Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day/Archive 1

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

message: 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 February 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unseen Footage? 

message: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.107.71 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 24 March 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph tense 

message: maybe move the quotes to wikiquote? --clem 17:00, 3 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.148.206 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget 

message: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.233.16.228 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD Art 

message: 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.33 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Ultimate Edition, the T-1000 version of Sarah was played by Linda. --Rd232 talk 23:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linda/Leslie Roles 

message: 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 64.36.17.218 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues may not be fully addressed, but the speculation in question  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)
replies: text: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.36.17.218 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.36.17.218 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.110.65 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Speculation" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geistson (talk • contribs) 01:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.169.133 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.207.104.115 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  T3 and "no fate" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Paradoxes" section (removed from the article) 

message: *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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.244.199.96 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 

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

message: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.174.97 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fifth Weapon ? 

message: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.35.46 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI the licking of the face scene is in all versions of this movie. --Spazm 15:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding the alternate versions (Sarah's behavior) 

message: 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.17.84 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, unless you can find a 3rd party reliable source who has stated it. --Ashmoo 05:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Schwarzenegger good 

message: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.234.166 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What did you mean by unsourced weasel words? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  August 29, 1997 

message: I think this section needs to go altogether. It is 100% original research. --Hnsampat 18:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Plot holes" section 

message: I removed the  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)
thread_title:  Removing template 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sure, go ahead, be bold. :)    — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Director's Cut 

message: 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyQBachler (talk • contribs) 12:37, 21 November 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 23:37, 27 November 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  T-800? 

message: 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.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.248.133 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about that. --Admiral Roo 10:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The T-1000's primary mission is to kill John, not Sarah. --Sikon 02:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby1011 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Please leave the incontinuity part alone. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sarah Conner is a Terminator? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Exact info on the eggs can be found here:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.34.95 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter Eggs Mentioned 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree that it should be mentioned. Consider this a vote for adding it back in. --Val42 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The T800 leaves his arm in the press! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cultural And Trivia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Trivia template for the lead?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: In Terminator 2, Schwarzenegger says "Not like me. A T-1000. Advanced prototype. A mimetic polyalloy". --[User:Mgiganteus1|Mgiganteus1]] 18:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed mimetic polyalloy. I'm not sure where you got hemi-meti-poly-alloy. --ColdFusion650 18:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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) 18:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "mimetic poly-alloy" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: [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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Judgment Day" link 

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

message: 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. --71.154.233.235 03:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor change in "Judgement Day" story 

message: 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:
#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?
#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?
#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?
#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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  More on "Plot Holes" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Over the Top 

message: This article if very close to getting GA status. The references are clear and in my opinion, they are reliable. It's well written and contains a reasonably broad overview of the film story. But according the GA criteria all the images are copyrighted with fair use rationales and , , ,  or large numbers of , ,  or similar tags. --David Pro (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b (enough images: lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail:  
David Pro (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I add that there is little point to the two images in the plot section, and the cast and production sections are barely fleshed out. --Alientraveller (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b (enough images: lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail:  
David Pro (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: I have made a second review as requested.
#Is it reasonably well written?
#:A. Prose quality:  
#:: 
#:B. MoS compliance: 
#:: 
#Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
#:A. References to sources:  
#:: 
#:B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
#:: 
#:C. No original research: 
#:: 
#Is it broad in its coverage?
#:A. Major aspects:  
#:: 
#:B. Focused: 
#:: 
#Is it neutral?
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#Is it stable?
#: No edit wars, etc: 
#:: 
#Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
#:A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
#:: 
#:B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass or Fail: 
#:: 
T2 has good points, but two major aspects of the review need major work. Wording in the Release and Home video sections need work, and discriptions of the cast in the Cast section won't hurt. Also, the article needs more references. It only has ten overall, and some sections don't even have one reference. When these problems are fixed, it can be nominated again. --Limetolime (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I add that there is little point to the two images in the plot section, and the cast and production sections are barely fleshed out. --Alientraveller (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA fail 

message: It says "two men arrive in Los Angeles..."  Isn't this a bit of a misnomer? --24.149.193.49 (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At that point in the plot, that's all we know. --Tool2Die4 (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: *
*
*
*
*
--Alientraveller (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for use 

message: In the section called "cast", Leslie Hamilton Gearren is marked as a link, but this link mistakenly refer the user to Linda Hamilton's page. Leslie Hamilton Gearren is not Linda Hamilton, but rather her twin sister, which is stated in the same section of the article. Instead of refering to Linda Hamilton's page it should refer the user to a page of Leslie Hamilton Gearren, if there is such an article.
Please forgive me if this entry is wrong somehow, it is the very first entry I have made on an article discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AsgerJon (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The link you are referring to actually does point to Leslie Hamilton Gearren. You can tell my clicking on the link and then looking at the address bar. --ColdFusion650 (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with a link on the page. 

