Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

regarding the alternate versions (Sarah's behavior)

I stumbled across the following line: "While not a scene exactly, an explanation as to why Sarah attacks one of the wardens so violently during her escape with the broom handle is seen, showing two of the men attacking and harassing Sarah as to make her take her pills."

As I have just watched the "Ultimate Special Edition" of the movie I can add that she attacks this one guard so violently because there is a scene included in which he is licking her face after he has bonded to her bed. I don't know whether this scene is also in any other version. However, this is the best explanation for the behavior Sarah shows later on.

FYI the licking of the face scene is in all versions of this movie. Spazm 15:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed

*The never-seen computer network, Skynet, was never mentioned in The Terminator. Skynet was introduced in the Now Comics series of the Terminator. Cameron liked the character and decided to include it as canon when he wrote T2.

This is not true. Skynet is infact mentioned in The Terminator. Reese states "Skynet new almost nothing of Connor's existence..." during the police interrogation.

Over the Top

The movie was made for approximately $100 million, and at the time was the most expensive movie ever made.
I somehow can not believe this was the most expensive movie made till 1991, 100$ million does not sound too much. For example I stumbled over the movie Metropolis just some minutes later and that cost about 200$ current million (I guess the USD has not decreased in its worth that much in the past 15 years), and I mean the 1927 film of course. -- Darklock 02:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

While far from a verifiable source, I can vouch that I remember hearing about T2 being the most expensive movie ever made back when it first came out. EVula 03:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
It certainly held the Guinness record. Intially they had its cost at $104 million in the '92 edition, however, this was downgraded to $95 million in the '94 edition, based on more accurate calculations. In nominal cost its only contender at the time was Voina i mir – one has to wonder though how accurately this figure was converted from Soviet currency, and can it really be considered a single film. Budgets really have increased considerably (at least nominally) since the early '90s: Waterworld was a huge leap from the previous record set by True Lies, with Titanic pushing the record even further, not to be broken until King Kong some 8 years later (it was apparently equaled by Spider-Man 2 earlier, but both seem to have imprecise data, and it may be impossible to determine which one was more expensive). Note that the pre-T2 Guinness record was held by Rambo III at $69 million in the '91 edition; I suppose $50+ million was quite unusual at the time. These figures are all unadjusted for inflation, of course. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Listen to the director's track. You will be suprised at how many times he will say what you are seeing is what really happened. That was a real explosion in the cyberdine building. That was a real truck turning over on the freeway. That helicopter that flew under the overpass, that actually happened. It's some pretty cool stuff.--God Ω War 05:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Top

I have a question. Is there mercury in the T-1000's mimetic polyalloy?

In the article it says the movie cost $88 million, but the infobar on the right says the budget was $100 million. Shouldn't these numbers agree?

T2 is notable for having a record number of minor continuity errors

Is this a real documented record (if so, documented by whom?), or just rhetoric? -- Oliver P. 04:41 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

my vote: rhetoric. <G> -- Someone else 04:43 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Ah, thought it must be. :) Wasn't feeling bold enough to change it myself, though... -- Oliver P. 05:16 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Buck up and be on about it! There is much to boldly change of late, and not only in this particular essay<G> -- Someone else 05:35 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

T-800?

I believe the model is T-101 and the series number (i.e. serial number) is 800, not the other way around. But where did you find the reference to 800?

I can't remember any references to the number 800 off the top of my head, but in one of the films(I think the first), Reese says "the 600 series had rubber skin, we spotted them easily", or words to that effect, and I have seen several occurences of T-800 and T-101 used (confusingly) interchangably in the imdb's trivia/goofs pages for these films. Boffy b 23:45, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
The T-800 is "Cyberdyne Systems model 101" as quoted by Arnie to John Connor in the second film. Robert Patrick's charcter is the T-1000. I remember this from the time. --Ethikos 11:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The exoskeleton is a T-800 and the "skin" is a model T-101. Combine them and you get the "Arnie" version of the killer cyborg.--HDC7777 18:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Unseen Footage?

For the record, the never-before-seen footage had made it into a comic book version, though I grant that it doesn't qualify as footage. -- Kizor 20:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Someone had started writing the opening paragraph timelines using the present tense, as a clever homage to the way Arnold-Terminator narrates near-future events when talking to Sarah Conner. So I made that consistent throughout the opening section. Also I removed the continuity errors bit; without a reference it doesn't belong there, and certainly not near the top of the article. --jls 23 Mar 2005

  • maybe move the quotes to wikiquote? (clem 17:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC))

DVD Art

Is it possible that since this article was originally written in English, an English DVD artwork picture can be uploaded? Possibly moving the foreign language version into a link in the article or something, just to stay with consistency.

Please leave the incontinuity part alone.

The part which reads, "At one point during the end of the film the T-1000 tortures Sarah in order to attempt to get her to call to John. This makes little sense given the fact that this machine can copy anything it has touched. But perhaps the Terminator knew it wouldn't sound convincing enough, seeing as it doesn't appear to feel pain (except in the death scene), it would have a hard time simulating Sarah's voice in agony." Should be changed. I have attempted to do so and it seems have been over ruled. Please realize the self-defeated logic at use here-in by the poster of this bullet:

-"the terminator knew it wouldn't sound convincing because it doesn't feel pain..except in the death scene."

The continuity break is there and there is little justification for it. The logical result is that the Terminator 1000 violates the primary programming (kill Sarah Connor) in order to do something that it can do itself (use Sarah's voice to call for John). While this might make for a bit of cinematic melodrama it is in fact utter lunacy on the part of the writer.

I suugest it should read as follows:

  • At one point during the end of the film the T-1000 tortures Sarah in order to have her call to John. This makes no sense under the realization that the T-1000 has voice reproduction capabilities which includes the ability to reproduce painful outcries. The continuity of this scene breaks down even further as the T-1000 leaves Sarah alive in order to search for John after she does not comply and call for him.

Or something close to that....

I agree about that. --Admiral Roo 10:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
The T-1000's primary mission is to kill John, not Sarah. - Sikon 02:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Another possibility is that being frozen by liquid nitrogen in some way damaged the ability of the T-1000 to copy Sarah Connor's voice. I agree totally that not killing Sarah Connor when it had the chance makes little sense as she was actively protecting John throughout the movie. The fact the primary mission is to 'kill John' doesn't mean the T-1000 would spare her. Just look at the scene where Arnie almost kills the two thugs in the parking lot before John stops him. He says "I'm a Terminator" as justification for any killing. --Ethikos 12:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The T-1000 doesn't simply "leave her alive" during that scene, as the T-800 arrives and engages in a battle with the T-1000. This means she was simply abandoned to deal with the bigger threat.--HDC7777 18:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

T3 and "no fate"

It was said in the article that T3 contradicted the "no fate" hypothesis. It doesn't, but the point people constantly miss (and blame the creators of T3 for ruining T2's "happy" ending) is that Skynet must exist in the future for the Terminators to be sent into the past, otherwise, a paradox would occur. Consider this:

  • if Skynet didn't exist, it wouldn't want to kill John;
  • therefore, Skynet wouldn't send the T-1000;
  • therefore, there would be no reason for John to protect himself;
  • therefore, John wouldn't send the T-800;
  • therefore, Sarah wouldn't know about Skynet's origins;
  • therefore, Cyberdyne would be left intact;
  • therefore, Skynet would exist.

