From: wbarnes@sura.net (Bill Barnes)
Subject: Re: TERMINATOR II
Organization: SURAnet, College Park, MD, USA, NA, Earth, Milky Way
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:16:46 GMT

In article <64238@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
>In article <5607@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>>Well, she obviously had given up on that already at the time she tried
>>to blow the factory up, didnt't she?  It's obvious that nobody heeded
>>her warnings between the films, so why should the think it was going
>>to be different this time?  It's fairly clear that she preferred
>>"direct" solutions to lots of talking.
>You have *got* to be kidding!  The reason no one believed her is because
>the story is unbelievable.  But now she has proof!  All she has to do is
>tell Johnny to tell the 800-series to come with her to Dyson's house, and
>cut his arm open.  The proof is there and it's incontravertible!  We know
>it is, because it worked.  QED

Ummm, I think your logic is a little specious here - saying that
the characters should've done something in the first place because when
they did it later it worked seems a bit...circular to me.

How was she supposed to know that it would've worked, assuming she thought
it up in the first place (people can sometimes miss the most obvious
solutions)?  I mean, c'mon, if you encountered a cyborg, would you be
more likely to think it was, say, produced by some ultra-secret government
project somewhere or that it had travelled back in time in order to stop
a sentient computer from causing WWIII?  Just because they could've proved
to Dyson Uncle Bob was a cyborg doesn't mean he would've necessarily
believed they weren't insane!

Also, you're overlooking the fact that the scene served a dramatic purpose,
as someone else mentioned, namely Sarah coming to grips with herself,
wrestling with the question of whether she could kill another person
in order to prevent nuclear war.  Since the blatant message of the movie
is that you shouldn't kill, it was important to see whether our heroine
would.

Cameron routinely sacrifices plot integrity in order to have a good
dramatic moment or to prove his point.  It's his style; deal with it.

>>How would she know what it's programmed to do?  Because it tells her
>>it's her friend?  Even a completely sane person would be very careful
>>before choosing to believe the Terminator.  Actually, her
>>near-paranoia was one of the most convincing parts of the film.
>Gee I don't know.  If it hasn't killed her and John by now, there's a good
>chance that he's on their side....  All he needs to do is kill Johnny, and
>it's all over.  If he didn't do it, there's probably a reason.

Maybe the Terminator was lying.  Maybe it might've malfunctioned later
on and killed her - an insane AI is a SF staple by now.  Or maybe -
brace yourself for this - she was behaving IRRATIONALLY.  Like a
person whose life has been ruined by a gun inherently distrusts guns
and gun owners ever after - her life has been ruined by a Terminator
and so she inherently distrusts them.  Her fear is irrational - most
fears are (although she has a better reason than most for her Arnienophobia).

>>But how do you know the gun you'be been handed isn't jury-rigged?
>>Sure, with a gun that's no problem.  But what do you do with a robot?
>>It's *not* just a tool, for crying out loud, it's on a completely
>>different scale of complexity.
>I guess, then, that a circular saw isn't a tool, because it's on a completely
>different scale of complexity than the wheel, which is one of the first
>simple tools.

So are you then arguing that all tools should be grouped together, regardless
of their function or complexity, and that therefore someone should react
the same way to all tools?  Somehow, I have a hard time feeling the same
way about a chainsaw that I do about the wheel...  People routinely
feel differently about weapons - which is something else the Terminator
is - than they do about other tools.

Besides, a Terminator is more of a machine than a tool, and it's not
uncommon for someone to have a negative reaction to a bad experience
with a tool.  Real world example: I once got side-swiped by a tractor-
trailer when I was getting on the highway - sucker's *hubcap* pretty
well chewed up my door.  Ever since then I've been antsy about driving
on the highway, especially in heavy traffic.  The machines certainly
aren't acting maliciously, but that doesn't make me any less nervous...

>It's still a tool.  It was designed by someone (something) for a specific
>purpose.  That makes it a tool.  Just like the TV set, and the microwave
>oven.

TV sets and microwaves usually don't try to kill you with large-caliber
weaponry and come crawling after you after you've blown them in half.

>>if he is, how should she know they didn't fuck up somewhere during the
>>"reprogramming".  How do you expect her to check, let him make a
>>coredump of himself and show it to her?
>See above.

Do the words, "bug," "glitch," "malfunction," "crash," or even "Trojan
horse" mean anything to you?

>>They went to quite a lot of trouble to make it clear that HE was close
>>to the breakthrough, not the team.  (Note that he was working on it at
>>home as well, btw.  Any results of that evening would have been gone
>>for good.)
>Any results from that evening?  Ohmigod, and just how far could he have
>gotten in one evening?  Sure, he could have done a *some*, but the project
>is far from over just because the team leader is dead.

Well, Arnie did say earlier that "the man directly responsible is Dyson,"
or words to that effect.  This would seem to indicate that his input
on the project was important and that it's possible that, without his
brain, they can't get any further than they were already.

Of course, since the whole *point* to T2 is to try to *change* the future,
it's debatable as to whether or not this counts...

>And again, this is business.  When you're this close to making the breakthru
>that's going to make your company very rich, you send 6 dozen roses to the
>funeral and get a replacement.

Yes, but there's no guarantee that his replacement will make the critical
discovery Dyson will/did/was supposed to.  He can be replaced, but that
doesn't mean he can be equaled.
-- 
Bill "Whassamatter?!  Can't you take a joke?!" Barnes   wbarnes@sura.net
Disclaimer:  The author apologizes for any thought-provoking material he may
	     have accidentally included and promises not to do it again.
Datclaimer:  My employers wouldn't WANT to share some of my opinions.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies