# Talk:The Terminator

Has Terminator got enough hallmarks to be defined as a neo-noir film?Internet Informant (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The Neo-noir article makes no mention of Terminator (or James Cameron), but does include a See Also to Tech-noir.  If you can find sources to support the inclusion, then yay, but as it stands there's nothing to justify the genre.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 05:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Tech-noir is the name of the discotheque in the film. Drsruli (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
"Tech-Noir" is certainly a term that has been retro-actively applied to several films and has origins in this. From this and " Razzamatazz Buckshank's journal article, I am tempted to create a "style" section in this article as it appears to be a continued point of interest for readers and does seem to have significant study since the films release in academia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

First instance of "Come with me if you want to live." Drsruli (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

What about it? Without further context, its hard to discuss. I believe The Terminator franchise article has bit more context, and "I'll Be Back" has its own article (!). We probably could have some section in the legacy of this article about how its more popular lines have entered pop culture, but from this sentence, I'm not sure what you are requesting specifically. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

James Cameron stated that John Carpenter's Halloween (the movie that invented and codified the slasher film and is also very much a serial killer film) as a major influence on the film, and many film critics have pointed the similarities between the two, it would be appropriate to categorize the Terminator as a slasher film and a serial killer film. https://responsejournal.net/issue/2021-11/feature/mechanical-monster-cyber Razzamatazz Buckshank (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Some discussion or just edits have been made to try to include these in the past, while they have similarities, Terminator in most research I did when I expanded the article at most made some mild comparisons to Halloween, but I don't recall any describing it as this genre. So per MOS:FILM standards on genre, I don't think we should include it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry on reading your journal you shared @Razzamatazz Buckshank:, there are valid points. I mis-read your link as part of your user-name on my phone. While it does make interesting cases, it does also state that "this paper defends The Terminator as a horror film, elements of science fiction and action clearly prevail in the movie’s storyline". So this is where things grow complicated. I think if there was more specific genre analysis in the article, we could maybe find a way to include this without just saying "terminator is a 1984 American science fiction slasher action serial killer film" with a dozen citations next to it, but I think some better approach would be some genre analysis applied, thought this could be a bit overkill for something as generally not so debated as The Terminator. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Alright, well, I was directed to this talk page to settle this ongoing dispute by an admin: do we or do we not think it's appropriate to categorize Terminator as a horror film at the bottom of the page? It was done before, but after it got removed by some other users these past few days I've been quite alone in wanting to re-add the categories back even though I wasn't even the one who put them there in the first place.
I will just copy some of what I wrote on their talk page previously:
There's no real explanation from either of these users why they think it's warranted to remove the categories in the first place as they continually ignore my comment that it's already mentioned in the article body with a source provided, and that part has remained untouched by either of them which makes me suspect they didn't read the entire article and were thus probably unaware of that section entirely. Terminator 2 not being a horror film is also completely irrelevant when talking about Terminator 1 being one and is quite frankly pure whataboutism. T2 still has horror elements but not to the extent it can be called one (in my opinion at least), they're not the same movie just because one is a direct sequel, but that's really irrelevant here like I said. The Terminator#Genre has a small section on it which sources the article provided in the first post by Razzamatazz Buckshank and then it appears to have been added to the article body by Andrzejbanas subsequently.
The general consensus is that it's a sci-fi action movie like I stated in my edits and like it's stated in the "genre" section of the article, but I'd just like to point out that James Cameron himself has never hidden the fact that his intention with the first Terminator was always to make a "last girl"/slasher horror film, but since we're not allowed to use WP:PRIMARYSOURCES either I didn't bring it up before, but it was always intended to be viewed as one and so that's why in recent years it seems to have received a bit of a critical re-evaluation: https://www.bfi.org.uk/interviews/terminator-james-cameron (this particular interview is from 2021)
There was also a recent interview from Cameron commemorating the 40th anniversary of T1 back in December of last year where he also confirms it and while I know it can't be used as a source either, this is more just to hammer the point home that from a filmmaker's perspective at least it's not totally wrong to see it as a horror film too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OnDUpjNqiw&t=1556s
I've also found a few other articles that also talks about how T1 is a horror/slasher so the source that ended up used isn't the only one, although it is the only one that analyses it to that extent that I could find, but again it's not strictly the "general consensus" which is why it seemed appropriate to just add horror as simple categories on the article in the first place instead of in the lead sentence. I think I've made my own stance quite clear on the matter and even though I hoped this had already been settled last year, I will respect whatever consensus is reached now. I do urge everyone involved to please remain neutral regardless of what one might personally think if this movie fits under their own definition of what a horror film is or not. There are secondary sources to back it up on top of the primary ones at the very least, and the one that was used as a source is a pretty good analysis on its own and was found to make strong points in favor of Terminator's status as a horror movie. Memez24 (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
When it comes to genre in the lead and for categorization purposes. I much prefer leaving it to sites such as AFI or BFI (or, secondarily, AllMovie) to settle disputes about such things (or at least allow us to find some common ground between them), versus going off individual commentaries or one-off articles or such. It's important to distinguish a film having elements of a certain genre from being a film of that genre. As an example, The Terminator has elements of humor in it, but I don't think anyone would seriously consider calling it a comedy film.
All of which is to say that rather than going by individual articles, I think any discussion regarding what the appropriate genre descriptors for the film are should go back to what genre classifications those sources or others of similar stature use. DonIago (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Just a quick note that I believe WP:FILM has deprecated the use of AllMovie as a reliable source, since many of its listings are now simply reporting what's already written on Wikipedia. Also to expand on earlier comments, the specific genre guidance is at MOS:FILMGENRE. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't think Wikipedia considers AFI or BFI as reliable sources, otherwise neither The Shining or Alien would be listed here as horror. AFI and BFI are film databases, as is IMDb, Letterboxd etc. and I've been told that databases aren't to be used when categorizing film genres on Wikipedia. It's about the critics' consensus for the primary genre and then a subgenre, if applicable, that are put in the lead sentence of a film's article, and then the less important genres or subgenres usually get categorized via external links.
I can sense that you disagree with the categorization though unless I'm mistaking. I'd just like to point out that it isn't just a single article, as the thread starter mentioned the similarities between Terminator and Halloween have been noted before by other critics so I still think a simple categorization (I'll say it again: I'm not debating changing the lead sentence at all) is justified by the provided analysis which actually goes into depth if you read it. What about you GoneIn60? Memez24 (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Here's my take... First, I recommend you review WP:OVERCAT if you haven't already. To avoid overcategorization, it is best to categorize based on defining characteristics of the article's topic. The guideline explains this in detail at WP:NONDEFINING and WP:TRIVIALCAT. When it is not clear if a particular characteristic is defining, then a good rule-of-thumb is to ask yourself, "Would it be appropriate to mention the characteristic in the article's lead section?" If it fails that test, then it most likely isn't defining enough to categorize, even if some mention of it exists in the article's body. This isn't a hard-and-fast rule, so there are definitely exceptions.After you've thought about that and read the guideline, do you still think the horror categorizations should be applied? If so, what is the basis for your argument at this point? --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Can you provide more information regarding what's led you to believe that AFI and BFI aren't considered reliable sources? I actively monitor WT:FILM and I've never seen anyone assert that; on the contrary, I've seen them be encouraged as sources for the purposes of genre classification. DonIago (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
It says so in the MOS:FILMGENRE: "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and reflect what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." - and this is only specified for the lead section mind you which shouldn't include the categories located at the bottom of a film's article page, at least from what I can gather.
AFI is just a single source/entity, an online film database, and unlike AllMovie before their purge, they don't write an analysis about each movie like a critical review would. Why should they hold more weight and importance than for example The New York Times which actually provides in-depth reviews about a film's plot and content written by a professional film critic, and is a Tomatometer approved publication? AFI only provides synopses and information about a film's history if applicable. With The Shining for instance, their "history" section acknowledges it was made as a horror movie, but they still list the film's main genre under drama and the subgenre under suspense, and not horror. That's not what I would call reliable at all personally. BFI is the exact same, they don't provide any in-depth analysis of a film's content, they just provide a brief synopsis and an even briefer section on the work history behind it.
WT:FILM has, as GoneIn60 points out, declared AllMovie an unreliable source now because it uses Wikipedia itself as a source for providing synopses for movies now, but it still lists the genres all the same so it's effectively just like any other online film database now including AFI/BFI, or even Rotten Tomatoes which will sometimes list movies under genres that aren't reflected by the critics consensus and vice versa, because RT is also functionally just an online film/television database on its own, it's just helpful as an aggregate for reviews made by professional critics.
I may be new here, but it seems to me that if AllMovie is no longer considered a reliable secondary source by Wikipedia for determining a film's genre(s) just for removing their in-depth reviews and analyses of a film's content, then I don't see why AFI/BFI should be treated any differently just for being ran by professional film institutions when, as I said, neither of them do what AllMovie used to do when they were considered a reliable source.
But I'd just like to point out that if we could still use AllMovie as a source, they do in fact list it under horror also: https://www.allmovie.com/movie/the-terminator-am6331
GoneIn60 I'll take a look at your links later, and then come back with an answer. Memez24 (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks Memez24 for providing some clarification. And yes, please feel free to continue the convo once you've had a chance to review the CAT guidelines.
But just so we're all on the same page, it doesn't sound like you're trying to add a "horror" genre to the lead, which would void the need to consider the guidance at MOS:FILMGENRE. It sounds like you are only trying to add horror categorizations like you did in this edit. So if we're only talking about categories here, then yes, the other guidelines I posted above would apply.As a side note...AFI and BFI are considered reliable still. They are not the end-all, be-all of film genre classification, but they are a great place to start in the absence of better sourcing. Unlike IMDB, they do not contain user-generated information, which is why IMDB is unreliable. In the case of AllMovie, not only is the synopsis mirroring Wikipedia, but their genre classifications are way out of line now. Prior to a change in ownership a year or two back, the number of genres listed for each film at that site was minimal, but post-ownership change, they tend to list numerous (and sometimes humorous) genres to cover everything under the sun. This goes against MOS:FILMGENRE which aims to stick with the most significant classifications, and therefore disqualifies AllMovie. At least, that was the latest stance I saw at WT:FILM. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Going to add that I wouldn't stress categories on wikipedia. They are used by very few users and often go unchecked and unsourced. Genre is a very fickle beast to discuss on wikipedia as it is a topic people will want to know and want to categorize but its often hard to gauge from various wikipedia standards on sourcing, especially things like WP:WEIGHT. We do consider databases as solid sources, but generally speaking, of you have sources that go more into discussion on how a film can fit a genre (as I have had earlier), I feel those would carry stronger weight. That said, when I tried to develop this article into a good article years ago, I found a few comparisons The Terminator to films like Halloween, I found very few flat out describe it in any serious depth as a horror film and the film rarely makes retrospective "best of lists" of any horror or similarly named genre. While this is just my opinion, it could be described as a horror or slasher styled film, but its not useful to think of it that way and does not really help anyone examining genre history or genre cycles to think of it in these terms. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Alright, I'm back. Apologies that it took this long for me to get around to it, but I had to do a little digging of my own too and I’ve been a little bit busy lately so had to set some time aside. This is going to be a lengthy post but you did ask for me to provide my reasons, and horror is clearly a very controversial genre for a lot of people. Looking through the talk and edit page for the past 6 years there’s been a lot of disagreement between other parties that I was also not involved in.