As Skynet is necessary, we can assume that there is some sort of a Back to the Future-style "self-preservation effect" which prevents changes that would endanger the space-time continuum from ever happening. - Sikon 02:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to make this comment. If SkyNet never existed, the terminators never sent back in time, then a couple of things would happen. SkyNet would never exist, for it was the first terminator that gave Cyberdyne the idea for SkyNet. It was it's chip. Also, you left out the John Conner would never had been born, for Reese would never had been sent back. SkyNet caused John's birth by sending the first terminator back. - Geistson


Indeed, this is science fiction and the logic presented above would go against John's father being from the future, because Reese was sent back to protect John's mother... without him being sent back John would have never existed and he would have never been sent back. So the way Time Travel works in the Terminator Universe is not accurate to the way presented above.


There does seem to be a likely explanation for the course of events in regards to the time travel that no one has stated yet. Chances are that even without any interference, there would have been a Skynet and a Judgment day. In this first iteration there would have been no John Connor and Judgment day would have been later that in any of the films (say 2008 for instance). Someone else made trouble for Skynet in some way, necessitating the dispatch of the first Terminator. Kyle Reese was sent to stop it, and in the process of protecting an alternate target, met up with and got together with Sarah Connor. This led to John Connor's birth and an overshadowing of the original threat to Skynet. The second iteration is probably what we see in the first movie then, with its events pulling Judgment Day back to 1997. From then on, subsequent incursions make changes, but there are no fundamental paradoxes causing everything to unravel.

An apparent "contradiction"

Removed from the article:

"This theory is contradicted because August 29, 1997 is the date Kyle Reese gives Sarah Connor for Judgement Day, without research on Terminator parts taking place. Afterwards, research IS carried out on the original T-800's CPU and severed forearm, which would resolve to make Skynet and thus Judgement Day occur sooner. There is a 2 year window between when those parts are destroyed (1995, the time setting of the 2nd film), and Judgement Day (1997), which can be used to explain this paradox again and prolong Judgement Day. However, in the second film, the T-800 proceeds to explain about Miles Dyson and the developement of Skynet, indicating that it is at least 3 years before Skynet is developed. That was 1995, and the only thing so far in the story to affect Skynet is the accelerated research occuring from the study of recovered T-800 parts, making the earliest possible date for J.D. now 1998. So, in effect, the paradox explains ITSELF in that it actually takes LONGER for Skynet to develop with Cyberdyne Systems researching futuristic parts, rather than simply inventing them themselves. This solves the paradox, while adding an element of disbelief that it would actually take longer through reverse engineering to engineer Skynet."

The T-800 tells Sarah the same date as Reese: August 29, 1997. Also, T2 took place in a different timeline than T1; since in the T1 timeline Skynet was designed using the remains of the first T-800, it changed the future and the information Reese had about Skynet. Therefore, in T2 Reese and the Terminators came from the same timeline and had the same information about the date of Judgment Day. So there is no contradiction. - Sikon 11:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no suggestion in T1 that anything has changed. The events form a closed causal loop, contrary to what Skynet wanted.
On the timeframe thing, I don't recall Kyle Reese giving a date for Judgment Day. However, in T2 the T-800 does indeed give the date in August 1997 to John. In the very same scene he tells John that this is over three years in the future. Thus, T2 takes place in 1994, not 1995 as is sometimes claimed. Metamagician3000 00:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
T2 implies that the movies take place in a mutable timeline, so no causal loops, every event must have a primary cause and cannot be its own cause (although it may seem so). - Sikon 11:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The Terminator gives August 9th, 1997 as the date for Judgement Day while driving in the station wagon with John and Sarah. He explains to them that this is the date JD will occur unless they take action to stop it. If John were born in 1985, he would be 12 at the time of JD, far to young to be the leader of an armed resistance. You can claim that he was 44 (which he would be in 2029) at the time he became leader, but that leaves a 32-year gap of unexplained events.
  • The timeline Reese gives in T1 is meaningless, because the events of T2 either stopped JD completely, or altered when and how it would happen (depending on if you regard T3 as cannoical). Reese's birth could have happened at a different time and place than is sgguested in T1, simply because the entire timeline was adjusted by the evnts of T2. --64.36.17.218 09:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
But more importantly all this is unsourced original research. We could debate the logic of time travel forever, but wikipedia isn't the place to do it. If you've got sources that have analyses this, by all means quote them, but doing our own calculations and philosophising is forbidden on WP. Ashmoo 05:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

-Long before T2 told us that the original Terminator's remains were the basis for the research that created Skynet, the first film established one fact that established the films as a causal loop: Kyle Reese is John Connor's father. He fell in love with Sarah Connor because of a photograph, the very same photograph that is taken of Sarah Connor at the end of the film, as she reflects on the time she spent with him. He also knows that John Connor's father dies before the war. Reese does not supplant another man as John Connor's father; it always has been and always will be Reese who fathers John Connor. Preventing Skynet or Judgment Day thus prevents John Connor's conception. Secondly, Kyle being Connor's father proves that every event, right up to the destruction of Skynet decades later, has been shaped from the outset by time travel. Time travel isn't a second chance at history, it's the way history always happened, and it only happens once. Time travel doesn't change the past, it locks it in place. Cameron can give us speeches about the future not being set, but in his story, the certainty of certain future events has been set in place by using time travel in an attempt to prevent it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenobifan (talk • contribs) 05:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The first Terminator film did become a causal loop. However, the second Terminator film gave a specific date when Skynet became self-aware. By the third film, we found out that this date had passed without Skynet having become self-aware. Therefore, either the terminator lied or the loop was broken in the second film. — Val42 (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

John Connor's Age

The article says that he's supposed to be 10 years old. I find this a bit young...cite? (I always thought it was more around 13)JD79 14:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem with Johns age is the fact theat that T1 and T3 take place in the years they are made in. Then T2 takes place three years after the movie was made thus being a possible explanation of the tree years til JD. This keeps his age at 10 or 11 not younger or older. [User:Anymous] 15;05, 11 January 2007


The following extract from the article is not true:

"The continuity of this scene breaks down even further as the T-1000 leaves Sarah alive in order to search for John after she does not comply and call for him."

The T-1000 does not leave Sarah alive as stated here, but is attacked by the T-800 because of which he turns and retaliates, ignoring Sarah.


Age:

Actually, John can only be nine in this movie! His birthdate in February 1985 does, indeed, flash on the screen early in the action. This means that he will not turn ten until February 1995. However, Judgment Day takes place in August 1997, and John is told by the T-800 that this is still more than three years away (i.e. Judgment Day takes place more than three years after the Dyson chip is released, which has not yet happened). Thus, T2 takes place no later than about mid-1994. The published script refers to John as being ten, but this seems to forget the nine months that Sarah was pregnant. It looks as if the events take place pretty much ten years after the events of T1 (one character says in T1 says that it's May 1984, which fits John being born nine months later in February 1985).

(T3 fudges all of this by retrospectively making John at the time of T2 considerably older than he could possibly be in the established timeline of T1 and T2.)

However, as someone has already noted, there is no problem about the fact that John becomes a leader. He is 12 at the time of Judgment Day, and grows up afterwards. He is close enough to 45 during the 2029 scenes, old enough to be a veteran warrior and to have risen to lead the humans.

Metamagician3000 12:04, 23 December 2005

The problem is this: John would be 44 years old in 2029, but he would be only 12 when Judgement Day occurs. That leaves 32 years (1997-2029) where he's doing god-knows-what. Los Angeles would be a target for Skynet's nuclear launch, so how comes John doesn't die on JD, what's he doing for 32 years before he becomes leader, and how did he get to be leader?

The suggestion in both T1 and T2 is that Sarah planned to flee across the border to Mexico (and possibly even further south?), to avoid being nuked on Judgment Day. In fact, we know he spent some time in the jungles of Central America (I'm now not sure how clearly this is shown in the movie itself, as opposed to the script) in between the events of T1 and T2. So in the "original" order of events, in which Judgment Day happens in August 1997, John is not in LA when it is hit by Russian nuclear warheads. There is obviously a lot of scope here for the depiction of events between Judgment Day and 2029, but we learn nothing in much detail about this in T1 and T2 -- and it is not really relevant to T3, which takes a different approach. However, we do know that John emerges as a leader well after Judgement Day, after Skynet's machines have been built, have taken over, and have even created extermination camps for the surviving humans ... and he teaches the humans how to fight back. (Some novels written for the Terminator franchise have explored the events of these 32 years further. I expect that future Terminator movies might also explore the events in John's life after T3's version of Judgment Day, though John is much older at the time of Judgment Day in this version.) Metamagician3000 04:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any indication in either film - especially the first - that there is a definitive plan to flee south of the border. It's obvious that Sarah didn't intend for John and the T-800 to follow her back to Dyson's residence during T2, and that she had wanted them to stay in Mexico with her contact, but there's no way to know where they would have gone from there had they stayed and Sarah had not returned. In addition, keep in mind that until John and the T-800 free her during the 2nd film, Sarah is in state custody, has on several occasions unsuccesfully attempted to escape and that John is convinced she is insane. Had the T-800 not show up, John probably would have stayed in foster care, convinced that his mother was dellusional, and died during the Skynet nuclear strike on Los Angeles, so even if Sarah did have an escape plan, it was moot until she was freed from Pescadero, and was changed immediately because of the information given to her about Judgement Day and Dyson. All of this becomes moot by the end of the film though, because as far as the storyline of the first 2 films is concerned, JD gets stopped when Dyson dies and the research is destroyed.


I do think that we should avoid getting bogged down in these supposed "plot holes", or whatever they are. The movies give us some hints about possible answers, but I agree that I lot of it is moot. OTOH, because there are hints of answers (e.g., one way or another, John could have been somewhere south of the border on Judgment Day), these potential problems are not really holes or errors, just things that are left not fully explained ... it's always possible to come up with possible answers based on the hints. It's not much use swapping theories about what "would have happened if" in the part of John's life story that we are not shown. Although it's fun, I think it's more for a fan site than an encyclopedia. The only serious problem that I see is that John just can't be more than 9, but looks and acts older. I think we just have to accept this as a bit of licence taken by the moviemakers.

Then we get T3, of course, which retrospectively changes his age and the whole timeframe that T1 and T2 have established with at least a degree of care. There really are serious and unresolvable continuity problems between T1/T2 (on one hand) and T3, but that is another issue, not relevant to this article. If it were up to me, I'd drastically cut back the material in this article on plot holes, or whatever. However, there seems to be a general view that something is required here, and I don't want to vandalise other people's hard work. So, I've just expressed these opinions for others to consider and left it for someone else. :) Metamagician3000 09:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A nuclear strike on LA wouldn't kill 100% of the humans there, John Conner could have just happened to be a lucky survivor Tomgreeny 22:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that these holes exist, or at least that certain people regard them as being plot holes. However, one thing I think needs to be removed from this article is any reference to "fixes" that T3 may have provided for some of those plot holes. As far as I'm concerned, the happenings of T3 should be adressed in that article.


In T3 it is clearly stated 'when I (John Connor) was 13, they (the terminators) tried again (to kill him)'. Raystorm 15:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


T3 is full of BULLSH!T. JOHN IS 10 for T2 - FACT shown by the police computer T-1000 looks at in T2. I don't give a rats rip what Mostow had to say because Ed Furlong did not look Ten. HE WAS 10, END OF DISCUSSION

Linda/Leslie Roles

I've tried to locate a corroberating interview on-line for this, but have been unable to do so. Last time I watched the DVD version of this film (I'll verify which version, I believe it was the Extreme Edition) the commentary notably mentioned something that this article may have wrong: Linda played the 'T1000 Fake' in the climatic scene of the film. Linda's explanation (which I can't quote perfectly from memory) was that as the filming went on, Sarah Connor was becoming more and more like a Terminator, more ruthless and emotionless. And as she'd had so much experience doing this during filming, she had a hard time actually acting the part of the emotional 'mother rescueing her son' in that scene, and ended up actually playing the part of the T1000 fake, her sister Leslie being the Sarah Connor that actually rolls up the conveyor belt. Can anyone out there verify if this is correct? And if so, kindly correct the article?

According to Ultimate Edition, the T-1000 version of Sarah was played by Linda. Rd232 talk 23:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"Speculation"

The additions to the plot holes section that keep getting removed are not speculation, their issues not fully adressed by the film, they belong in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by anon IP (talk • contribs) 17 February 2006

The issues may not be fully addressed, but the speculation in question [1] is a waste of time to the extent it isn't just wrong; and certainly none of them are "plot holes" (as the section title in the article says). For instance speculating how John got from living in an LA suburb in 1995 to becoming leader of the post-apocalypse resistance is pointless: we know he did (because otherwise Skynet wouldn't have sent back the time-travellers) but the film doesn't tell us how. Speculating that Sarah wouldn't have escaped between 1995 and 1997 is pointless (and in the film, she was on the verge of doing so alone, had the terminators not shown up). Describing John as "well grounded into his life in foster care" is plain wrong - there's every indication he'd be willing and able to run away from his family by 1997, to who knows where. None of this speculation adds to the article. Rd232 talk 09:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate the points with you other than to say that I disagree. There are numerous variables that could occur in the 32 years before John becomes leader and it's obvious that Sarah's solo escape attempts were worthless endeavours - she could never succeed in getting out. These issues are plot holes in that the film fails to give us a complete picture about the development of the war, it's impossible to view John as a leader when he;s only 12 years old, there had to be many things that changed about him in the 32 years.

