Movie Debate #54: The Terminator

[Reed Rothchild | 9,600]

[DarkTone | 988]

Solid 8/10. 

[Dr. Morbis | 2,092]

Rough around the edges as it is, but you could tell after watching this movie that James Cameron was going to be BIG.

[Tabonga | 2,354]

Solid 8.  Really well scripted for what it was - not as glitzy as the follow up but still damned good.

[nrslam | 477]

Easily the best of the franchise. 8/10

[a3quit4s | 4,128]

6/10 for me. I thought T2 was the best

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,105]

Good movie, but the second one was even better. 7/10.

[Hammerfestus | 3,900]

10.  In my opinion superior to T2.  Grittier, better atmosphere, less big budget cheesy.  My #2 Arnold after Running Man.  
I‘ll ask you this, which had a better getting clothes scene?

Also, the original “I’ll be back”.  Then he drives the damn car through the wall.  Mmmwah.  Masterful.

[twiztor | 855]

1 hour ago, a3quit4s said:

6/10 for me. I thought T2 was the best

 

1 hour ago, Bearcat-Doug said:

Good movie, but the second one was even better. 7/10.

I don't disagree with either of you, but i think it's disingenuous to downplay the first film seemingly only due to its followup.  even though one movie is a direct sequel to the other, i have a hard time comparing the first two Terminator movies. Most importantly, they are films in different genres. T2 is a full on, big budget action movie. T1 is a horror movie with action and sci-fi elements to it. Much like the Alien franchise, the sequel changed up everything from the OG film.

i rated this an 8, i'd probably go closer to 7.5 but rounded up in this instance. T2 would be a full 8 for the record.

[ZeldaFreak | 3,631]

I went with an 8, really really solid movie, and I love the horror elements in this one. I'd probably give T2 closer to a 9.

[PII | 1,903]

In both T1 and T2 a terminator's arm is left behind in the past which we're told in T2 is a major factor in the creation of Skynet / Self Aware A.I. / The War.  If that had always been a factor then someone from the future traveling back and leaving advanced technology behind would be the original impetus for these events.  

The only reasons we are ever given for anyone traveling back in time though is to kill Sarah/John Connor and to prevent them from being killed.  If that's the case then these events (skynet/A.I./War) had to initially come to be without the impetus of technology from the future.  So which is it? 

I lean more toward the latter and when the arm was left behind the timeline must have changed slightly in order to accommodate this new development.  

At the end of T1 Sarah is making recordings for her unborn son John and wondering whether to tell him about his father Kyle from the future, musing about how he'll have to send his own father back in time to impregnate his mother among other things, as if this is some kind of pure loop that always was, that goes: Kyle-Sarah-John-Kyle.  But how can you send someone born after you back in time to become your father?  You'd have had to have some other guy who was born before you be your father in the first place and the guy you send back would be replacing your father which means the resulting child would have the same mother but a different father and the resulting child could not be the same you.

Perhaps there originally was no resistance leader from the past, no John Connor and Kyle Reece traveled to the past by his own choice or someone else's order, when the survivors realize they aren't going to defeat the machines -in a last ditch attempt to warn humanity in the past and was then followed by a terminator.  Enter Sarah Connor, who gets warned about the future, becomes pregnant and inspired to become a badass which we are shown in T1 she wasn't; not until Kyle Reece shows up to inspire her.  We were shown the seed of her inner badass, riding a step-through moped for example. Not exactly badass, but definitely showing the potential...

So Sarah/John would seem to be a sort of Man-made-saviour in this case where there is this pure loop of Kyle-Sarah-John-Kyle-Sarah etc. but only if there was no John to begin with and Kyle traveling into the past was its beginning. 

Or, There always was a John Connor as the resistance leader right from the get go(=not man-made but rather altered by the activity of man) ie. every time John has to send someone into the past it's a different guy in order to try and create a new and better John Connor who will actually be able to lead the surviving humans to a final victory against the machines, but always with Sarah as the mother who could possibly have been the original resistance leader...