From what I understand MOS:FILMGENRE still applies when it concerns categorization. So for instance, if Wikipedia didn't have that rule that states movies are only allowed two genres at most in the lead sentence of an article, then enough sources call The Terminator a thriller that it can be justified to include it in the lead sentence ie. "The Terminator is a 1984 American science-fiction action thriller film" and so that's why "thriller" categories are included at the bottom of the article. This would mean that that one article that was added as a source is not enough for "horror" to be able to be included in the lead sentence in a hypothetical scenario where there were no limits but the WP:WEIGHT rules still applied which would also exclude for example "romance". Although as Andrzejbanas points out categories often go unsourced but I'm happy to do it still.

On the movie's Rotten Tomatoes page there are 73 reviews total. Some of those reviews do not have links to them the older they get and a few of them were never archived so I will not be counting them all here. 20 of those reviews call it a thriller (I included any review that used the words “thrilling”, “suspense” and “thrill ride” as counting towards thriller for the sake of fairness) and 17, sometimes the same ones, call it a horror/scary/slasher/monster film or makes comparisons. In addition to those 17, I could find 21 other articles/sources that all list or call it either a horror film, a scary movie (which according to popular definition and even Wikipedia's own article on horror films is basically just a synonym for one) or acknowledges the final girl trope present in the movie which is a horror/slasher film trope.

I also managed to get ahold of a copy of the BFI Film Classics book on The Terminator that was originally released in 1996 that outright calls it a sci-fi horror film, and also compares Schwarzenegger’s T-800 to Boris Karloff’s Frankenstein's monster which one of the RT reviews also does.