You don't seem to understand the time travel element - "numerous elements that could occur" yes, but we know the end outcome. (I know a hamburger when I see one, but I don't need to speculate on whether the cow was happy.) And "it's obvious that Sarah's solo escape attempts were worthless endeavours" is (a) wrong - the attempt we see in T2 looks likely to succeed if no terminators had been involved - (b) irrelevant - her not getting out doesn't necessarily prevent John becoming the leader (it's perfectly plausible for that to happen whilst she remains stuck in hospital til 29 August 1997). Rd232 talk 10:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
In regards to Sarah's escape attempts, I don't see how you can just pan the point as "wrong". If the Terminator and John hadn't shown up, she would have been subdued in the hallway by Dr. Silberman's "goons" via sedative (they were about to inject her) and she would have been carted back to her room. Her getting out of Pescadero only occured because they were there to aid her. There's not much speculation neccesary to see that she wasn't going anywhere without help. In regards to John becoming leader, the whole thing hinges on the success of the mission in T2, without meeting the T-800 and realizing his mother isn't insane, he never would have persued the path of leader, and it's fair to assume that he would have died on Judgement Day because without having met the T-800, he wouldn't have believed that it was going to happen. I'll conceed that the 32 year gap is unimportant, because as far as the story of the first 2 films is concerned, it's no longer going to happen because JD has been stopped.
Sorry, but... You're wrong about Sarah's escape attempt: recall that the elevator opened in time for her to escape the 'goons', but she fled towards them because the Terminator came out of it. You're wrong to say "without meeting the T-800 and realizing his mother isn't insane, he never would have persued the path of leader..." - no basis for saying that, as if he survives Judgement Day (and by timetravel fact we know he does, though not the circumstances) he knows she was right! Rd232 talk 00:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You're only speculating yourself that had she made it into the elevator she would have gotten away, she may have been captured on another floor of the building or in the parking lot (keep in mind that there was a guard at the gate who was only subdued via being shot by the T-800) or she might have been picked up by the police later on. I maintain that her escape hinged on the T-800s presence. Even if she had escaped and reached John, again, you're only speculating that John would have gone anywhere with her. He tells his friend near the ATM that he thinks she's "tottally nuts" because she tried to destroy Cyberdyne, he obviously does not believe in the existence to the Terminators or Judgement Day, it's only his encounter with the T-800 that convinces him of this truth. His encounter with the T-800 in the second film is the catalyst that sets up the timeline toward his leadership, and that timeline is squashed (as far as the first two films are concerned) when the Cyberdyne facility is destroyed and Dyson is killed in the explosion. So if anything, the events of T2 effectivly end any possibility of him becoming leader. This opens up another plot hole, that by sending the T-1000 back in time to kill John, prompting his future self to send back the T-800 as protection, the machines effectively destroy their own future existence, the same way that John creates his existence by sending Kyle back in the first film. John's becoming leader was enevitable after the end of T1, it's only the timeline between his childhood and his becoming leader we are unaware of, but that timeline and his eventual succession to leader is destroyed by the events of T2 - he never becomes that leader because Judgement Day is averted.
I never said I thought Sarah would get away, merely that it was speculation to say that she wouldn't have without the intervention of the T-800. Equally, it's speculation that John wouldn't have become leader without her assistance. Rd232 talk 00:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"Paradoxes" section (removed from the article)

Reposting here.

There are a few paradoxes in the Terminator storyline (assuming a single-timeline model of time travel). If the Terminator did destroy Cyberdyne and Skynet, he and the T-1000 would never have come into existence. Also, if the Terminators succeeded in killing John Connor, there would no longer have been a reason for them to have been sent back in time to kill John Connor.

However, by adopting the multiple timelines model, the paradoxes mentioned can be resolved. In fact, the entire Terminator series demonstrates the 'NO FATE' hypothesis, by suggesting that Sarah, John and the T-800 changed the future. So when they blow up Cyberdyne, they end up in a timeline different from the one Cyberdyne's Skynet existed in.

Fortunately, John is not killed throughout the movie, so the paradox that would have occurred had he been killed never comes into being. Also, since Skynet and the Terminators must exist in timelines following the destruction of Cyberdyne, it must still be developed by someone else without using the cybernetic arm and processor chip. There are two theories to explain Skynet's creation.

The first theory assumes that the United States Defense Department, the ultimate developer of Skynet, is also its original developer - the same one that created it in the very first timeline, in which the Terminator and Reese did not appear in the past, John Connor had a different father, and Judgment Day occurred later than 1997 (it took longer because there was no future technology on which to base the research).

The second theory says that the new Skynet development could be based on the second T-800's severed forearm, which John and Sarah neglect to recover and destroy.

Thankfully for the timeline in general, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines satisfactorily answered most of these questions. Also, it may be postulated that SkyNet, being an advanced computer, may have realized the chance of paradox, and programmed the T-1000 to contact SkyNet once the relevant dates of time travel were reached, hence sending back the necessary Terminators (however, how to find Kyle Reese and change his memory would be a much more complicated endeavor).

It also stands to reason that since John sent his true father back in time to impregnate his mother, when the machine future is changed, John could never send his father back in time, and would therefore never be born, creating another causality parodox.

- Sikon 15:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Mossberg?

I coulda sworn Sarah Connor wields a Remington 870? --Cancun771 14:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I just watched the scene where she tries to blow the T1000 into the molten steel with multiple shotgun blasts and the weapon she was using was definitely not a Mossberg 500. If it's a Remington, I have yet to see it in that configuration.

I'd bet money that it's a Franchi SPAS-12.

--Wulfe 08:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Fifth Weapon ?

In the production section, it states that the T-800 uses four weapons. What about the gun he uses to shoot the T-1000 full of holes while it is driving the tanker truck? Looked like an AR-15, but I haven't seen the movie in awhile.

Why Schwarzenegger good

Would it be Wikipedia:Original research to say that in this movie, the terminator is a good guy because the career of Schwarzenegger had advanced and he wouldn't play villains?

Yes, unless you can find a 3rd party reliable source who has stated it. Ashmoo 05:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What did you mean by unsourced weasel words?

I posted this twice, and it's been removed for this particular reason stated in the heading. In the first movie, the Terminator's left eye is damaged by Michael Biehn's character, and eventually loses his left arm. In this movie, the Terminator loses his right eye while fighting Robert Patrick's character, and also loses the left arm again. Some fans consider it poetic.

See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Basically, it means a person feels you're adding personal insight/opinions into the article and adding the weasel word "some fans" to cover it up. In this case, "some fans" wouldn't be an authority on the subject anyway, and unless you have a specific source for the statement, it doesn't belong in the article. - Bobet 18:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

plot holes

jesus christ!!!!!just enjoy the film and give credit to its makers!!

