Terminator 3 - SPOILER filled discussion

[Kai Lord]

Re: my 2 cents

My point is, her clothes are as fake as her breasts, so there was no reason for her to come through the time portal naked. The Men in Charge just decided she should be nude because they knew I Would Appreciate It.

Yes, you're correct, and yes Kristanna Loken is beautiful, but they could have really exploited her, and I for one am glad that they didn't.

A rookie actress? R-rated film? Part Three of a series where it might be tempting to go for some cheap gratuitous thrills? They could have showed everything...

But they didn't. One silhouetted shot and a shadow covered butt shot. You don't see any more of her than you do Arnold, and certainly less than Linda Hamilton in T1. Heck T3 shows less skin than some PG rated films (remember "Splash"?) Bravo. The film was good on account of the action and story.

Its funny that the R-rated and adult oriented T3 showed more taste and consideration for its actress than the PG-13 chick flick Titanic. Kudos to Mostow.

 

[Wormwood]

Re: my 2 cents

My point is, her clothes are as fake as her breasts, so there was no reason for her to come through the time portal naked.

Well...maybe.

T-X (and her predecessor, the T-1000) can only copy something if they make physical contact with it first. Perhaps they both arrived naked because they didn't have access to 'period' clothing.

Since I'm fairly confident that there are no leather Gucci catsuits in the post-apocalyptic future, we should presume that she had to "sample" such an outfit after her arrival.

And T-X does exactly that (she's wearing an exact copy of the clothing worn by her first victim). T-1000 did the same thing with his first victim---a cop.

Now, why the T-X chose to resemble Kristanna Loken and not Starr Jones is a debate for another evening ;-)

/nitpick

 

[Truth Seeker]

The End of the Circle

Man....many in-depth looks on the Future/past links on the T1s to TX....I have to say though, I don't see another movie being made, as much everyone here give a reason or not.

I though I after seeing seeing it, it was a fitting end to the timeline, and honestly, as it was seen, destiny couldn't be denied.

I was satisfied with it, and was pleasantly surprise at the ending itself, rare thing to do that on me, but none the less it was fitting and a warning......Human destiny can be hamper if we give our means to grow to a logical emotionless machine

UPDATE: I have to bite my tongue on this one, a friend of mine just drop an interview link concerning the Terminator Story.
Here is the link.

http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue324/interview.html

 

[LuYangShih]

T3 was a great, fun, and funny movie. What more do you need to know?

 

[Mistwell]

Interesting:

Are you contracted for a couple more Terminator movies now?

Schwarzenegger: I am ... I don't think about any other movie until this one has played out. Because, I mean, the key thing is ... to let the audience decide if they want another Terminator, or whatever the movie is, rather than for me to make that decision. Because, I mean, the fans are the ones ... that make the movies successful. If they go to the movies, and they all go and make the box office be a huge hit, then we will do another movie, because then it's clear that they want more of it.

T3 made $44,041,440 on its opening weekend, and $72,387,461 total so far (one week release). It's doing quite well, but needs to make $200M just to hit break-even. It has a LOT of competition this weekend with Pirates and League coming out. We will see..but I am betting it is a hit. Which means I am betting on a T4, and maybe a T5.

In addition:

Are you contracted for a sequel?

Stahl: I am, actually. ... I'm actually set for two more, but it's all speculative as far as whether it'll be done. I think it depends on the success of this movie.

and...

Are you contracted for two movies, like Nick?

Danes: Yeah

 

[Alzrius]

I've gotta side with Kai Lord on this one. Yes, his theory is more complicated. Yes, his theory relies on a hell of a lot more analysis to see whether it is internally consistent. However, requiring more complexity and analysis doesn't make it wrong, or cast any doubt on his theory.

Alzrius, you're theory is both less complex and easier to understand. While the simplest theory is often the correct, one, that isn't a truism.