message: Am I the only one who has noticed that Judgment is incorrect. I'm pretty sure it's spelled Judgement. --Shawn Crapo (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It be a variant, yo! --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Judgement is the British variation. Judgment is its American counterpart, and the most widely used spelling. --WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: The T2 book contains additional scenes and information that might enhance the enjoyment and understanding of the film. Would anyone object if I added a brief summery of the differences? A future war introduction that showed John Connor standing over comtechs dissecting Skynet's brain. Sarah dying in an HK ambush of a supply column. The information that Skynet didn't trust the T1000. A verification that only two bad terminators get sent back. That the terminator was 'playing dead' at the end of the film. An implication that the good terminator started to develop something akin to genuine emotion in the final scenes. It's not OR because it's all in the official book. I think it's appropriate to this page. Would anyone strongly disagree? --ANTIcarrot (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you make it clear that it is from the book, then I don't see why anyone would. Which one played dead? Can you elaborate on "A verification that only two bad terminators get sent back." and "That the terminator was 'playing dead' at the end of the film."? --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book adaption 

message: A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. --Ikip (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters 

message: Why does the template exist if it shouldn't be used? --Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion it shouldn't exist, but that's another can of worms. Please read Wikipedia:Linking for our manual of style with regard to links. WP:EGG is particularly relevant, as it deals with keeping piped links intuitive and contextual. Piping "1985" to "1985 in film" in the lead sentence is not intuitive. The proper place to provide a link to "1985 in film" would be in a "see also" section. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the linking guideline does permit links to "year in" articles, as per Wikipedia:Linking#Year linking. (See the "Year in science" example.) --Ckatzchatspy 20:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not deal with piped links, which are a separate matter. Providing the link is not the problem; providing it in a manner that is intuitive and contextual is the issue. It's the same issue as automatically piping the countries of release to "Cinema of..." articles: the presentation is not intuitive to readers. You need to find a way to make the link more intuitive. For example, in the "release" section, you could say: "T2 was released on July 3, 1991 (see 1991 in film)." That would be just fine. The use of templates encourages these dates and places to always be linked, which is not appropriate. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year-in-film template 

message: This should definitely be noted somewhere in this article :) --SonicNiGHT (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  #1 sequel in terms of Monetary Percentage Improvement 

message: I think this article would benefit from some literary criticism and consideration of how the film succeeds so spectacularly.  While it's not my field, I can't help but be awed by the tremendous attention to detail in the plot and presentation that gives the film an organic integrity.  For example, consider the motif of reversal:  A car chase in reverse, the T-1000 reversing itself from the wall, Sara Connor acting as a Terminator, a Terminator acting as a father, John Connor teaching a Terminator how to mimic humans.  But even small details:  Sarah injecting the nurse with the sedative; the guard who is the real lunatic; when the laser dot settles on the back of the programmer's head, one of the pieces of equipment in front of him is displaying a similar red glow; a key is used to prevent a door from being unlockable; liquid nitrogen is apposed to molten steel, and so on.  A similarly complex motif concerned the ability of machines to mimic people in the first Terminator.
By creating very general transformations of this type that appear to have almost mathematical validity within the aesthetic universe of the film, a framework is created by which nearly every event in the film recollects or foreshadows several others, and in this way a complex network of interactions is set up by which the film is crafted to hold together as a whole rather than a linear sequence of unconnected events.  The existence of such a network, reminiscent of a biochemistry, or perhaps a Skynet, or perhaps most aptly the major connectives of a central nervous system, could act in my opinion as a definition of a life within the context of cinema. Wnt (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a reliable source that makes these comparisons.  Otherwise, this sounds like original research and prohibited on Wikipedia. — Val42 (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe so, but it's very eloquently laid out and I appreciated the thoughtfullness of your commentary Wnt! --GG The Fly (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: One more reason NOT to delete this "original research" is that Blade Runner has pages upon pages of OR within Wikipedia that has never been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OTHERCRAP is a non-argument. Just because another article is full of crap doesn't mean this one has to be. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary criticism?