August 29, 1997

In the plot holes section the date of Judgment Day (August 29, 1997) is linked to the Wikipedia articles for August 29 and 1997. Why? Being as that this is the fictional date of Judgement Day within the context of the film, it's a date of significance in a fictional universe, while the pages being linked to discuss events that really happened. One doesn't have anything to do with another. The link provides no related or relevent information to readers of this article. The link should be removed. 65.120.75.6 16:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Tim

"Plot holes" section

I think this section needs to go altogether. It is 100% original research. --Hnsampat 18:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the bit about the "no fate" quote isn't original research; it simply is different between the first and second movies. The bit about time travel (the third item) is most certainly OR, and the first one (about the years)... yech, that's very borderline OR in my book. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The "no fate" quote is different between the two films, but to call it a plot hole is original research. There are tons of potential explanations for the difference (e.g. Reese not remembering the quote properly, Sarah changing the quote when she taught it to John, etc.) and attributing any explanation to it (such as by dismissing it as a plot hole) is original research. If we want to keep this tidbit, we need to incorporate it into the article elsewhere. The rest of the section needs to go (especially the third item).--Hnsampat 20:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be fine with documenting the comment elsewhere and scrapping the rest. For lack of a better place, I shifted it to the trivia and terminated the rest. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing template

I removed the {{Infobox movie certificates}} template. Why? It doesn't convey much information (the rating in two countries is hardly exhaustive), plus is severely screws up the article (shifting edit links around, causing text to reflow oddly around images). I'd rather see the information in it get moved to the body of the article, rather than this template. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Easter Eggs Mentioned

The section on the Extreme vs the Ultimate DVDs specifically outlines the Easter Eggs on the Ultimate version, but only vaguely mentions the Extreme version's Easter Eggs. I don't presonally care whether those are in there or not, but shouldn't either both be outlined or both excluded? I dunno, maybe I'm nuts. 68.102.179.135 04:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Exact info on the eggs can be found here: http://www.dvdreview.com/eastereggs/pages/489.shtml

Director's Cut

While the Director's Cut is considered the definitive version by now, would it be worth mentioning what the differences are between it and the original theatrical cut? Some differences are mentioned here and there in the article, but not the full list. -- Annie D 06:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, be bold. :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

1984

I've always wondered why SKYNET didn't just send the T-1000 (and later, the T-X) back to 1984 to help the original villain. Surely, if it knows it has failed (which the Terminator knows as soon as it lands, 'cos if it succeeded in killing Connor, then he would have no reason to be sent back in the future....and blah, on and on), then sending in reinforcements would surely have been a better plan.--HDC7777 18:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Conner is a Terminator?

I've heard before (on a documentary on the DVD I believe) that James Cameron thought of Sarah as the third Terminator when she decides to go and kill Dyson. Her coldness and devotion to her "mission" parallels the actual cyborgs. Should this be mentioned in the article?--HDC7777 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The T800 leaves his arm in the press!

I watched T2 again last night and realised Arnie leaves his arm in a giant cog after the a physical fight with the T1000 in the steel mill (remember he prys it off with the pipe the T1000 later stabs him with) This means he left a part of his technology in our time, so Cyberdyne could learn from his arm, like they did of the arm of the first terminator. Ironic as they then actually destroy him and the 1st terminator's arm n chip. Anyway I added this to the trivia section but user Mgiganteus1 reverted it. This definitely qualifies for the trivia section, so I will be adding it again in the future. But I thought I'd mention it on the discussion page if anybody wants to debate it first and why I added so nobody else will revert it. Ryan4314 20:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be mentioned. Consider this a vote for adding it back in. Val42 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The main difference is that the arm from the first terminator was intact - whereas this one was severely mangled by the cog, which would prohibit any research from it. That isn't to say it shouldn't be mentioned in the article per se, but the trivia section should be cut down, not added to. If you want, put an Interpretation (or some such) heading and put this in, and perhaps some other trivia points too. Desdinova 12:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The arm from the first terminator was mangled in a press. We know that the first one was intact enough for them to do research on. We don't know about the second arm. Val42 15:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It's been a while since I've watched the first one, but the arm reaches out from the press to grab Sarah, and was the only thing (apart from the CPU) not to have been crushed. The one in the cog was in much worse condition as it had been crushed. It's all speculation anyway, unless someone mentions it on one of the commentaries. Desdinova 17:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
In hindsight I will concede that the mangled 2nd arm (and it was mangled in the cog) would not be sufficient to recreate Skynet, as Cyberdyne examined the technology of the 1st Terminator not it's metal alloy, or they would have the crushed remnants of the 1st Terminator at Cyberdyne. Although as Desdinova said, perhaps it would be nice to have it mentioned in our already over-filling Trivia section. But we should be making the Trivia smaller not bigger. I vote NOT to add it, until our Trivia section gets smaller Ryan4314 14:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Assuming anything that happens after the film ends is effectively original research. Yes, they could learn from it, or they could not learn from it. Doesn't warrant a mention. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Cultural And Trivia

I propose the 'Cultural References' and 'Terminator 2 In Popular Culture' (And Trivia) just outright go. Normally I'd merge the first two sections but I thought that'd be silly since I think they should be gone.

Lots42 19:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia template for the lead??

I was surprised to find the trivia template for the lead abstract on this article, loud and clear at the top. I've read the lead, and while it contains some diverse information about the film, I don't think any of it qualifies as trivia. I think the film was impactful enough to warrant all of the information in there. If you disagree, please go ahead and move/remove it according to (WP:RELEVANCE). As for now, I think the template is not only unnecessary but an indication of a flaw in the article, where I don't believe the flaw exists.

--

ManfrenjenStJohn 04:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, upon review, the lead was pretty bloated. I trimmed out all unnecessary stuff and left one important item that I believe deserves to stay, but is still wanting for a cite. (The assertion that the CGI effects in T2 were a watershed in CG and film history -- please help find a cite to that if you can). Cheers, -- ManfrenjenStJohn 04:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to plot summary

