From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: TERMINATOR II
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:50:36 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <76425@ut-emx.uucp> gdavis@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Grant R. Davis) writes:

>If Terminator 2 was a bad sequel, then what could have possibly been a *good*
>sequel? Do you have any *constructive* criticism?

Well, for starters, they could have explained why oh why the T1000 was able
to go back in time in a machine that only allows living things to pass
through.

Now, in any other movie, I would have just let that slide.  No big deal.
But this is the sequel to Terminator, which is almost a perfect movie,
and in that movie they paid so much attention to these little details
that I could *not* suspend disbelief in the sequel.


Then there's the T1000.  It's a really neat idea, and it looks great on
the screen, but I don't see it happening.  Take *any* material.  At
a specific temp, pressure, etc, it will be in one state of matter.
Not two.  Yet this thing constantly changed it state of matter regardless
of the temp, pressure, etc.

Now, you might counter that the T800 is something that doesn't exist either.
And you're right.  But it *can*, in some possible future.  It is possible
to make a processor that controls a machine that has 'arms' and 'legs' and
maybe even cover it with living tissue.  None of the laws of physics have
been altered.  This is not the case with the T1000.

Then there's Sarah Connor.  She goes on and on about how people like
(what's his name, the guy that works for CyberDyne?) can't understand
anything about life, that all they know about is death, and that "do
you know what it's like to have a child, living inside you, growing,"
etc etc ad nauseum.  Yet not 10 minutes ago she tried to blow the
guy away!  Why not just walk into the guy's house, and show him, and
explain?  That's what they ended up doing anyway!

Then there's the fact that she can't accept the Terminator being on
their side (not until the very end).  Why?  Someone who's been training
for war as long as she supposedly has knows that the Terminator isn't
the problem.  Sure, so one killed the father of her child and the only
man she's ever loved.  But that's not a reason to hate/distrust the
Terminator.  It's a tool.  It does what it's programmed to do.  Like a
gun.  Had Reese been shot, I'm sure she would still own a lot of guns.
I mean, this woman has a f**king arsenal, including a minigun, and yet
she can't see that the Terminator is just another weapon, to be used
by either side?  It's a crock.

Then, the fact that by destroying the building and the files, they
destroy the project and Skynet doesn't get built.  Can you say
"off-site backups"?  I knew you could.  They have backups of all their
info stored away in a vault somewhere.  *Nothing* has changed.  The
program can continue, minus one member (OK, so he was the leader.  He's
not unreplacable).
When you're that close to a breakthrough, you don't just scrap the
program.

There are others, but I'm late for class....

>Well, I guess even Cameron can't please all the people all the time.
               ^^^^ ^^^^^^^  I just love this.  *even* Cameron.  Like,
if he can't do it, nobody can?


-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | "You're outmanned, you're outgunned, you're
Georgia Institute of Technology  |      outequipped what else have you got?"
Office of Information Technology | "Guile."
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |      -- Riker and Worf   "Peak Performance"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies