Talk:Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines

Info about film

(SPOILER WARNING.)

The article talks about how the show demonstrates that machines have no independent will- how the Terminator is easily reprogrammed to save what it was once going to kill, and vice versa.

But I would also note that it talked about how humans were justing going through algorithmic motions. John Conner thinks he can change the future, but he keeps finding that this is all determined, and he's just following through the motions.

This is highlighted by repeating references to "the mission." Both humans and machines. Remember at the end, when John asked the girl why her dad sent them to the safe bunker, rather than a place to shut down Skynet? What was her response? "It was his mission." A sense of mission and being useful is repeated on both human and machine sides.

We also see the Terminator struggle when he is being reprogrammed to kill John Conner. John is able to draw attention to the Terminator's mission, which causes the Terminator to figure out a strategy: Shut down, reboot. It appears very much the case that the Terminator is struggling, much like we see humans strugle.

And then, there's the part where John Conner offhandedly says, "You're just a machine..." ...to which the Terminator corrects him: Cybernetic organism, a term that includes both humans and machines. It sounds an aweful lot like someone who's just been called a racial epiteth, responding with: "I'm a human being." Just taken to the next level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LionKimbro (talk • contribs)

EMP?

The article mentions EMP's as being capable of knocking Skynet out, and I think I have to dispute this. Distributed computing? Networks? Sounds an awful lot like the Internet to me. And as a matter of fact, the internet was designed by the United States military to be capable of surviving a nuclear strike, and possibly even a nuclear war.

My guess is that Skynet would be very careful to have at least one "copy" of its main entity very well protected from WWIII, which could then go around repairing and waking up copies of Skynet that were disabled by the EMP's. No, the more I think on it, the more I doubt WWIII would take Skynet out. It would be pretty silly for Skynet to instigate the war in that case! -Kasreyn

Unfortunately, Skynet seems to have acted like any computer virus and had primarily attacked civilian systems. In a nutshell it did infect the Internet. ("It was software in cyberspace, according to John Conner, whose intelligence is debatable, if he's 'off the grid' but has a license plate on his motorcycle.) While the military portions of the internet may well survive, the civilian computers are likely to get destroyed utterly, and those that do not, well... it is highly unlikely that you're going to see too many of them still connected. Or powered in the first place. Military systems? Maybe. But Skynet didn't have access to them until very near the end of the show. And while the Internet is designed to survive a bomb or two... the movie is pretty clearly showing that Skynet decided to pretty much obliterate everything and anything. Not that it really matters. Terminator 4 will come out and we'll see how -- or if -- they decide to wrap up the plot holes created in their decision to change Skynet to a computer virus from an AI created in a military complex designed to survive direct nuclear strike and an entire army being thrown at it. (See the Skynet article for clarification on that little issue.) Now I know why Kojima decided not to abandon Metal Gear after all... -Kuroji

Two questions

Shouldn't the article say the T-800 be a T-850? (I think the T-800 article should state the diffrences between the T-800 and the T-850). Someone put in the article that they mistakenly put in the movie that it is a modle 101. Terminator modles are what the exterior skin looks like, so even though it is a T-850, it is a modle 101, for it looks exactly (in the external skin) like that of the previous T-800's.

Second, I can't see any article on the upcomeing T-4. I know the movie is being made, I don't know when it will come out or what it's premis will be. Should thier be an article on T-4 so others can be updated without having to do extensive research on the movie for updates? Thanks. --Admiral Roo 18:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