For an extensive discussion on user of T-101 T-800 and other terminator designations, you can read Talk:Terminator (character). That's basically where the decision to avoid use of those terms when possible was decided on. The Character Nomenclature section of Terminator (character) analyzes sources that lead to the confusion. ColdFusion650 20:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I hereby retract the entry I made concerning a personal difference of opinion I had with one of the contributors to this page, and I hope all of us can act together to improve the quality of this article. This was a great movie, part of a great trilogy of movies, and deserves much better than a B grade.
Regarding the naming convention of the Terminator characters, which seems to be a big point of contention, I propose that this movie must be considered the highest 'canonical' authority to itself. I realize there's a whole 'Terminator universe' out there, with many sources, authors and ideas, but I think we have to treat the movie as the ultimate authority regarding itself.
I just finished watching the movie again, and the only references I found to model numbers or designations are when Schwarzenegger's character tells John that it's a "Cyberdyne Systems Model 101." Moments later it tells John that the other one is a "T-1000. Advanced prototype." (Can we agree that none of the Terminators should be referred to as "he" or called a "man"?)
I don't think any other source can be more 'canonical' in this context than that. As far as I'm concerned, the director's cut of the movie, any comments made by the producer, the actors or even the author(s), and any other source in the 'Terminator universe' (even the first movie!) have to be considered of only secondary authority.
So I propose that in this article, we refer to Schwarzenegger's character as the "Model 101" and Robert Patrick's character as the "T-1000". No other designations seem appropriate. Middlenamefrank 17:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Sarah refers to Arnold as "The Terminator" several times, and the credits call him "The Terminator", so I think that would an okay name to avoid repetition of "Model 101". In the garage scene, while the Terminator is deactivated, Sarah and John fight over whether it is a "he" or an "it", with John insisting that it is a "he". So, I think it would be appropriate to refer it interchangeably as a he or an it. I also think that the movie should be taken in context as a part of the overall franchise, so disregarding anything except this movie would not be the best thing. I don't see this being a big thing as this article doesn't heavily rely on other stuff, but it is possible. ColdFusion650 17:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
A) I think we should most often use more specific terminology than "Terminator", since there are two in this movie. That said, I think it's fair to call Sarah Conner "the mother" and John Conner "the kid", since it's fairly obvious who we're talking about in context of this movie...and I think that's pretty much equivalent to Sarah calling the Model 101 "the Terminator". I don't really have any problem with using "the Terminator" where there is no potential for confusion, but I do think we should prefer the terms "Model 101" and "T-1000", especially where we're discussing them both, as in the plot synopsis. Clarity is far more important than avoiding repetition.
B) Because one of the characters in the movie thinks a machine should be referred to as 'he' doesn't necessarily mean it should, especially when there is no consensus among the characters. Proper English usage dictates the use of 'it' to refer to machines of any sort, with occasional exceptions for boats and some other vessels, which may be referred to as 'she'. I'm not aware of any common usage of 'he' to refer to machines of any sort. I think it's pretty clear that John's feeling that the machine should be referred to as 'he' is meant to demonstrate John's attachment to the machine rather than an actual challenge to proper English usage. (At least I'm assuming that's the case, since I haven't seen that scene....is it a deleted scene? It's not on my DVD.)
C) I'm not saying the rest of the 'Terminator universe' should be ignored, on this page or anywhere. I'm saying that where there are conflicts, as there are bound to be when there are so many sources, authors and ideas, this movie should be seen as the most authoritative source for this article...especially when one of the main characters definitively states something. So when Schwarzenegger's character calls itself a "Cyberdyne Systems Model 101", and the other Terminator a "T-1000", that should be the preferred designation for those characters in this article. The T-800 designation may have a place in other articles but it doesn't belong here, unless it's in a note that mentions the discrepancies. As I've said before, I'll even go so far as to say that deleted scenes, director's commentary and even author statements elsewhere shouldn't be viewed as being as authoritative as scenes in the released movie. It's an article about the movie, after all. Middlenamefrank 00:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
B) Commander Data is commonly referred to as he. The only difference between him and the terminators are that Data is not designed to kill. ColdFusion650 00:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with so many things on both sides, gentlemen, that I barely have time to enumerate them here. So I'll go for my overall vision for the article: It should be readable. And, this being an encyclopedia, we should make it especially readable by those not familiar with the material at all.
On the he/it issue, I tend to prefer 'he', since I think we can all agree that (like Data) The Term., especially the one played by Arnold, is more than just a machine -- in fact, that's a core issue of this Terminator movie in particular. Vis-a-vis Sarah's closing monologue, We're meant to see Arnie as developing human traits. (With the T-1000, I could go either way. Since even John calls it an "it", I'm cool with that. It's only when the T-1000 is specifically emulating a human trait, and not just acting like a robot, that "he" is applicable.)
With the he/it variation as well as the "Model 101"/"The Terminator" usage, I again think that readability should be paramount. In short: For the ease of the reader, Arnie's character should be referred to "The Terminator" whenever that name is not likely to be confused with the T-1000, or with the 101 from the first film. I inserted a sentence reiterating Arnie's expositional dialogue to John (and more importantly to the audience) who he is... A) in relation to the 101 from the first film, and B) in relation to the T-1000. My opinion is best put like this: "Where clearest, call him 'The Terminator' When needed, for distinction, call him 'the Model 101', 'the model 101 Terminator', or even 'Schwarzenegger's character in this film', for maximum real-word readability." That's my opinion.
I similarly put a synopsis of the actual "he"/"it" dialogue btwn John/Sarah (in the Spec. Ed. cut scene) in the plot section, but I think it may have since been removed. Consider, if you will, if it can provide a similar clarification to the reader. Thanks. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 17:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree on all your points. ColdFusion650 17:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"mimetic poly-alloy"

I realize that the community has come to a consensus that the phrase "mimetic poly-alloy" is the best one to describe the material the T-1000 is constructed of, and it may be used in other sources, but in this movie, Schwarzenegger's character refers to it as a "hemi-meti-poly-alloy" (when he's explaining things to John while they're riding the bike). I think in this article we should use that phrase, since it's a direct quote from a major character in this movie. Middlenamefrank 18:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In Terminator 2, Schwarzenegger says "Not like me. A T-1000. Advanced prototype. A mimetic polyalloy". Mgiganteus1 18:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed mimetic polyalloy. I'm not sure where you got hemi-meti-poly-alloy. ColdFusion650 18:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I just listened to that scene again, very carefully, and I swear I hear him say it the other way, though the subtitle does indeed say "A mimetic poly-alloy." I'm more than happy to leave it though, based on the subtitle, and cause I always thought the other was really lame anyhow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Middlenamefrank (talk • contribs) 13:57, July 22, 2007
It's not dubbed or anything is it? It's very clear on the Extreme Edition Region 1. ColdFusion650 19:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Dunno. I got my DVD as soon as they were available, before the special editions came out. We obviously have different DVD's. Closed issue as far as I'm concerned anyhow.Middlenamefrank 19:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Real-world phrasing needed in the lead

Hi, ColdFusion650, glad to be working with you on the Terminator 2 article.

I'm writing about your recent revert, effectively reinstating a paragraph from the lead that I removed. I removed the paragraph from the lead because it conflicts with the rest of the lead by not being in a real-world perspective.

I appreciate that you cited WP:MOSFILMS in your edit summary, but I can't discern from what you wrote exactly which aspect of that policy you were trying to assert as your basis for the edit.

I hope I might be more thorough by pointing out the following. I'm using the policy Writing about Fiction: Real World Perspective as my guideline WP:WAF#Real_world_perspective. Specifically:

Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, must be written with the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information.

Here is the paragraph you preserved, which I find inconsistent with the real world perspective policy (preceded by the acceptable paragraph with which I believe it conflicts):

T2 was a significant box office and critical success. It had an impact on popular culture, and is considered by many to be hugely influential in the genres of action and science fiction.[1] The film's visual effects include many breakthroughs in computer-generated special effects, marking the first use of natural human motion for a CG character and the first computer generated main character.[2]
After the Terminator failed to kill Sarah Connor in 1984, thus failing to prevent her son John from being born, the machines try again, sending a more advanced Terminator to attack John himself in his childhood. As in the first movie, the future John Connor sends back a protector for his younger self, this time another Terminator.

The in-film events that I believe you are trying to retain in the lead can be kept there; however, in order for it to be done in a readable/policy fashion, it needs to be consistently real-word.

In plain terms (sorry if this sounds in any way condescending -- my goal is to be clear without sounding pedantic!) "After the Terminator failed to kill Sarah Connor..." is not written in real-world perspective, whereas "T2 was a significant box office success..." is.