Whenever I watch these movies I always end up thinking about this, and a major factor in why is that the 2 movies seem to suggest alternate timelines/parallel realities both overtly (the arm) and by more subtle means.  The first movie had a more fictional-dream-like atmosphere while the 2nd felt more grounded like it was supposed to be taking place in the real world we're all familiar with.  In T1 when they go into the "Tech Noir Club" it feels like something out of a William Gibson Novel, an unspecific futuristic dream-scape.  In T2 There are all these specific references to the world we live in that were totally absent from the first movie: Guns N Roses on the boombox, John's Public Enemy shirt, familiar video games like Afterburner, Rampage, Space Invaders etc.  Someone will inevitably say that this is just because James Cameron wasn't big yet when making the first movie, the budget wasn't nearly as large, things were just different conceptually and I'm reading too much into it so I'll just mention this:  In T2 when the T-1000 pulls the police car into the driveway of John's foster parents the well known real world L.A. P.D. Motto is clearly visible on the car's door: "To Protect And To Serve."  In T1 in the very beginning when a police car pulls up on Kyle Reece in the ally the motto reads instead: "To Care And To Protect" which has never been the motto.  I think this was done to indicate that the timeline changed after the events of T1 or that the principle characters had stepped sideways into a slightly different parallel reality.

Anyway, as I said, I've thought about all this a few times before and I suddenly felt inspired to do my best to write it all down, so if you made it this far maybe I'm actually on to something.  On the other hand maybe I'm not quite thinking 4th dimensionally yet....

 

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by PII

[Hammerfestus | 3,900]

1 hour ago, PII said:

In both T1 and T2 a terminator's arm is left behind in the past which we're told in T2 is a major factor in the creation of Skynet / Self Aware A.I. / The War.  If that had always been a factor then someone from the future traveling back and leaving advanced technology behind would be the original impetus for these events.  

The only reasons we are ever given for anyone traveling back in time though is to kill Sarah/John Connor and to prevent them from being killed.  If that's the case then these events (skynet/A.I./War) had to initially come to be without the impetus of technology from the future.  So which is it? 

I lean more toward the latter and when the arm was left behind the timeline must have changed slightly in order to accommodate this new development.  

At the end of T1 Sarah is making recordings for her unborn son John and wondering whether to tell him about his father Kyle from the future, musing about how he'll have to send his own father back in time to impregnate his mother among other things, as if this is some kind of pure loop that always was, that goes: Kyle-Sarah-John-Kyle.  But how can you send someone born after you back in time to become your father?  You'd have had to have some other guy who was born before you be your father in the first place and the guy you send back would be replacing your father which means the resulting child would have the same mother but a different father and the resulting child could not be the same you.

Perhaps there originally was no resistance leader from the past, no John Connor and Kyle Reece traveled to the past by his own choice or someone else's order, when the survivors realize they aren't going to defeat the machines -in a last ditch attempt to warn humanity in the past and was then followed by a terminator.  Enter Sarah Connor, who gets warned about the future, becomes pregnant and inspired to become a badass which we are shown in T1 she wasn't; not until Kyle Reece shows up to inspire her.  We were shown the seed of her inner badass, riding a step-through moped for example. Not exactly badass, but definitely showing the potential...

So Sarah/John would seem to be a sort of Man-made-saviour in this case where there is this pure loop of Kyle-Sarah-John-Kyle-Sarah etc. but only if there was no John to begin with and Kyle traveling into the past was its beginning. 

Or, There always was a John Connor as the resistance leader right from the get go(=not man-made but rather altered by the activity of man) ie. every time John has to send someone into the past it's a different guy in order to try and create a new and better John Connor who will actually be able to lead the surviving humans to a final victory against the machines, but always with Sarah as the mother who could possibly have been the original resistance leader...

Whenever I watch these movies I always end up thinking about this, and a major factor in why is that the 2 movies seem to suggest alternate timelines/parallel realities both overtly (the arm) and by more subtle means.  The first movie had a more fictional-dream-like atmosphere while the 2nd felt more grounded like it was supposed to be taking place in the real world we're all familiar with.  In T1 when they go into the "Tech Noir Club" it feels like something out of a William Gibson Novel, an unspecific futuristic dream-scape.  In T2 There are all these specific references to the world we live in that were totally absent from the first movie: Guns N Roses on the boombox, John's Public Enemy shirt, familiar video games like Afterburner, Rampage, Space Invaders etc.  Someone will inevitably say that this is just because James Cameron wasn't big yet when making the first movie, the budget wasn't nearly as large, things were just different conceptually and I'm reading too much into it so I'll just mention this:  In T2 when the T-1000 pulls the police car into the driveway of John's foster parents the well known real world L.A. P.D. Motto is clearly visible on the car's door: "To Protect And To Serve."  In T1 in the very beginning when a police car pulls up on Kyle Reece in the ally the motto reads instead: "To Care And To Protect" which has never been the motto.  I think this was done to indicate that the timeline changed after the events of T1 or that the principle characters had stepped sideways into a slightly different parallel reality.

Anyway, as I said, I've thought about all this a few times before and I suddenly felt inspired to do my best to write it all down, so if you made it this far maybe I'm actually on to something.  On the other hand maybe I'm not quite thinking 4th dimensionally yet....

 

 

So 10?

[Br81zad | 629]

Textbook bell curve on the voting chart right now. lol

 

[DoctorEncore | 3,691]

I spent a while debating between a 7 and an 8 and finally settled on the latter. It's a really tough movie to rate because it straddles several genres and never quite settles down into one. The concept is awesome and the execution is great, but it's not a movie I particularly enjoy rewatching repeatedly like T2. It definitely suffers in comparison to the second, but I also feel like it is elevated by it. I suspect it would have been relegated to cult status if the insane sequel had never been greenlit. Bonus points for having my second favorite female protagonist ever in Sarah Connor, who is only slightly less badass than Ellen Ripley.

Another question for debate:

Which is the better original film in a franchise? Alien or Terminator?

Also, this movie is definitely due for a rewatch. If that changes my mind I'll come back and update.

Edited January 25, 2021 by DoctorEncore

[DoctorEncore | 3,691]

5 hours ago, PII said:

In both T1 and T2 a terminator's arm is left behind in the past which we're told in T2 is a major factor in the creation of Skynet / Self Aware A.I. / The War.  If that had always been a factor then someone from the future traveling back and leaving advanced technology behind would be the original impetus for these events.  

The only reasons we are ever given for anyone traveling back in time though is to kill Sarah/John Connor and to prevent them from being killed.  If that's the case then these events (skynet/A.I./War) had to initially come to be without the impetus of technology from the future.  So which is it? 

I lean more toward the latter and when the arm was left behind the timeline must have changed slightly in order to accommodate this new development.  

At the end of T1 Sarah is making recordings for her unborn son John and wondering whether to tell him about his father Kyle from the future, musing about how he'll have to send his own father back in time to impregnate his mother among other things, as if this is some kind of pure loop that always was, that goes: Kyle-Sarah-John-Kyle.  But how can you send someone born after you back in time to become your father?  You'd have had to have some other guy who was born before you be your father in the first place and the guy you send back would be replacing your father which means the resulting child would have the same mother but a different father and the resulting child could not be the same you.

Perhaps there originally was no resistance leader from the past, no John Connor and Kyle Reece traveled to the past by his own choice or someone else's order, when the survivors realize they aren't going to defeat the machines -in a last ditch attempt to warn humanity in the past and was then followed by a terminator.  Enter Sarah Connor, who gets warned about the future, becomes pregnant and inspired to become a badass which we are shown in T1 she wasn't; not until Kyle Reece shows up to inspire her.  We were shown the seed of her inner badass, riding a step-through moped for example. Not exactly badass, but definitely showing the potential...

So Sarah/John would seem to be a sort of Man-made-saviour in this case where there is this pure loop of Kyle-Sarah-John-Kyle-Sarah etc. but only if there was no John to begin with and Kyle traveling into the past was its beginning. 

Or, There always was a John Connor as the resistance leader right from the get go(=not man-made but rather altered by the activity of man) ie. every time John has to send someone into the past it's a different guy in order to try and create a new and better John Connor who will actually be able to lead the surviving humans to a final victory against the machines, but always with Sarah as the mother who could possibly have been the original resistance leader...

Whenever I watch these movies I always end up thinking about this, and a major factor in why is that the 2 movies seem to suggest alternate timelines/parallel realities both overtly (the arm) and by more subtle means.  The first movie had a more fictional-dream-like atmosphere while the 2nd felt more grounded like it was supposed to be taking place in the real world we're all familiar with.  In T1 when they go into the "Tech Noir Club" it feels like something out of a William Gibson Novel, an unspecific futuristic dream-scape.  In T2 There are all these specific references to the world we live in that were totally absent from the first movie: Guns N Roses on the boombox, John's Public Enemy shirt, familiar video games like Afterburner, Rampage, Space Invaders etc.  Someone will inevitably say that this is just because James Cameron wasn't big yet when making the first movie, the budget wasn't nearly as large, things were just different conceptually and I'm reading too much into it so I'll just mention this:  In T2 when the T-1000 pulls the police car into the driveway of John's foster parents the well known real world L.A. P.D. Motto is clearly visible on the car's door: "To Protect And To Serve."  In T1 in the very beginning when a police car pulls up on Kyle Reece in the ally the motto reads instead: "To Care And To Protect" which has never been the motto.  I think this was done to indicate that the timeline changed after the events of T1 or that the principle characters had stepped sideways into a slightly different parallel reality.