T3's Time Travel a joke

My informed opinion The last terminator movie was a sick Hollywood joke and a nod to feminista's everywhere. First the time travel as has been cited was poorly handeled. Even Roger Ebert in his review mentioned how they stayed away from the paradoxes of time travel. These though puzzles are part of what make a time travel movie fun and when these are sidestepped (mainly because hollywood studio suits cannot comprehend them) the movie is gutted. So they make up for it with stong and HOT female protagonist beating up men and blowing up gasoline tanker trucks. Admiral Roo if more of this is what T4 is about then do you really want ot see it. On the brite side mabey this time they will send the TX bakc naked. --Hfarmer 12:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL T3's Time Travel a joke? How about T2's ending? T2's ending totally screwed up the first movie! Now that was a joke! 24.14.120.92 05:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe personal opinions on whether someone likes the film belong on the Talk Page. BinaryTed 20:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Just T3's a joke? How about T2? Judgement day is given an exact and precise date, which is changed and averted. T3 didn't rape time travel anymore than the other movies, I have no idea where you're trying to go with this. Voicingmaster 23:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Voicingmaster; there are plenty of other movies that portray time travel much worse then T3

Arnold Schwarzenegger dipping into his own pockets

In the trivia section of the article, it is stated that Arnold Schwarzenegger had to "dip into his own pocket ($6 million) to help fund the production of the movie".

In the summary box however, it states that the budget for the movie (persumably funded by the producers and Warner Bros.) was $175,000,000. Can a reliable source be found for the specific $6 million contribution by Arnold, as it seems silly him being asked to fund such a insignificant fraction of the budget. Canderra 02:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added sections on how T3 was financed and where all the money went. As for Arnie's $6 million, you can bet your sweet bippy he was paid that money back as soon as the film was released. It's just good publicity. Scott197827 11:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Furlong's absence?

Would it be inappropriate to mention the reason(s) why Edward Furlong didn't reprise his role as John Connor? The main rumor was that he was in drug rehab, but if that was just a rumor then it probably isn't something which should be added. John DiFool2

Superfluous Pictures

I removed the pictures of the of the three cars and Anold holding Sarah's coffin; neither picture added anything to the article, and weren't particularly relevant to the paragraphs they were beside (surprise surprise, since it was just four images in a row). I also staggered them a bit, so it looks better. Hope nobody minds, but it was just bugging me. EVula 20:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Scott Peterson reference

Hi there. I don't get the Scott Peterson reference, at the list of characters. They changed the name because it was the same as the presumed real life killer, and that wasn't their intention, or because they wanted to go for a twist and have us think that Scott would be a very dangerous guy in the future (and that's why his surname would be lightly altered, being Petersen), would probably kill Kate, and thus he was better off murdered by the T-X? Sorry if I'm looking too much into this, but it just makes me wonder. Anyone could shed any light on this please? :) Cheers! Raystorm 17:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Forget T3

I believe it would be in humanity's best interest if we forget that Terminator 3 ever happened. T3 was truly a joke of a movie, making a mockery of a very thought-provoking idea.

When I first heard that there was going to be a 3rd Terminator movie, I thought it was going to be set in the future - during the full scale war with Skynet - and show us how the terminator was captured and reprogrammed, how John met Kyle, that sort of thing. It would have completed the loop of events. Anyone agree ? --- cooljinx ---

No I disagree. Terminator 3 wasn't that bad of a movie. In fact it's pretty good. 24.14.120.92 14:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally? Yes, I loathed and hated T3, and thought it bastardized one of my favorite movies. However, such personal opinions have no place on Wikipedia; as long as you don't edit the article to conform with your opinions, feel free to hate whatever you want. :) EVula 15:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Except skipping to the future wouldn't make any sense. That would create a huge plothole, namely how did Skynet take over? I mean, if in T2 we see how Skynet was avoided, then in T3 it jumps to the future showing after Skynet took over, that wouldn't make any sense. Personally, I thought the movie was pretty cool, it wasn't that much different from the other films. Voicingmaster 23:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The new tv series already takes it out of the series because, they go from 1999 to 2007, and they mention that Sara would be dead by now, so its officially gone.75.68.165.212 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Time Travel Paradox

The idea that the ending of T-2 (i.e. the destruction of Cyberdyne) in any way "prevented" the war with Skynet is based on a glaring logical fallacy. Basic logic dictates that cause precedes effect-- therefore there had to be some originator of Skynet. The suggestion in T-2 that Skynet created itself by sending a Terminator back in time is patently ridiculous. Where is the causality here? We're saying that a future enemy wouldn't have existed without the future enemy existing?

Far more sensible (albeit more complex and nuanced) is the suggestion, made by Mark Joseph Young (before T-3 came out), that Skynet had an "original" creator. The time travel of the original Terminator merely caused an acceleration of the timeline. Cyberdyne systems found the pieces, eventually developed Skynet at an earlier date than the "original" creator did in the timeline unaltered by time travel. Destroying Cyberdyne could not prevent the war-- it would only restore the "original" timeline, in which the AI for Skynet was developed as an original piece of work.

T-3, in that respect, makes perfect logical sense. No, the war cannot be stopped, because imparting Connor with the knowledge to stop Skynet would invoke the "grandfather paradox"-- if he stops the war, the Terminator never could have existed, never could have come back to tell him how to stop the war, and thus, the war couldn't have been stopped. The best you could do is postpone it-- but only in such a way as to not critically change the future.

For more reading:

http://mjyoung.net/time/terminat.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordKadghar (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 May 2006

• Basic logic dictates that cause precedes effect

Youre ignoring time travels in this statement. Then someone travel to past, if you consider it relative to another man living in the past, the effect (the travel itself) precedes cause (the creation of the time machine)

• The suggestion in T-2 that Skynet created itself by sending a Terminator back in time is patently ridiculous. Where is the causality here?

You're wrong here. In T1/T2, Skynet never pretended to create himself. T1000's objective was to kill John (so the resistance wouldn't be recruted by him), and NOT create Skynet. The logcal nonsense your talking actually happens in T3, where Skynet send the terminatrix to protect himself in the past.

• Destroying Cyberdyne could not prevent the war-- it would only restore the "original" timeline, in which the AI for Skynet was developed as an original piece of work.

You're missing an important point here. What if the CYBERDYNE is the original creator, and the terminator's chip only accelerated Skynet's creation? The nonsense, again, comes from T3 where there's no way the government would rekate the project if Cyberdine was blow to pieces and the main scientist dead. (What happened? the time angel gone to a government scientist and said -hey! restart the project Skynet from cyberdine!)

• T-3, in that respect, makes perfect logical sense. No, the war cannot be stopped, because imparting Connor with the knowledge to stop Skynet would invoke the "grandfather paradox" ...... The best you could do is postpone it-- but only in such a way as to not critically change the future.

Sorry, but that last paragraph you said is a bunch of crap. First, time paradoxes are unavoidable, unless time travel is not possible. Second, what "logical sense" it have to "postpone in such a way as to not critically change the future"? What law or physics mechanism you're basing to say that? What in the world would allow "small changes", but forbidden "critical changes" in time? And what's the difference of "small changes" and "critical changes" anyway? What i mean is, if cyberdine could be blow up by future events, the Skynet/nuclear war could be avoided. (The same law to small events should apply to huge events). T3 disrespect that, and come with a unplausible reality where a mysterious unexplained force allow small changes, but not largue ones. SSPecter, 15-05-2006

Ohhh I dunno maybe if judgment day didn't happen John Connor WOULD NEVER BE BORN 24.14.120.92 14:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As i said, "time paradoxes are unavoidable, unless time travel is not possible.". But it can be explained IF there are more than 1 time line. SSPecter, 02-11-2006

The greatest question ever about T3...

