Talk:T-1000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 Comics aren't canon? 2 Making a T-1000 3 Other references: simpsons? 4 Writing in past tense and speculation. 5 Original research 6 1994/1995 edit 7 Why would he be naked? 8 Misdirection? 9 Damage from freezing?

[edit] Comics aren't canon?

I've replaced the information removed for the following reasons: 1. The fact that the canonicity may be in question is included in the description, but the decision should be left to the reader. 2. The information appeared in a comic that was an officially licensed T2 movie tie in. 3. The mention of comic universe details for many other SciFi creations already exist on Wikipedia. (seeYautja,Xenomorph (fiction),etc)

I've updated the origin back story for the T-1000 as outlined in the official licenced comic tie-in to the movie from Malibu Comics. I've also cleaned up the fragmented sentences in the opening paragraph to better outline the T-1000. Hope it worked. --15:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)DMD 15:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I always assumed the "gitches" at the end of the movie were a result of the unusually high temperatures in the smelting facility. Any other thoughts? Bihal 04:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The T-1000 that appears in the film is apparently the only one ever developed, as a prototype with the specific task of killing John Connor. It exhibited basic emotion - it seemingly took pleasure from causing its victims to suffer before dying. While the T-800 series was a systematic killer that ensured the target was dead, the T-1000 would often strike a blow before taunting his victim. Examples of this are when he stabs Lewis (a guard at the mental hospital) in the eye while watching him twitch, and especially when he stabs Sarah Connor in the shoulder, asks her to call out for her son whilst extending his finger towards a point, aimed directly at Connor's eye. He also waves his finger at Sarah and John when their attack fails, as if to reply to their actions with a paternal display of condemnation.

I removed the above text because I believe the author is personifying the T-1000, which fails the NPOV criteria. These examples are a stretch at best, and classic of how human most film viewers are -- that is, personifying non-human entities with human characteristics. Simply, the T-1000 is a more elegant killer, with more detailed information on how to use humans to betray humans. Just as the T-800 is loaded with anatomical information to make them more efficient killers (as stated in the T2 film), the T-1000 most likely has received psychological information useful in torture tactics. Intently watching Lewis react to an occular stabbing probably amounts to little more than "data gathering". Commanding Sarah Connor to cry out for her son is a torture tactic decidedly in greater favor of retriving and terminating John. Waving his finger, although most probably near-end-of-film fan pandering, within the film's context probably could be written off as a demoralizing "psych-out" against his human enemies.

Your ananlysis is quite interesting and I think it would deserved to be in the article. I suggest you consider creating an "robot-human interaction/tactics"-like chapter with your comments (and the arguments that you refutates, of course). Reply to David Latapie 06:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

the torture of sarah connor is easy to explain, even bearing in mind that after the liquid nitrogen incident the T-1000 was still an excellent mimic and so didn't actually need her to call for John. There was a reasonable chance that by body language or otherwise sarah might provide clues as to john's location. Rd232 ^talk 20:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's also possible that the T1000's decision to torture Sarah rather than mimic her to call for John was a result of the glitches it was experiencing after being frozen (as better depicted in the deleted scenes of most DVD

releases.)--DMD 07:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Making a T-1000

Where is it stated the information about pressing the liquid metal together to make a T-1000? And, wouldn't it require more than just pressing it together, he'd need some kind of control system as well as power, like a liquid microchip, or some kind of "network" which knows where each blob of metal is, and can come back together? Like what happens when it changes shape, it has to adjust it's dimensions, and each atom has to align at a certain point, how does it do so?

And, pressing two 20 ton masses would not change it's mass, it would still be 40 tons mass, thus it would be too heavy to go places without breaking the pavement and wouldn't have brought down the helicopter it was in, etc. 68.112.248.69 20:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the information comes from an officially licensed comic and thus some would see this as canon. As for why it would be done, Titanium is a type of "memory-metal", it remembers its shape when it transitions from liquid to solid and thus i would assume the liquid mimetic polly-alloy needed to have a base shape to form when making this first tranistion. The nanites would be self-powered and would be small enough to exhibit qualities of liquid (see Quantum theory and the whole wave/particle issue). Enigmatical 01:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe he meant the press dies were 20 tons, not the mimetic alloy.75.21.125.177 00:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And it would also need some kind of "computer" of sorts to store information, whatever kind of form that would take. We never got to see a scene looking out of the T-1000's eyes, unlike the T-X and T800. In a deleted scene (spoiler) we see the T-1000 Malfunctioning, it's hand turning to a checkerboard pattern, and it sticking to objects when he doesn't intend to. The snare 06:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder also, what would have happened if John hadn't thrown the solid piece of metal of the T-1000 from the car(and why couldn't have liquified and attacked him?),how far apart the pieces can be, if the T-1000 would have been able to track them wherever they went. The snare 07:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that it's made of nanites? The dialog between John and the T-800 goes like this

John: This other guy, he's a terminator like you, right? T-800: Not like me, a polymimetic alloy John: What the hell does that mean? T-800: liquid metal

Do you think he just distorted the truth somewhat, gave John something he could understand better, even though it wasn't totally accurate The snare 07:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other references: simpsons?