I’m not sure how or if the BFI Film Classics book can be used as a source. It’s not on Internet Archive and I’m not sure where else you can read the full version without paying for it, but you can read (part of) the Karloff comparisons on Amazon at least via its sample pages: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1839022124/ - I don’t know how this place feels about referring to the ISBN without linking to a copy of the book although I’ve seen a few articles here that references copyrighted books and even DVD exclusive audio commentaries before that are just using the ISBN and what not but I don’t know what the rules are on that sort of thing. One of the critics who voted on the latest Sight and Sound Poll concerning the greatest films of all time also acknowledges the slasher movie conventions and the final girl trope though: https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time/all-voters/kat-hughes

Here are all the Rotten Tomatoes reviews that call it horror in some way. Some call it a scary movie, a monster movie, a slasher film; some make comparisons to classic movie monsters, slasher films/final girls; others just outright call it a sci-fi horror. I’ll let other people be the judge of whether or not some of this counts as “reaching” and whether or not only those sources that outright say “this is a horror/slasher film” should count towards horror or not:

- https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-sperminator-the-terminator/id1526482052?i=1000678155516 (RT review summary says the following: “'The Terminator' is a classic for a reason. Easily one of James Cameron's best films and the perfect blend of horror, action, and 80s vibes.”)
- https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/the-terminator-4k-uhd-blu-ray-review-james-cameron/ (compares it to Frankenstein, which is something that the BFI Film Classics book also does)
- https://web.archive.org/web/20240829072814/https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-terminator-is-still-the-best/ (calls it a standard monster movie)
- https://www.deepfocusreview.com/definitives/the-terminator/ (slasher)
- https://www.horrormovieclub.com/episodes/the-terminator-movie-review-podcast
- https://archive.org/details/sim_video-review_1985-06_6_3/page/88/mode/2up (ends the review with saying it's "scary enough to satisfy the most ghoulish tastes" which I take it to mean calling it a scary movie indirectly and I don't consider that to be too reaching but maybe it is to others)
- https://www.nme.com/features/tv-features/best-action-movies-on-netflix-2552336 ("not a horror movie in the strictest sense" it concludes, but still acknowledges Sarah Connor as a final girl. I think it could count towards either or, but again, I’ll let you be the judge of that)
- https://gonewiththetwins.com/terminator-1984/ (compares to David Cronenberg and slashers)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCsvrdya9X4 ("A fantastic blend of horror, action, and sci-fi." is what this review's RT review summary says)
- https://reactormag.com/the-terminator-gives-sarah-connor-one-of-the-most-compelling-origin-stories// (says ending has more in common with a horror film than a sci-fi action flick and also acknowledges that Sarah Connor is a final girl)
- https://www.flavorwire.com/525710/in-praise-of-the-original-terminator-a-lean-mean-exploitation-movie-machine (compares to slasher horror, even directly the
Friday the 13th franchise)
- https://www.cinema-crazed.com/blog/2013/02/19/the-terminator-1984/ (just outright calls it a horror film)
- https://midwestfilmjournal.com/2014/10/29/class-of-1984-the-terminator/ (calls it a "stalker film" and also compares the T-800 to Jason Voorhees and classic movie monsters)
- https://archive.org/details/greatscottbestof0000scot/page/178/mode/2up (calls it a sci-fi splatter movie)
- http://filmexperience.blogspot.com/2009/05/terminator-1984.html (this one actually goes into depth and calls it a slasher/sci-fi horror film in the first half, then a chase movie in the last, but also calls it an action/horror hybrid before that)
- Luke Y. Thompson from New Times (no working link): "The movie's scares are intense, but the notion that the Terminator would move on to politics is even more frightening."
- https://web.archive.org/web/20150524160308/http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/26/movies/the-screen-terminator-suspense-tale.html (calls it a monster movie)