Anyway, as I said, I've thought about all this a few times before and I suddenly felt inspired to do my best to write it all down, so if you made it this far maybe I'm actually on to something.  On the other hand maybe I'm not quite thinking 4th dimensionally yet....

 

 

I often ponder time travel in fiction and reality and there is no winning. Even the best movies have to make some logical sacrifices (Looper, for example, falls apart on repeat viewing). Unfortunately, the only movie I've ever seen with internal consistency regarding time travel is Primer and even there it still takes some leaps of logic.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,600]

Which is why Looper specifically has that dialogue from Jeff Daniels where he says "don't think about"

It's a storytelling device, not hard science.

Or maybe that's just how I rationalize it to myself.

[DoctorEncore | 3,691]

17 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Which is why Looper specifically has that dialogue from Jeff Daniels where he says "don't think about"

It's a storytelling device, not hard science.

Or maybe that's just how I rationalize it to myself.

Very true. Suspension of disbelief is required for enjoyment of a huge percentage of movies and I think that's totally fine. Something about time travel just seems to bring out the scientist in viewers. I would love to craft a tightly plotted story where everything syncs up and fits together perfectly. Unfortunately, you have to ascribe to some form of paradox correction to make it work. Whether it be multiple timelines, all times existing simultaneously, or some third even less palatable option.

Edited January 25, 2021 by DoctorEncore

[RH | 4,990]

This discussion on the logic of time travel is exactly what is used as proof that time travel into the past is not possible.  Since the future hasn't happened, some event in the future can't just manifest itself, causing it's events to become part of the the cause-event chain of the future.

This is often illustrated with the thought-experiment of going back in time, say, 500 years and shacking up with your great, great, great, great... grand mother.  You don't know it but you've made yourself a necessary part of your own existence.  The past is dependent on the future, and the future is dependent on the past.  Such a loop has no finite star and is thus considered impossible.

However, my worthless armchair physicist self wonders if this is entirely true.  Consider that these same heady physicist types also speculate that there are an infinite number of slightly different universes.  For every possibility of change, probably at some quantum level, there is a split universe from this one.  So, who's to say if you could travel back in time, you could set off a spiral of future-dependent events and with enough time, these circular dependencies might "decay".

Do I have any evidence of that, or any mathy/sciencey way to back that up?! Of course not!  I just want someone to go back in time and get me a dinosaur and a wooly mammoth and I'm not ready to give up hope that that's impossible.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,600]

Butterfly effect.  You go back in time and you alter history, even in the most miniscule way possible.  Now the same sperm no longer reached the egg culminating in your birth.

[cartman | 195]

7 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Butterfly effect.  You go back in time and you alter history, even in the most miniscule way possible.  Now the same sperm no longer reached the egg culminating in your birth.

That's a solid point. Most people will argue whether this or that person could do something or meet someone so that the timetravel timeline is possible while in reality it's astronomically unlikely that the specific sperm will come through even if they did. And the idea that you will act/meet who you're supposed to was already extremely unlikely in it's own right.

 

[TDIRunner | 2,781]

This talk of time travel is interesting and probably deserves its own thread.

As far as the movie goes, I always thought the original was a pretty good movie but not great.  T2 is probably one of the greatest movies ever made.  And the first two movies make up the only good Terminator movies that currently exist.  It's pretty crazy to think that there are that many bad Terminator movies, but that's the world we live in until we figure out time travel and go back to stop the bad movies from ever existing.  

[DoctorEncore | 3,691]

23 minutes ago, TDIRunner said:

This talk of time travel is interesting and probably deserves its own thread.

As far as the movie goes, I always thought the original was a pretty good movie but not great.  T2 is probably one of the greatest movies ever made.  And the first two movies make up the only good Terminator movies that currently exist.  It's pretty crazy to think that there are that many bad Terminator movies, but that's the world we live in until we figure out time travel and go back to stop the bad movies from ever existing.  

Not gonna lie, I thoroughly enjoyed T3 when it came out and on subsequent rewatches.

[TDIRunner | 2,781]

28 minutes ago, DoctorEncore said:

Not gonna lie, I thoroughly enjoyed T3 when it came out and on subsequent rewatches.

I've tried watching it on multiple occasions, and I just can't get into it.  It's probably the best of the bad Terminator movies, but I still have to call it a bad movie.  

[DefaultGen | 5,452]

9/10, love it. I was surprised as how good it was on its own when I rewatched it honestly, because I put T2 on such a pedestal of action movie greatness.

All I really remember about T3 is the crane truck demolishing that building, which was god damn fantastic.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,600]

This is where I pick on @RH for not having seen any of the 4 Arnold movies

Someone stage this man an intervention