise of the original film. The only reason to invent time-travel was to prevent something that had already happened. But if that something had been prevented there would have been no reason to invent time-travel. Thus the time-travel that prevented that which had already happened would never have happened. But, if the time-travel never happened, then the thing which happened which had been prevented would not been prevented. Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum.

Duh.

I have not seen T3, but on the Terminator DVD, there is a deleted scene.

end of the movie, two corprate looking guys are looking over the remains of the robot. One of them says " Look at this chip, I never seen anything like it before". Then the other guy says "get it up to R & D, see what we can do with it".

 

[Kai Lord]

On the other hand, Kai Lord's list was not even close to being all comedy. Some things he (apparently) finds funny are mostly just parts of the sci-fi story (shooting the guy in the knee is a PERFECT example).

Its the "He'll live" that makes it comedy, and also reveals what the writer/director was going for. Whether or not you find it to be appropriate comedy is irrelevant.

I'll share something about watching T2: in my experience, it was a different movie if you saw it after the first week, than if you saw it right away (similar to Jurassic Park in that aspect). In the opening night theater, people were chilled at the machine's lack of human feeling, etc. The violence was not part of a punchline - it was part of the story-arc.
When I saw it again, a month later, the audience had completely changed - they WERE laughing and cheering at times, and rather inapproprate times, at that. It had become a Summer Movie (TM).

I saw T2 seven times in the theater, the first on open night in a packed house in Los Angeles. Everybody got the jokes every time, at every showing, and reacted accordingly.

IMO, it was NOT intended as that - the themes are much deeper, and to dismiss it as a Summer action movie is rewriting history out of context of when it came out.

You're obviously under the impression that a film with "deep themes" can't have comedy. That is simply incorrect. They're not mutually exclusive.

And if anyone is trying to rewrite history, or the present, since most of the gags and one-liners in T2 are still funny, it isn't me. I think I'll stick with perspective of the writer and director of the actual film. Watch the film with Cameron's scene by scene commentary turned on, or really any extensive interview on the film.

So please don't TELL US what was intended as funny in T2.

Sorry, I see no harm in stating the obvious.

 

[Mark Chance]

Very true. Because we all know that NO ONE on this site is ignorant of anything, and to characterize a huge display of it as bordering on "trolling" can only be intolerance toward a difference of opinion.

* <--- The point................People who miss. -----> #

end of the movie, two corprate looking guys are looking over the remains of the robot. One of them says " Look at this chip, I never seen anything like it before". Then the other guy says "get it up to R & D, see what we can do with it".

Funny, but still doesn't really address the central paradox of the films. Judgment day and John Connor's eventual success as leader of the resistance, et cetera, are all already facts prior to the time-travel in T1. The only reason for time-travel in T1 is to prevent John Connor's success. Remove John Connor's success, and the time-travel never occurs. But if there the time-travel never occurs, John Connor's success cannot be prevented. One fact (John Connor's success) cannot be changed without negating another fact (the time-travel mission that prevented John Connor's success).

This is the fundamental "flaw" in many time-travel stories.

There was an old pulp magazine science fiction story that C.S. Lewis makes reference to in the introduction to one of his books (I forget which one). The protagonist goes back in time only to discover that the past is immutable. Nothing that has happened can be changed. He tries to lift a sandwich from the table, but cannot, because at that point in time in the past, the sandwich was not lifted. He gets caught out in the rain, and the raindrops rip through his flesh to fall exactly where they fell in the past.

 

[Kai Lord]

Mark:

To trim the fat off this T3 discussion, I address the plot of the films in this new thread:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55832

Enjoy.

 

[Tom Cashel]

My reaction was "Meh."

Not bad, not great.

Funny how much of it reminded me of Dr. Stangelove...

 

[Ycore Rixle]

*slight spoilers*

As I said in my earlier post, I thought Terminator 3 was the funniest Terminator yet. As I was watching the first part of the movie, I thought that the whole mood of the Terminator movies had shifted.

There was plenty of humor in the first two Terminators, but it was, for the most part, dark humor. For instance, in the first movie, the club where Sarah Connor first encounters her lover and her enemy is called Tech-Noir. That is very humorous - but darkly so. It is especially rich humor - ironic humor - because it is the name of the bar that is supposedly a safe refuge for Sarah.

The greater part of the humor in T3, for the first part of the movie, was not as black. It was funny. For instance, the sunglasses. Both T2 and T3 make several sunglasses jokes.

***slight spoilers below

But T2 featured humor involving crushed sunglasses and Linda Hamilton becoming more machine-like by emulating the Terminator in donning a pair of sunglasses. T3, on the other hand, offered a sunglasses joke that featured giant pink star-shaped tinted lenses, making the Terminator look more human, specifically, more like Elton John (IMO).


*** end slight spoilers

And stevelabny, I really thought your post that began "just got back" should have contained a spoiler alert due to your discussion of the movie's ending.

 

[Kai Lord]

Bah, and I was going to refrain from making any condescending points. Alzrius, I apologize for my tone up above, and hope I didn't offend you. If I did, well..."You'll live."

 

[Droogie]

I liked T3 a great deal. It was a tight little flik with fantastic action, good acting (I've forgotten how good Claire Danes is), a decent script, and a nice non-hollywood ending. A worthy addition to the Terminator saga, despite some plot holes.

It sure looks like a set up for a T4, but the question remains: will Arnold be too old when they finally get around to doing it?