I hope WP:WAF#Real_world_perspective, or simply the excerpt I quoted above, will explain this to your satisfaction. If not, I happily welcome you to discuss it with me. I'll place this discussion on the talk page for Terminator 2 in case you'd like to continue to work together towards the goal I think you're going for.

Furthermore, you may want to consider that the first paragraph in the "Plot" section essentially duplicates the paragraph in question. And, according to WP:MOSFILMS, that's where it belongs:

Lead section The lead section of an article serves as a quick introduction to the film. The very first paragraph should cover the basics, such as the film's release year, alternate titles, genre(s), setting, country (if not the US), stars, and director (and possibly writer in some cases), as well as one or two of the most notable, verifiable facts about the film, such as "At the time of its release, it was the most expensive film ever made". The second paragraph should be a brief look at the film's impact: whether critics liked the film or not (and why), whether it was a commercial success or not, whether any sequels to or remakes of the film were produced, and whether it had any lasting influence or significant impact outside the world of film.

Plot (...) Describe the basic premise of the film in a couple of sentences. Introduce key characters, with actors' names in parentheses after them, Character (Actor). Now provide a more comprehensive plot summary.

Cheers,

--

ManfrenjenStJohn 15:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Leads summarize the entire article; it is not uncommon to have a brief synopsis about the film in the lead, as the plot itself will contain actual spoilers is just about every occassion. The way I've seen it, that synopsis usually comes at the end of the first paragraph. Also, general production information goes in the lead as well, but that paragraph doesn't mention that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Noted and agreed, but that's not among my points. My points are: Real world perspective is non equivocal. I'm fine with it as long as it's in proper perspective. Mixing real-world with in-world is (to me anyway) just as confusing as mixing tense. Secondarily, reconsider the need to duplicate info. According to the policy ColdFusion650 himself cited, it's already in the proper section. Cheers. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 17:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This:

After the Terminator failed to kill Sarah Connor in 1984, thus failing to prevent her son John from being born, the machines try again, sending a more advanced Terminator to attack John himself in his childhood. As in the first movie, the future John Connor sends back a protector for his younger self, this time another Terminator.

Should probably read like:

The film picks up ten years after the events of The Terminator. It follows Sarah Conner, her son John, and a reprogrammed Terminator as they try and prevent Judgement Day.

It's pretty basic, and can be tacked on to the end of the first paragraph. Summarizes the plot pretty concisely, identifies the events as being fictional and not actually taking place. As for the MOS where it states the first few lines of the plot should describe the premise of the film, that is rather out dated. I've been finding a few guidelines which were not updated with new information. Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section says that an article should be split at 30kb (equivalent to about 30,000 characters), but WP:SIZE no longer says this. It isn't common practice to put a premise in the same section as the plot, since we pretty much don't use "spoiler" tags any longer either, which would have separated the two in those cases.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Perfect! That's an excellent way for how it should read. Also, I completely agree that certain policies are in the midst of change, and hence conflict is brewing across the wiki-scape. I'm seeing the whole changing Spoiler policy in particular frequently cause a lot of frustration, disagreement, and back-and-forth rewriting of articles on fiction. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 17:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll let Cold review it, to see what they think. The problem with all the changes is that you live by one set of rules for a long time, then they change everything without warning (without posting some nice bulletin to let everyone know there is a change) and they expect you to just understand it. So far it hasn't been too bad. I don't care about spoiler warnings, I don't typically read sections of films I have never seen, but plan to one day.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to keep my comments pithy. I agree with Bignole, as is often the case. Premise in lead is definitely standard, as a quick review of FA film articles shows. The part of the MOS that I was citing, sorry I wasn't specific, was about "plot details and actor names already mentioned in the lead section" under Plot. The first message in this section is really long, and I want to make sure that that's all we're talking about, right? ColdFusion650 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure which you were citing. I thought his concern (beyond the real world context) was that a premise didn't appear in the lead, because WP:WAF doens't mention it in the "lead" section of its guideline. And that the Plot section mentions a "premise" statement in the beginning.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I had essentially one simple point, which was the need for Real World Perspective. But I'm overly formal when talking to someone new, so yeah... I was kinda wordy. :)
Bignole nailed it with "The film picks up ten years after the events of The Terminator. It follows Sarah Connor, her son John, and a reprogrammed Terminator as they try and prevent Judgement Day.", and I'm thrilled you both agree. Reaching consensus always makes you feel good about yourself. :) -- ManfrenjenStJohn 18:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
We finally reach consensus, and I'm waiting for one of you guys to make the edit (it was your words, after all!) I'm putting Bignole's line in, but I still give you guys due credit. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 20:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Terminator Striving to be more Human (Was: "Thumbs up": thumbs up or down?")

The thumbs up issue is certainly minor, and not worth getting in even the mildest of edit wars about. But what's really paramount to me is this. The following deserves acknowledgment in the article: The arc in which The Terminator (Arnie) grew to be "more human" (John Connor's words) is significant, and deserves to be demonstrated with verifiable character action in the article. (Citing observable fact as opposed to original research, of course). That's why I kind of liked the thumbs-up mention. Cold, Bignole, and anyone else -- it's obvious to us, especially since we include Sarah's closing monologue that Arnie "Learned the value of human life" -- that there is some mention of the theme, and perhaps it's enough. But I wouldn't mind if it was more demonstrated -- again, primarily for the first-time reader.

Secondary argument (for your consideration): Did John teach Arnie the thumbs up? Coldfusion is correct that there is quite arguably no direct evidence that John taught him the thumbs-up. However, consider that it's STRONGLY implied. Right after John explicitly teaches Arnie to high-five as part of his "you gotta be more human" program, Arnie is shown emulating thumb gestures from John. However this is done with no sound -- the sound is Sarah's voiceover musing that "the Terminator is the only father he would ever have". Also, it is quite implied that this is where Arnie learns his "Remote control!" thumb gesture which pays off with Dyson. You could use this fact either way in the "Did John teach him" the thumbs up argument, or not at all.

So my paramount concern is getting the "Terminator trying to be more human" theme arc demonstrated in the article. I feel it's not only a central theme to the film, but one of the many well executed themes that makes this film so significant.

