Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

Terminator 3: Reviews and Disscussion

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

Terminator 3: Reviews and Disscussion

Old 07-11-03, 09:22 PM
  #301  
Suspended for multiple accounts
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by mikehunt
T3 was rated R
My ticket says PG-13, and it wasn't that bloody...

But I checked the theaters and you seem to be correct.

Wonder if I win a prize...

Last edited by ChiefJustice001; 07-11-03 at 09:24 PM.
Old 07-12-03, 09:34 PM
  #302  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, I finally saw it. Although anything I say about it will probably duplicate something in these 13 pages, I loved the movie. The only thing I have seen this summer that tops it is Nemo (obviously a completely different kind of film).

I'm really sorry to see that it doesn't appear that it will be a hit. Dropping 50% off a 44M weekend does not bode well for it.

I liked the humor, plot and action. However, as I believe some have already said, the TX was not as menacing as the other terminators. I did not get that "how in the world are they ever going to defeat her" feeling I got in the others (particularly the T1000).

I don't see where they go from here with a T4. Since the reason for sending terminators back is finally fully explained and given the ending, even though some things seemed to suggest a T4, I don't see where they could go with it.
Old 07-12-03, 10:13 PM
  #303  
DVD Talk Legend
 
matome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: NY
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
LOL, only a 50% second week drop these days IS indicative of a hit.
Old 07-12-03, 10:50 PM
  #304  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Lateralus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Valley of Megiddo
Posts: 9,570
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Just saw this movie, and I loved it. In my opinion it was better than the Matrix and The Hulk.

Nuff Said!
Old 07-12-03, 11:11 PM
  #305  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I haven't read everyone's opinions on the movie but from what I see, people are crazy.

T2 was perfect and couldn't have had a better ending. The t-800 had to terminate himself. There was no other choice.

T3 though.....bad. Definitely the worst of the series. I think my main gripe was how fake everything looked. I think I read somewhere that they spent 175 million to make it. I find this impossible unless they bought some really expensive computers. I think this is an ongoing scam in Hollywood to artificially inflate movie budgets by replacing flesh and bones (or latex and wire) SFX with CGI SFX.

Storywise the movie was silly and in all honesty T3 should've never happened. For the sake of conversation though, I'll overlook how the Terminator franchise is built on plotholes. Anyway, these new Terminators suck ass at "terminating". Instead of quick kills, we get people tossing. A lot of people tossing.

At least the characters were pretty good. This is obviously a new model of Terminator (t-100?) so that probably explains why he isn't as cool as the past terminators. Still everine managed to make me laugh and sit on the edge of my seat at times.

One particular scene where they're housed in the general's office and judgement day began gave me the willies. I dunno, that might've been post stress trauma or something. But fast forward to how the movie ends--Why bother? It was so half assed.

"HAHA! I tricksied you! There was no stopping judgement day!!"

It almost makes me think the t-100 was evil all along and just leading them onto it.

Not future but what we set my ass.

Last edited by Revoltor; 07-13-03 at 12:38 AM.
Old 07-13-03, 12:32 AM
  #306  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Posts: 3,068
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by moocher
Well, I finally saw it. Although anything I say about it will probably duplicate something in these 13 pages, I loved the movie. The only thing I have seen this summer that tops it is Nemo (obviously a completely different kind of film).

I'm really sorry to see that it doesn't appear that it will be a hit. Dropping 50% off a 44M weekend does not bode well for it.

I liked the humor, plot and action. However, as I believe some have already said, the TX was not as menacing as the other terminators. I did not get that "how in the world are they ever going to defeat her" feeling I got in the others (particularly the T1000).

I don't see where they go from here with a T4. Since the reason for sending terminators back is finally fully explained and given the ending, even though some things seemed to suggest a T4, I don't see where they could go with it.
I was watching T2 and T1 today, and it's very apparent how much more menacing Robert Patrick and Arnold were as Terminators than Loken. Arnold was scary simply because he was huge and just killed anything in his path. Patrick, however, was just as deadly, but he was significantly more intelligent (much smarter than Tx ever appeared to be), the scene where he's talking to the parents pretending to be a cop has got to be the smoothest behavior I've ever seen in the T movies.