Now here’s the extra sources I could scrounge up besides the BFI book. Almost all of these outright call it a horror or slasher film. Yes, a few of the sources listed are from horror focused publications but far from all are:
- https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/scariest-sci-fi-movies-list-aliens-anniversary (#7)
- https://www.joblo.com/the-terminator-revisiting/ (references a review by Cinefantastique magazine from back during its release that also called it sci-fi horror, but which I couldn’t quite find myself)
- https://www.looper.com/315072/the-real-reason-the-terminator-should-be-considered-a-horror-movie/
- https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/why-the-terminator-is-a-horror-classic/
- https://www.cbr.com/the-terminator-1984-horror-movie/
- https://1428elm.com/posts/unmasking-the-terminator-its-true-nature-as-a-horror-film-01hrbg37mth4
- https://comicbook.com/movies/news/alien-predator-terminator-best-sci-fi-horror-slasher-films-explained/
- https://halloweenlove.com/the-terminator-an-80s-slasher-film-disguised-as-an-80s-action-film/
- https://classic-horror.com/reviews/terminator_1984.html
- https://outlawvern.com/2021/06/24/the-terminator/ (this one’s interesting because while the reviewer says they don’t personally consider it a horror movie at all, they still conclude that it “pretty much is one” and also compares it to Halloween, Friday the 13th and even The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
- https://screenrant.com/terminator-movie-horror-not-scifi-reason/ - https://screenrant.com/terminator-original-movie-noir-slasher-comparison/ (the last one goes into a little more depth on how it’s a slasher and they were both written by two different critics)
- https://gamerant.com/first-terminator-movie-basically-slasher/ (may be the same owners as Screen Rant's but still counts separately)
- https://www.escapistmagazine.com/the-terminator-is-a-subtly-subversive-slasher/
- https://wickedhorror.com/features/why-the-terminator-is-actually-a-horror-film/
- https://www.framerated.co.uk/terminator-1984/
- https://www.slashfilm.com/1746343/the-terminator-sarah-connor-sci-fi-hero-inspiration-ripley/ - https://www.slashfilm.com/1515271/orion-pictures-agreed-finance-the-terminator-one-condition/ (the first one directly references the Youtube interview I just linked in the above post, so even though the article itself also calls it a sci-fi horror, in case that is considered too influenced by a primary source I linked another article from the same outlet from earlier in the year that just calls it a slasher film)
- https://horrorflora.com/2021/10/31/fan-ichf-the-terminator/
- https://www.techradar.com/features/ranked-every-terminator-movie-rated-from-worst-to-best (calls it both a sci-fi thriller and sci-fi horror)
- https://gatecrashers.fan/2022/10/24/the-terminator-the-horror-movie-that-isnt-a-horror-movie/ (I was deliberating over whether or not to include this, but it makes some interesting points towards either camp not unlike the one from outlawvern.com but this time the author doesn't conclude that it definitely is a horror film, nor that it definitely isn't one since they also acknowledge Aliens, Predator, Underworld and Train to Busan as action-horror movies, and also points out how the many non-horror sequels has skewed the public perception of how different tonally the original movie actually was; case in point)
- https://www.bbfc.co.uk/about-us/articles/classic-horror-films-reclassified-since-2000 (this is another BFI situation where their database doesn’t outright list it as horror but they still publish pieces or books by their staff that calls it one. My theory is that this is largely influenced by the fact that basically no other database lists it as horror either. This article also appears to have been written in 2024-2025 judging from the mention of Saw X and MaXXXine as well as mentioning that Carrie and A Nightmare on Elm Street had their age ratings reclassified to 15 in 2024. Interestingly enough the BBFC actually does list Aliens and Predator as science fiction action horror and so does the BFI here and here)

Maybe the amount of sources here is a bit overkill but I don’t know how many of these are considered reliable here so I just picked a lot to be on the safe side. And so that's my reasoning for including the horror categories in the article. You might say some of this is reaching since some of these reviews and sources, while making the comparisons, doesn’t outright say “this is a horror/slasher film”, but as I stated that is not for me to decide. I didn’t include reviews that I felt were too vague or only acknowledged Schwarzenegger as “menacing” or that the future visions were just “eerie”, but I did include the ones that said there were plenty of scares or just called it a scary movie as per Wikipedia’s own working definition of a horror movie. While it's not a vast majority like is the case with sci-fi and action, a not-insignificant number of secondary sources calls it or compares it as a horror film in some way that I feel would be enough to justify "horror" in the lead sentence if the rule on the maximum amount of two genres in the lead sentence wasn't a thing, as stated previously.
Although I have to say that now that I've found this many sources including from BBFC and BFI themselves I actually feel very strongly it should be called a horror film in the lead sentence as the third genre because of all the slasher film comparisons that is a horror subgenre and not a thriller subgenre, and those elements are obviously a huge part of the movie's legacy and identity. I very strongly disagree with this rule on two genres max and it certainly isn't evenly enforced on this site at all. Sometimes movies just have three or even four main genres.