The thing is, my theory isn't necessarily less complex. His theory paints a nice A leads to B leads to C picture. I'm saying that A never truly existed, because B, by necessity, wipes it out with its mere existence.

Here, I believe we should favor the theory that results in no paradoxes.

Except that isn't possible. The paradox of John Conner's father being born after he himself was is one that is ingrained into the timeline, which is what results in that infinite time loop.

That was the theme of T-3, that the timeline, like nature, tends to adapt to challenges rather than crumble. It's also internally more consistent. Endless time loops are not internally consistent, by definition.

They are internally consistent with themselves. They guarantee that that future absolutely must happen, since that's the only way it can create it's own past - Judgement Day absolutely had to happen, because Kyle Reese had to go back through time to father John Conner. The endless time loop is supported by T3.

It's always much more complex to say that there is an infinite time loop present, since such things are impossible to resolve and twist time back on itself - they're like a temporal mobius strip.

 

[Mistwell]

The thing is, my theory isn't necessarily less complex. His theory paints a nice A leads to B leads to C picture. I'm saying that A never truly existed, because B, by necessity, wipes it out with its mere existence.

Except that isn't possible. The paradox of John Conner's father being born after he himself was is one that is ingrained into the timeline, which is what results in that infinite time loop.

We simply disagree. Kai's theory makes it so that A truly did exist, and it is not a paradox that John Conner's father was born after him, since A had John Conner with a different father.

We can argue this one forever, but really it is just a matter of opinion. I simply agree with Kai on this one.

 

[Vocenoctum]

We simply disagree. Kai's theory makes it so that A truly did exist, and it is not a paradox that John Conner's father was born after him, since A had John Conner with a different father.

We can argue this one forever, but really it is just a matter of opinion. I simply agree with Kai on this one.

My problem is that there is no first father. It's not like she was involved or anything and that guy got whacked.

I don't see T1 as a paradox, because I think a paradox is when you do something to make that future impossible that prompted your action.

Reese was always Connor's father. He was chosen to go back in time because he was. They probably only knew about because of Connor's foreknowledge. It's a time loop that handles itself perfectly, and there is no reason for there to be another timeline without that loop, so I don't understand why he mandates that such a timeline existed.
There is no reason that Reese isn't, wasn't and won't always be Connor's father. In the same manner, if Terminator hadn't come back, he couldn't have been found, and he wouldn't have existed.

T2 was different. In T2 they left the situation unresolved. The terminator's come back, mess stuff up, give more specific information. The movie ends by disproving itself. I haven't seen T3, but it seems geared to correcting how T2 ended.

So, basically, IMO, T1 is fine by itself, T2 is where the timelines have to be rewritten. That doesn't mean you have to force T2/T3's events to give T1 another timeline though.

 

[RolandOfGilead]

Reese was/is/will be Connor's Dad...

I believe that alzrius is correct... I think the story was made more poignant by the idea that John Connor KNEW Reese was his father, that's why he gave Reese Sarah's picture, why he became Reese's good friend - he wanted to know his father. And that's why its such a torture to send his father back in time to die..
Why select Reese, who is obviously in love with his mother, and thereby jeopardize his own existence? No. Connor knew, and fulfilled his destiny.. as he was taught by the terminator in T3.

Roland

 

[Look_a_Unicorn]

Just to throw in my $0.022 (we have GST in Australia), Kai Lord & Alzrius both had well structured & logical arguments, your counterpoints were relevant & only in the last posts did the edge of irritation begin to show. So thanks for such an interesting debate.
I don't know enough about the trilogy to argue either case, but it seems the points that remained unresolved did so simply because the other's arguments were viewed from in an increasingly blinkered way - by that I mean you both understood your own arguments so well, that the train of thought required to understand the other's argument could not coexist with the contradicting viewpoint.

Sorry if this analysis offends, and again kudos for such an interesting discussion- I think it would be great fun to sit down and have a few beers each and listen to you guys debate other issues