Though I still think T3 was great.

birrman54
Old 07-13-03, 12:56 AM
  #307  
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Revoltor
T3 though.....bad. Definitely the worst of the series. I think my main gripe was how fake everything looked. I think I read somewhere that they spent 175 million to make it. I find this impossible unless they bought some really expensive computers. I think this is an ongoing scam in Hollywood to artificially inflate movie budgets by replacing flesh and bones (or latex and wire) SFX with CGI SFX.
There's a contradiction in this paragraph. You wonder where all the money went, then complain that it probably went to all the CGI effects... yet don't question what the cost is on actually destorying real things?
Old 07-13-03, 01:04 AM
  #308  
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by audrey
Perhaps the creators did intend what you suggest. But if thatís the case, I think it is sloppy writing to introduce such a dramatic change in a central character with only a few lines of voice over. Moreover, such behavior points to a lack of character; it reduces him to an egomaniac fueled by a need for recognition Ėitís not enough to save the world; people have to know that he was their savior.
Child grows up in a redneck, gun-toting, militant atmosphere being told he's going to be the great leader of a post-apocalyptic rise from the ashes; then his mother gets arrested and committed for trying to blow a building up, he's told she's a nutcase and he gets put in a foster home where, for better or worse, he finds out what a normal life is like; then a pair of terminators show up -- one to kill him -- and he finds out it's all real again; then Judgment Day doesn't happen and the only person that knows the truth about his "destiny" dies and there's no one left in his life he can turn to; part of him thinks something bad will still happen and lives his life accordingly, but what if nothing happens -- what is he destined for now after all he's been through?

So you believe where John Connor is by T3 is sloppy writing and a dramatic change?
Old 07-13-03, 01:27 AM
  #309  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I finally saw the movie tonight. I was surprised at how good I found the film to be, given the negative reviews I had read here and seen Ebert give the film (particularly the former).

Certainly the film is not perfect. I found its major weaknesses to be:

(1) a weak opening and, to a lesser extent, ending, with too much voiceover and simple exposition (true also of the crypt scene)

(2) an overreliance on comedic one-liners by Arnold: many worked, but a few were obviously inappropriate (e.g. tell it to the hand). Some of the other humor was pretty stupid, too. Whereas stuff like Arnold's comment about how it was good they were laughing was hilarious.

(3) whereas I thought the film talked too much in the beginning and end, it showed too little at a few of the plot points people have mentioned (base entry, why the TX shows up at the vet's office at 4:30 am, etc.)

(4) the police and TX show up a bit too quickly at the cemetary

All in all, I found the movie's first half to be stronger than the second. I thought Danes and Stahl did a good job; ditto for Arnold and Loken. The score was invisible, whi ch I didn't find to be a good thing. Script was in need of a tight rewrite to fix some of these problems. Loved the final revelation when the characters realize where they are, and what it means.

Definitely the weakest of the films, but nevertheless, well worth seeing. I'm unsure whether I really want a sequel: if they do one, I hope they'll spend a bit more on getting the script right. Though many of the not-CGI effects in that first chase scene were incredible, and worth every penny IMHO. (I'm assuming so, since they looked very much unlike CGI...)
Old 07-13-03, 01:35 AM
  #310  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Face/Off
There's a contradiction in this paragraph. You wonder where all the money went, then complain that it probably went to all the CGI effects... yet don't question what the cost is on actually destorying real things?
From what I gather, CGI isn't really that expensive compared to getting an actual 10 mile strech of LA and smashing it all up IRL.

There's nothing contradictory about my statement at all. I'm just pissed 175 mill went to Arnies pay and a bunch of bad CGI.

Just compare it to T2.

Actually dont. There is no comparison. T2 is the Christ figure of all action films.
Old 07-13-03, 02:11 AM
  #311  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
T2 was perfect and couldn't have had a better ending. The t-800 had to terminate himself. There was no other choice.
Well technically Arnold didn't terminate himself...he cant "self-terminate"

T2 is a great film, T3 isn't as good, but I was highly entertained. I also thought that T1 was better than T2, so there you go.
Old 07-13-03, 02:15 AM
  #312  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Michael Corvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 61,690
Received 633 Likes on 444 Posts
Who said terminators had to be scary and menacing looking? They just have to be able to terminate an objective.
Old 07-13-03, 02:26 AM
  #313  
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The ending to T2 sucked... I was never happy with it. It made no sense. While the rest of the movie was so freakin awesome, the ending was just wrong.