Cheers mates, -- ManfrenjenStJohn 13:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion, a proper "Themes" section, with reliable sources discussing such things. Becoming more human is part of the plot, but the plot section itself shouldn't be so detailed. Details are meant to provide context for real world information, and are usually best used when they are right next to that information (which usually happens to be in the "Production" type sections, or a "Themes" section, and not in the "Plot"...though you can write a plot with actual real world commentary, that's what I did here). I'd much rather see a trimmed, concise plot (kind of like this), with scene descriptions attached to real world context. That includes monologes and quotes, as without real world context surround it, you end up venturing really close to copyright issues.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
So, you're saying that the plot should be short and to the point, kind of like I had it before? Not to say I told you so to anyone who disagreed with me or anything. :) ColdFusion650 14:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I personally prefer shorter plots, with summarized battles and events, instead of giving descriptions of what happens. People can watch the movie for the details. The details are really only important if you have a reason to explain them. Also, at the moment none of the images in the plot meet fair use criteria. Two of them are not even near the events that they are illustrating.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
So, would this be better? It is indeed shorter. ColdFusion650 14:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It summarizes things a bit better, but sentences like--Then, there is a twist: the unknown man is not a human protector, as the audience assumes based on the first film-- need to be rewritten. How do you know what the audience assumes? We don't know, not unless a survey is taken. I'll see what I can do with what is there now and I'll bring it here for everyone to see first.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are fast! I was busy revising the plot section again so I just now read your responses. I think I made improvements towards goals claimed by each of the 3 of us. I reduced certain complex sequences, such as multi layered fight sequences, to "a fight began here, and ultimately ended here", with only the most necessary details. I also -- without explicitly stating themes -- laid some breadcrumb facts such as "At John's insistence, the Model 101 Terminator avoids killing anyone (in the Cyberdyne escape)". So I think I preemptively met our consensus, but you guys are certainly entitled to see if you have any quibbles.
Regarding assumptions, I like to assume the reader of the article has no knowledge of the first film. Primarily driven by James Cameron's claim that he took pains to make T2 stand alone for new audiences, not requiring viewing of the first film -- But also b/c I believe WikiP has, or should have, a comparable policy. So, where applicable, I included helpful references to the first film "XYZ, (as in the first film)", while trying to match Cameron's goal of not relying on a reader's (viewer's) knowledge of T1. Thanks, guys. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 15:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
So the audience may not assume the T-1000 is a human, but that's the intent, according to the DVD commentary. Cameron intended for them to believe things were the same as the first time until the hallway shoot out. Maybe this information belongs in another section. ColdFusion650 15:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What he intends may not be what he gets. That should be part of the production section (whenever that develops into a more full fledged section).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been around this article long enough to seen it laid out both ways -- all cards up front, and now laid out gradually like the film itself. Normally I prefer the former, but the way Cold wrote it out naturally, I think the current as-it-unfolds method of plot summary works great, and doesn't break the first rule. However, I'm open to improvements as always -- whatever's best for the article and reader. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, I think I can speak for all of us by saying that Bignole's largely right about separating observable events (plot section) from themes intended by the filmmaker (themes section). But if you're like me, your initial response was, "Great! But that requires finding cites by poring over the interviews and commentaries again!" Well, there's no shortcut for hard work, and a good article is that. :) -- ManfrenjenStJohn 15:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Judgment Day" as defined in this article cannot be blindly linked to the biblical "Last Judgment" without a disambiguation for readers

The definition of "Judgment Day" as used in this article is defined in this article: "...Judgment Day — a day in the future when machines will start to exterminate the human race..."

To blindly link the words "Judgment Day" to article on the biblical "Last Judgment" would be A) misleading to the reader, since wikilinks are intended to definitive and not whimsical, and perhaps more importantly, B) original research (WP:NOR), since nowhere in the film is it stated that "Judgment Day" as used in the film is a direct reference to the biblical "Last Judgment".

What you have done is comparable to making a wikilink linking the words "George W. Bush" to the article on "George Herbert Walker Bush". I think it's fairly self-evident why you can't do that, at least not without an explanation supported by cited fact.

If you're that determined to draw a link between "Judgment Day" as used in the Terminator film of the same name and the biblical "Last Judgment", you'll need to find a citation that effectively states "Judgment Day, as used in this film's title, is based on the biblical 'Last Judgment'", from a reliable source -- and that can really only be James Cameron or William Wisher. I know of no such reference in the films or in statements made by Cameron/Wisher in any supplemental materials. But if you can find them, you can add the assertion to this article, such as:

Cameron states that Judgment Day, as referred to in this film, is a reference to the biblical Last Judgment.

Note that "Judgment Day" is not wikilinked, but "Last Judgment" is.

I vote no on the basis that this is Original Research, and a presumption that will confuse the reader.

You can define the term's meaning in the context of the article, as it stands now. You can draw the connection if you can find supporting citations. What you can't do is link SUBJECT A to ARTICLE ON SUBJECT B if the connection between the two is not made explicit.

If you really feel strongly that you can bypass the NOR policy, I'd be more than happy to put it to a vote here.

-- ManfrenjenStJohn 20:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The title says it all, and I agree. Judgment Day in the film and the real Judgment Day are not the same, so linking them would be inappropriate. We could go Judgment Day (disambiguation), but that links right back here. ColdFusion650 20:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
[ec]Holy shit, all you had to do was change the wikilink to Judgment Day (disambiguation), and it would have had the same effect. No need to go all-out over a stupid wikilink. Yeesh. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so maybe taking it to the talk page was a little cautious. I would have just waited for a couple more reverts, but cautious is good. Like I said, Judgment Day (disambiguation) just links here without any information on what this Judgment Day is. Linking there would be pointless. ColdFusion650 20:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Cautious? I had already reverted it twice in one hour, and I'm not about to get myself locked out via WP:3RR :-) -- ManfrenjenStJohn 20:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

spoiler warning?

should these movie pages have a spoiler warning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.153.19 (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm sorry, but it shouldn't be surprising that the "Plot" section contains information about the plot. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Minor change in "Judgement Day" story

Someone typed it up saying that the Skynet supercomputer becomes self-aware on August 4th, 1997. In the movie, the Terminator says it becomes self-aware on August 29th, 1997. Just fixed it right now. If you don't believe me, there is a link at the bottom of the article that leads you to the script of the movie. I guarantee its accuracy. -- mikecucuk 16:46, October 27 2007 (UTC)

Plot Holes

I went back and did some personal review regarding the debate over the old "Plot Holes" section of the article, and I'm confused about the removal of some of that information:

I. The section discussed John's age; he would only be 10 during the course of the film, and yet nobody sees it as unlikely that a 10 year old would have a Honda dirt bike that he's free to gas-up and use on crowded public roads in a subrub of Los Angeles any time he pleases?

II. If John is 10 during the course of the film, it means he's 12 at the time of Judgement Day. Obviously a 12 year old isn't leading any major resistance campaigns. I noticed some people arguing that maybe we're intended to believe that John does not become the resistance leader until 2029, but that's a 32-year gap that we're never given any information about. Doesn't that qualify as a hole?

III. Sarah is aressted, detained and questioned by both the police and Dr. Silberman during the events of the first film, and then is re-arrested when she's found along with Reese's dead body in the destroyed Cyberdyne facility at the end of the film. Somehow, we're expected to believe that she's not incarcerated in either a prison or a mental-health facility and that she survives for nearly a decade with John, traveling the world learning about defense, until she's inexplicablly put into Pescadero. Why was she never put away? Why did it take the authorities 10 years to try her?

IV. This is related to the last point; John tells his friend during T2 that his mother went away for trying to blow up a factory, since we're never made aware of any more recent attempts, we must assume he's talking about the end of the first film. So, again, why the 10 year gap? --69.237.151.163 03:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Speaking of plotholes, I just thought of one....if Skynet is smashed to bits right after sending the Terminator back in time, how does it get a second opportunity to send a T-1000 back to try again? The only way this is possible is if the events in Terminator 2 take place in is some ugly 3rd or 4th re-iteration of the timeline rather than the chronological continuation of the first film Masterblooregard 05:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.