Why the hell the Terminatrix pump up her boobs? I mean... The police officer could prefer small tits, dont you think so? And all that only to kill him. What a waste!!! Maybe its because T3 is just a summer action movie without good plot aimed for adolescents? sspecter, 15-05-2006

Or maybe, the T-X was programmed in human psychology. She knows she looks like an attractive woman, and the more attractive she is, the more distracted the police officer will be. 24.14.120.92 14:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I will surely implement it in my female security robot. Let's call it "Boobs diverting combo attack". Or better!!! Lets use this fabulous tactics in some war in middle east. Just put some woman naked in front line and the enemy will surely be destroyed. SSPecter, 02-11-2006

Except that the Tx was in a civillian enviroment, not in a warzone. A traffic cop isn't as attentive as a soldier, and thus could be swooned by a nice rack. And most men like women to have to have big jugs, simple fact. And also simply a fact, a woman with big jugs flirting with a guy will make him a lot more distracted, in order to overpower him (he's a traffic cop, not a soldier). Since we never see what actually happens to the officer, it is only speculation of what she did to him. We don't necessarily know that she wound up killing him. Though why she even needed a handgun in the first place, given the plasma cannon in her arm, is questionable. Voicingmaster 23:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason that she uses a handgun is probably to avoid attention, since she hasn't found her primary target yet, and if she uses her plasma cannon someone might notice. And besides, they wanted to build up to the plasma cannon.Paladinyann 21:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum. DurinsBane87 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

critique/comparison to t2 re: entering a secure building

in T2 the cast have to get into cyberdyne to destroy the remains of the terminator from t1, the task of actually getting in past security and the consequences form a major part of the plot, and also serve to further character development, most noticable in the case of miles dyson. However in t3 the entire cast, including the terminatrix appear to simply walk into a highly secure top secret military base. A very clear example of how T3 preferred explosions-over-substance.

cycloid 08:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Catherine being related to the main man would've gotten her in. The TX used a disguise, not to mention she can mess with electronics, those two combined would allow her to bypass security easily. And also, let's not forget that everything was going wrong in their netowrks (presumably from Skynet). Voicingmaster 23:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Critic and fan reaction to the film

During the course of this article, one would assume that the reaction the film recieved from both critics and fans should get a good piece of explanation. Something like at least several paragraphs that stick to NPOV, especially given the anticipation the film had due to T1 and T2. If nobody else wants to, I probably will later on in the week. Ex-Nintendo Employee 12:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Silberman's hostage crisis

I've taken out the trivia note that claims that Dr. Silberman wasn't taken hostage in the second movie as he claims. He was indeed taken hostage by Sarah, when she jammed a syringe of drain cleaner into his neck and threatened to inject him if the guards didn't do what she said. If that's not being a hostage, I'm not sure what is.--MythicFox 10:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism?

What happen to all the criticism of this movie, why was it all deleted, could a criticism and appraisal section be made, or will that be deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BerserkerBen (talk • contribs) 14:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am under the impression that there is a bit of bias towards this movie. Why this bias is present is a mystery because this movie does not - in any way or form - deserve to parade around calling itself a Terminator movie. This movie is so bad, it makes "Hercules in New York" look like a masterpiece.

I posted some criticism (a long time ago, under the name cooljinx) with a question tagged on the end and someone - whose name I forgot - told me not to discuss it in the "discussion" section. The post was later deleted. (Hmmm)

There was, ofcourse, no need to wonder why the "discussion" section exists because "discussion" (which on many occasions includes criticism) is the reason why the "discussion" section exists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psi pilot (talk • contribs) 14:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not looked through all of the page history so I'm not sure about what has been removed or why. There is in itself no reason that the article shouldn't include criticism of the movie, as long as it's not original research. This means that anyone including criticism must cite a source. A good way to avoid an edit war when including criticism in an article about a movie is to formulate it as "this reviewer had this to say about the movie". Bergsten 14:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The second criticism/reation paragraph is nothing but a collection of fanboy rants, hardly worth of an encylopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.228.134.3 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, lets remove it! Bergsten 15:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Plot Hole

STOP MESSING AROUND WITH THE PLOT HOLE PART!!! IT DESERVES TO BE THERE!!! SO STOP ERASING IT!!!--Tim, 6 January, 2006

True, the plot hole is a flaw, but it can be explained away at length. -- Annie D 02:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Colin Wilson?