It's simple if everything had been stopped, John Connor would've ceased to exist at that moment. Sarah Connor would've had no memory of what had happened in T1 and in T2. No Terminators would have been there to travel in time. The future would've been a continuation of the present time right before the first terminator came in the first movie.

The way they should've ended T2, if they indeed were ending the series, was to have Arnold dip into the lava. Then, as John and Sarah embrace, the screen fades to white, and we jump back to 1984 and recreate the scenes with Sarah Connor, but just kinda show her from a distance doing her normal thing. The camera dollys back, maybe put a voice over about how JD never happened and how the future was never written and then fade to black.

That would've been a cool ending to end the series with.

I thought T3 was an awesome continuation to the series, it made the ending to T2 make sense... Plus I thought the effects kicked ass. Don't you think if JC made T3 that he would've used a lot of CG too?? I think he probably would've used more...

What CGI stuff looked sooo bad to you? And who said that CGI isn't expensive...it's very expensive. You also have to understand that CGI is still pretty much in it's infancy. Give it another 5 to 10 years and we probably won't be able to tell the difference between efx and live shots at all... give it a chance to grow. jeez!


Timmio
Old 07-13-03, 05:05 AM
  #314  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think CGI was expensive up to a certain point in Cinema. If anything, the costs are related to research. T3's effects looked like the same ones used in Eraser (more than 5 years ago)

CGI isn't in it's infancy. Final Fantasy:TSW and Flight of the Osirus prove that. Those are films where I know the millions spent on it went somewhere. Of course, it wasn't back into SquareHawaii (heh, heh)

As for JC, well, the t1000 was cg and I loved that. There wasn't much else that was though. Titanic had a fair amount of CG too but it wasn't really discernable. Aliens of course had none and well...we all see what a classic that turned out to be.

I dunno really. I appreciate the old way of doing things. Just recently the director of Gremlins truned down the idea of CGIing his creatures in a sequel. I respect that. It makes everything feel more real.

It's so easy to point out what's real or fake these days. Being tricked my it is great though. LXG's Mr. Hyde proved that. I coulda sworn it was CGI but it turns out it was good ol' latex.
Old 07-13-03, 06:10 AM
  #315  
pum
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: XXX
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Spooky
Terminator take place in 1984...John Connor was born in late 1984.
Terminator 2 takes place in late 1994 (NOT 1991) - John Connor is 10.
In 1997 the SPOILER concerning Sarah Connor that we find out about in T3 happens.
Late 2004 = The events of T3, John Connor is 20 years old.
do you guy think the story in T2 is somewhat illogical, especially on the relationship of John Corner and his mother: that she's insane and he's ashame of that etc.
i mean if he rented The Terminator (which done superbly by James Cameron), isn't it obvious that his mother tell the truth? (kid love action movie, isn't it?)
or maybe because Terminator is r-rated film, then he can not watch it yet?
Old 07-13-03, 01:58 PM
  #316  
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Spokane, Washington
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Here are my thoughts on the whole Terminator lore, I also eliminated the paradox of Reese being Johns father.
I'm assuming everyone has seen the movie, but Possible spoilers!
.
.
.
.

Original Timeline:
Sarah Connor is impregnated with John Connor by her then boyfriend. This is the same guy who stood her up near the beginning of the original film. This eliminates the paradox of Reese being the father of John.
John then meets his future wife Kate. When Judgment day occurs, Kateís father takes them to a fallout shelter where they survive and eventually lead the resistance.

A terminator is sent back thus creating the second timeline:
Basically this is where the original Terminator movie picks up. Reese is still not Johnís father as Sarah is already pregnant.

Then we get to the events of Terminator 2. What happens here is Judgment Day is delayed not prevented.

Then we get to Terminator 3. Basically, John and Kate ended up in the same place as they did in the original timeline.
Old 07-13-03, 03:11 PM
  #317  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Louisville
Posts: 7,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Revoltor
Actually dont. There is no comparison. T2 is the Christ figure of all action films.
That's a heck-of-a analogy if I've ever read one!
Old 07-13-03, 06:25 PM
  #318  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What's all this with the "bad" CGI?? I thought I read where Mostow made it a point not to overuse CGI. In fact, I thought much of the effects work was done with real world sets/stunts(including much of the chase sequence). I thought Mostow's viewpoint is that if it can be done in the real world, do it that way. If it can't (TX scenes, etc.) use CGI.
Old 07-13-03, 08:14 PM
  #319  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: City of Chicago
Posts: 1,583
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What's all this with the "bad" CGI?
Don't worry too much. If you go back and count those who claim "bad CGI" in this thread, the count will be awfully small. Especially compared to those who had good things to say about the effects.