Oh, and just to be clear again, but I was not the one who added the horror categories in the first place and as you can see Andrzejbanas here left at least one of the categories while they deleted the 1980s slasher films and 1984 horror films ones. In the interest of providing full transparency and provide an easier oversight into the situation I will also link the edits in question that removed the categories without explanation or for what amounts to personal opinions at best which is not a WP:NPOV. I should’ve done this in the first post but I’m still learning the templates here, my apologies. Memez24 (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
While I appreciate your highly detailed research, I'm not sure if a lot of it applies for several reasons
Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, just because something is called "scary" or a "Monster movie" or a splatter film does not necessarily mean someone is describing it as a horror film.
Some of your sources even state its "not a horror film" (NME).
Some of your sources seem to be selfpublished blogs, which would fail WP:SPS
Per WP:RSP/VALNET, several of your sources seem to be from Valnet published sources, which we are aiming to avoid (Comic Book Resources, GameRant, etc.)
Personally, I'm not against removing some of the extra source tags at the bottom, but as one source in the article (a journal entry) states, the genre the film is most identified with is the ones we use in the lead, but that seems to be an issue to bring up on WP:FILM, instead of hyperfixating it to a specific film article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
I was not aware of the last two points admittedly.
I knew it was a longshot, but can I at least add the categories back that were removed by the other users then? Or should I take it to mean you're against adding the categories back? Memez24 (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
So that is where its complicated again. Categories have to be backed up by the prose in the article. This is sort of the problem when it comes to genre categories. I used to add and create them feverously to articles, but after a while, the more specific they get to sub-genres, the more complicated they are to cite unless the series or film is very related and connected to a cycle or genre (i.e: few sources are going to argue some Friday the 13th film is not part of the slasher cycle or is part of some other cycle or genre instead.) And while its fun to think of a film being some multi-genre item for genre enthusiasts, for the average reader, saying a film fits into about 5 or so genres does not really help them understand what kind of film they are walking into. I'm not exactly sure how to handle it in this case to be honest because this is a unique situation where sources seem to say it enough, but other sources says "well its not a horror film" (NME) or "it can be seen in this genre and has elements of it, but the film is predominantly seen as a science fiction and action thing" (which is what is currently in the article).
TL;DR: I'm not sure how to handle adding or not adding it as a genre category. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Yeah I hear you, it certainly is a complicated matter. I'd just like to point out though that even though the NME review concludes it isn't a horror film in the "strictest sense", the final girl trope is a horror film trope and only exists in the realm of horror films as far as I'm aware. The Wiki article on the "the final girl" mentions Ellen Ripley from Alien (1979) which may not be popularly referred to as a slasher film (even though it kind of is in a way when you think about it, Ridley Scott has even admitted to being influenced by The Texas Chain Saw Massacre when he made it) but is still considered a horror film. This is where it's so weird to me that The Terminator is considered to have a "final girl" yet is somehow not a horror film, or as one of my sources put it, it's "the horror movie that isn't a horror movie". Memez24 (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
I mean, this is already addressed in the article as well. There are surely several films that have these traits that are not usually discussed when talking about slasher films either, such as Cabin in the Woods, The Descent, etc. I think this just sort of shows how similar English-labguage monster movies are to the slasher film, but that's another topic all together. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)`

As genre has been brought up time and time again, I've tried to add some clarification for the genre within the article. I've used the sources mentioned above and felt that as the discussion of horror film traits and also the whole "Tech-Noir" thing should be evaluated upon. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I came back to the article to see who authored the screenplay back in the 80s thinking to myself, "before machine learning, before powerful robotics and drones or anything like that... how on earth could they have known this would come true?"  It _feels_ like the article is incomplete now without some coverage on how forward looking this was, 40 years before this is coming true in every aspect of our lives. 147.161.198.116 (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a section about this in the themes section of the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

James Cameron (the director) confirmed The Terminator is a science fiction horror film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OnDUpjNqiw — Preceding unsigned comment added by LRQ 98  (talk • contribs) 

We don't use primary sources for genre determination purposes. If Cameron called it a "tragicomic romance", would you advocate that we add that to the article? DonIago (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Ditto. Genre classification is based on how reliable, secondary sources have interpreted the work, not on how the work's creator intended for it to be interpreted. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Additional to the above, WP:FILMLEAD instructs that "the opening sentence should identify ... the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". The genre is indisputably science-fiction, and the WP:WEIGHT of sources favor "action" over "horror" for the sub-genre. Nobody disputes that the film contains horror elements, but it is generally regarded as a Sci-Fi action film. This is expanded on in The Terminator#Genre. Betty Logan (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)