Is the Colin Wilson who is one of the producers of this movie the same Colin Wilson who is the well known English horror and mystery writer? I find this doubtful. If they are not the same, the wikification of the name needs to be changed in this article. ---Charles 02:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

James Cameron and "T3"

Did James Cameron really talk about T3 during the 1990s? I thought he didnt want another Terminator movie? -- Tim, 26 January, 2007

He didn't. That's why he had absolutely nothing to do with this film. It was written and directed by some unknown guy, which is why in terms of quality it ranks lower than most fanmade stuff you find on youtube. When James Cameron creates an idea and then lets someone else take the reins, disaster is inevitable- hence we see what happened to Dark Angel after he left, how it changed from a dark, moody thriller into a "let's all see Jessica's boobs!" fest in every episode. Ex-Nintendo Employee 12:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Connor's Age

I haven't seen T2 since it came out so I could be wrong but I thought it took place in 1997. If so, John WOULD have been 12 or 13 and not 10. I don't know when this screen shot is taken in the movie (that says he is 10), but the character in the movie is obviously older than 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangerhawk (talk • contribs) 08:21, June 3, 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edit!

For about 3 times now I have had to make edits on the distributors list and the country of origin, but someone keeps changing it back; so whoever keeps reverting it back, please stop it because my changes are accurate and correct; 1: C2 Pictures are not a film distributor, 2: Germany actually did have a part in making the film because one of the production companies is based in Germany. I'm going to edit it again to how it should be and please don't revert my edit again. Kieranthompson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieranthompson (talk • contribs) 06:29, July 24, 2007 (UTC)

The Sarah Connor Chronicles

Should there be a mention of The Sarah Connor Chronicles in the article? I understand that the continuity of this film won't be included in the tv series, but it might be worth pointing this out, especially for those who read the article and are confused why there is no mention of the connection (or lack thereof) to the series. Annie D 05:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you said, there is no connection between T3 and The Sarah Connor Chronicles, so a mention here would be inappropriate. It is mentioned on the Terminator (series) page. ColdFusion650 11:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Skynet's self-preservation?

Is there any explanation as to why Skynet decides to destroy the world? It is apparent that the A.I. became self aware, but it is not shown or stated as to why it decided to simply take over. Skynets timeline was changed when cyberdyne was destroyed, and the self-preservation explanation is non-existent in T3. Paladinyann 21:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Judgment Day Date

July 24, 2004- who came up with this date? I don't think it was mentioned in the movie. Eaglestorm 09:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't mentioned, but when the Terminator synchronizes his internal clock with the watch in the Bronco, the very last date is the accurate one. It goes by quick, but if you frame through, you can see this. ColdFusion650 12:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Just saw it. It does indeed indicate the date, and to think the novelization's dates are different too. Eaglestorm 13:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Brad Fiedel's Theme

Does anyone know why they didn't include a huge part of this series? 68.9.255.198 18:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Edward Furlong vs Nick Stahl

When watching T3, I think a question would naturally emerge in most viewer's mind. Why was Edward Furlong not cast in his original role? Why was Nick Stahl cast instead, when he doesn't really have the looks to be a great leader, and his acting skill is only average. I was hoping that Wikipedia would have the answer but it seems I was wrong. If anyone has the answer, please add a section enlightening us on whether Furlong rejected the role, or the reasons why the casting director rejected him. ICEBreaker 16:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It would only be on wikipedia if a reliable sourvce had seen fit to write an article about it. barring that, it won't be here. DurinsBane87 16:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Edward Furlong wasn't in it because he was in jail to trying to free oppressed lobsters in a store. Check the Edward Furlong article. ColdFusion650 16:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Best kept secret of the making of T3?

Was scharzenegger digitally "enhanced" in the scene in which he is naked?, i mean, the man was in his 50s when the movie was made, yet there seems to be no comment about it in either the DVD or any production notes. Anyone has any information on that?.200.83.56.253 05:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The T3 DVD commentary by Jonathan Mostow contains several comments strongly rejecting such claims. Bergsten (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)