The point when a hand was stuck in Homers gut was a reference to X Man supervillain 'The Blob' who would often do the same thing........No?

[edit] Writing in past tense and speculation.

Scifi articles should be written in past tense form ie;(is=was, can=could, grabs=grabbed, ect). I removed anything that was pure speculation, there were sentences that said things like,"It may be that" or, "It's possible that." When writing any article on Wikipedia, state only the facts. I think I fixed most of the article, but there still may be a few areas that need work. Otherwise the article was very well written, and I could tell a lot of time was put into it. Good Job to the original author. Lobot72 06:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

This article reads like a bunch of original research. I may be wrong, and there may be canon sources for all of the information in the article, but if that's the case then they need to be cited. Wikipedia cannot contain speculation, however logical; it needs to have happened or been directly stated in the movies, books, etc or it needs to be removed. TomTheHand 21:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See T-800 talk for longer reasoning. Suffice to say, done. ColdFusion650 23:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1994/1995 edit

doh, I figured how to start a discussion here. re: coldfusion's personal Talk page (subject: 1994/1995 edit).

Anyway, awaiting any response HERE. Thanks.

172.167.182.97 17:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Ed

Ok, from what I understand about the issue, there is a contradiction: information from T2 implies that it takes place in 1995, but information from T3 implies that T2 took place in 1994. I believe we should trust T2 over T3 in this case because this article is really on a T2 topic.

I would especially lean toward T2's information if T3 says "ten years ago" rather than "in 1994". In that case, there might not even be a contradiction: it could simply be a case of rounding to a number that sounds good. TomTheHand 17:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and that was what I was driving at. My distaste for T3 aside, this IS a specifically-Terminator 2 entry we're talking about here. It's only fair to the reader that we don't let the article get polluted by data from a whole other movie (a SEQUEL no less). 172.128.190.243 23:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Ed

Oops I see we all reached a consensus. 172.128.190.243 23:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Ed

Yeah, if you are trying to make references to dates in different works make sense, it means you're adopting an in-universe perspective. It's good practice in writing about fiction to avoid that. Writing from out-of-universe, it's obvious that writers sometimes mess up dates for their own reasons or (quite often) because they're human and don't get their sums right, so it isn't necessary to try to reconcile dates in different works. --Tony Sidaway 04:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why would he be naked?

We see him naked in T-2, but why? He could easily create the illusion of clothes, surely he must have seen some in the future, been programmed with some knowledge of them by skynet. The snare 07:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tastefully displayed naked guys == good cinema. Besides, you're supposed to think he's human at first, or at least to be uncertain. --Tony Sidaway 04:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well put! (Um, not the naked guys part, the thinking he's human part :) I'm a pretty discerning fan, and I hadn't thought of that (though I'm sure I would have eventually. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 05:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

it was my understanding that only human flesh or mimetic polly alloy imitating human flesh can survive the time travel so thats why hed come through naked81.108.233.59 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misdirection?

This passage seems really POV to me:

Up until this point, the audience has been misdirected. In the first film, two men show up from the future, one an evil Terminator, the other a human protector. In this film, two show up, a Terminator like the one from the previous film, and another man. The audience is left to assume that the other man is the human protector. When the two meet, there is a plot twist. The type of Terminator from the previous film is now the guardian, while the other is the terminator sent by Skynet, a reversal of the roles from the first Terminator film.

I don't see how the T-1000 meeting the T-800 constitutes a "plot twist" considering that the T-1000 immediately murdered a police officer and assumed his identity upon traveling back in time. It's pretty obvious right away that the T-1000 is the bad guy. Nominate we remove this, it smacks of original research. KyuzoGator (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, it's in the DVD commentary. He also isn't shown murdering the police officer. Knocking unconscious, yes. It's just that people have seen the movie so many times, they automatically know the T-1000 is the bad guy and Arnold is the good guy. They don't even realize that there is a plot twist. A lot of the DVD extras talk about the attempt to keep the fact that Arnold is a good guy a secret. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damage from freezing?

It is mentioned that after being frozen and shattering, then reforming, the T-1000 can be seen to be malfunctioning in the special edition. Been a while since i watched it but i specifically remember a hand sticking to a black and yellow striped rail and mimicking the colour and a foot sticking to a diamond plate floor and taking on its texture.

the article attributes these malfunctions to damage from the freezing process, but my interpretation has always been that it was a result of the high levels of heat in the steel mill. 80.5.213.17 (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Many people have modified the article to say that. In reality, the part about the freezing causing the glitches is from the Extreme DVD commentary with James Cameron. He specifically says that it was the freezing. ColdFusion650 (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)