Last edited by shill66; 07-14-03 at 10:05 AM.
Old 07-14-03, 09:36 AM
  #320  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Couples of questions?

1) Will there be a T4 - did this movie make enough to allow another one to be made.

2) Do the machines now have their own intelligence? And if so, how come Arnold doesn't learn to think for himself?

3) Why did John C. between T2 and T3 spend his time training himself to get ready for another attack by another Terminator? He seems less skilled than Claire Danes (who doesn't know what's about to come).
Old 07-14-03, 10:29 AM
  #321  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Revoltor
Anyway, these new Terminators suck ass at "terminating". Instead of quick kills, we get people tossing. A lot of people tossing.
not sure where you got this. The T-X seemed to terminate her targets pretty quick, and T-800 wasn't programmed to terminate

Spoiler:
she asked their name, scanned them........then shot them several times. doesn't get much quicker than that. the only times she messed around was to get info.......then once the info was attained she got rid of the people. hell the poor cat lady didn't even get a chance to say anything before she caught a few bullets..........Catherine Bruster?..........nope
Old 07-14-03, 12:49 PM
  #322  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Cusm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 7,646
Received 24 Likes on 16 Posts
Originally posted by Daveg27
Who decides what the "big picture" is?? Who decides fate? Something must if we are abandoning cause and effect. At what point does something stop being the big picture and become a detail?

In other words, you are saying the universe is deterministic (fate is set)but not causal. That doesn't make any sense. Like I said, you can't have it both ways. Either the fate is pre set for all events, no matter how small or it's not. This is simple determinism, cause and effect, the clockwork universe. No distinction is made between small and large events.

What you guys are talking about is "inevitability" not fate. In the Terminator movies, it was inevitable that more and more technology would find its way into the defense network no matter what the source (Cyberdyne or whatever), hence Skynet was inevitable. That is not the same thing as a deterministic future where all fate is set.

I find it hilarious that you are fighting over philosophy. A field that contains no black or white. You quote one school of thought of destiny, but the funny thing of philosophy is that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of conclusions and speculations that can be made about, of, for, against, etc destiny, and none of them are wrong (technically).
It is also funny that you are fighting over time travel, a theory that may or may not be viable, let alone the laws that would govern them. You do know that BTTF is the not the be all, end all authority on time travel.

Please disregard all of this if you happen to be god and do know all the answers of the universe. If however you are not, and I as an Atheist am safe, please don't spout off like you are talking about facts, and everyone is wrong and just an idiot.

Disclaimer: I am not, nor claim to be an expert in the fields of Philosophy and/or Time Travel. I have stated observations of a semi-informed idiot.
Old 07-14-03, 01:11 PM
  #323  
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Relax man, you took my post way too seriously. No one is fighting about anything here, we're just discussing a movie. I am merely trying to point out an inconsistancy in the whole fate/future is fixed thing with respect to the Terminator movies. I apologize that it wasn't clear that I wasn't talking about reality.

But thanks for calling me an idiot!
Old 07-14-03, 01:29 PM
  #324  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 2,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Face/Off
Child grows up in a redneck, gun-toting, militant atmosphere (snip)...

So you believe where John Connor is by T3 is sloppy writing and a dramatic change?
Itís sloppy, because in a series itís unusual to significantly change the nature of a central character with out explanation. Here, the writers jumped to the end of the character arc w/o including any of the journey. Since Connerís lack of confidence isnít really central to the T3 storyline, the change makes no sense other than to make Kate seem more dynamic. In fact if it weren't for her actions, Conner wouldn't have made it to the end of T3. How Conner lost his confidence is pure speculation on your partóitís not on the screen.

And again itís not worth quibbling over. If the missing character arc were the only problem w/ T3 I would have enjoyed it.
Old 07-14-03, 01:38 PM
  #325  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 2,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Jason1973
Here are my thoughts on the whole Terminator lore, I also eliminated the paradox of Reese being Johns father. (snip)
Just out of curiosity, how can an individual with different fathers, different DNA turn out to be the exactly same person?

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.