Just an observation about Terminator 3 that helps me to appreciate it:

There is an underlying message of how knowledge of the future makes you paranoid and drives you insane. We saw what kind of effect this had on Reese in the original Terminator. (His rantings at Dr. Silberman got him classified as "a loon.") Reese died, and then, in T2, we see how Sarah Connor has become just like him. (There's even a similar scene with her spouting off at Dr. Silberman, just like Reese did years earlier.)

Now we start watching T3. Sarah has now died, and John has grown up to become the paranoid, fearful person his father and mother had become. I saw this to be an interesting aspect in the series - where a character in the previous film is now "crazy" at the start of the next one.

I didn't like T3, either. However, I still love the scene where the T-X crashes her helicopter, and then Arnold crashes his bigger helicopter.

Answer me this...

In Terminator the Arnie Cyborg is a Cyborg, wrapped in living flesh so that he can go back in time, They said in order to time travel you need living flesh to generate the field, nothing inorganic can go through (Unless it is wrapped in living material) and that is why everyone goes through naked.

Now, this is what I hate, but T2 was so entertaining that I forgave it, Why does the liquid metal Terminator have no trouble going through, as well as the T-X? They may have explained it in T2, but I know they did not in T3.

Also, could have sworn they changed Arnies model number in the movie, ugh, not sure anymore.

I thought the movie was ok otherwise. I noticed the actual quality of the film looked shoddy compared to T2 though.

I absolutely hate when a new filmmaker comes along and changes FACTS that were established in the prior films to fit his lazy, plot hole ridden screenplay. I remember I had other problems with continuity, but I have since forgotten them with time.

Given that the T-X was more advanced technology, maybe they had also made advancements in the time travel technology (i.e. no longer needing living flesh to go through.

Or maybe the T-x could simulate living flesh close enough to get it to go through.

But its ok when an old filmmaker comes along and changes his own facts that he established? Cameron did just that, both with the example you gave and screwing up John Conner's age in T2.

I always assumed the T1000 came through in living flesh, then molted off-camera. You don't see the end of the the T1000's arm when he stabs the first officer, so for all we know a huge blade had already torn through the flesh on his hand.

I thought it was much better than could be expected.

I don't know many people that hated it.

Cameron changed stuff in Aliens. Mostly he did it because he had already designed the Queen Alien. Give Mostow a break, it happens all the time in series. The whole "living tissue" didn't make sense in T2 either.

So then isn't the philosophy of the film contradicting itself - while events can be changed, the end result is always the same. Free-will and Terminators can affect the past, erasing characters but somehow cannot effect major changes? They can kill all of Connor's lieutenants yet still manage to lose the war?

Anyone who disliked T3 because of plot holes has obviously not seen the other two movies.

Skynet and the war are completely unavoidable. This is established in the first movie (and reiterated in the second.) Anyone who thinks otherwise is viewing the first two films with a little too much nostalgia.

I loved this flick too. It had a lot of great moments.
The fight scene between Arnie and the T-X (who's friggin hot by the way) rocked.
I liked how Arnold stopped the T-X's big azz truck near the beginning.
Arnold pulling the coffin out was great!

Events can be changed..but destiny is that the future war hapens. It seems to me that there are certain events in history that cannot be avoided no matter how much tampering.

It seems to me the computers that are betting that the victory of humans in th future war is not a "fixed event" in history.

It is a long shot to be sure, but all the movies indicate the computers were defeated, so its a "Hail Mary" type of play.

Why do people hate T3? Well, if the people have seen OTHER movies in their life, they would know that T3 recycles every single plot line in the genre. Its all about big explosions, fast-paced editing and what not. Acting? Please!

Hell Yeah, and the explosions were big as hell. I like that kinda stuff..when its done right and not over CGI'ed.

Thanks for the elite movie snob comment though.

Didn't Cameron create the whole Terminator premise and storyline himself? If so, wouldn't that make Terminator 3 in a way, not a real Terminator movie since the creator had nothing to do with the plot and storyline of the movie? It would be sort of like if someone made a Star Wars movie without Lucas's input..while it could be a good movie still...it wouldn't really be an official movie.

I've always taken that there's a balance between free will and destiny in the movies. Individuals have free will in that they can do what they want more or less at a given moment, but there are certain events that will happen no matter what.

I.E. Judgement Day will always happen. And Connor will always lead the humans to victory. He's the important person, his Lieutenants just followed his lead and thus can be replaced.

Then again, maybe we're just wasting time discussing the "philosophy" of what's really no more than a series of mindless popcorn flicks.

Events can be changed, timelines altered, but destiny is inevitable. This was spelled out in the previous movies, and shown in T3 not just with the war but with John and Kate eventually hooking up like 'fate' had tried to do to them a few times in the past and failed.



I liked the movie, although I agree with some of the points already made against it like: no Sara, would've liked Furlong (oh well,) talk to the hand, etc.
It did feel like a lot was missing from it, I can believe a good half hour was cut from it.

The movie was self referential, but so what? It's #3. #2 referenced the first one quite often, #3 is going to do the same to both #1 and #2. Why is this surprising or upsetting? I liked that Dr. Silberman was in it again, kinda funny I thought. I was dissapointed that Arnie didn't steal a station wagon in this one though. If you watch #1 and #2, he steals basically the same exact station wagon, and it's done almost exactly shot for shot the same. Ah well.