Talk:The Terminator/Archive 1

message: While this is important information, it is also a description that I think plenty of people would disagree with (I'm not one of them).  How could we rephrase this?  I don't know, which is why I left the text alone.  But I do think it needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry_Sanger (talk • contribs) 08:33, 23 July 2001 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try and wrap my head around it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjc (talk • contribs) 10:37, 23 July 2001 (UTC)
thread_title:  "highly intelligent and articulate" 

message: Was it really an Arnie vehicle from the outset?
He has hardly any dialogue, and is only in the action sequences, with Hamilton and Biehn on screen far more, and doing most of the acting.  Sure, its since been repackaged as a star vehicle, but prior to that he'd only been in the Conan movies and various projects related to his status as a bodybuilding champ.
I think a better description is it was the film that *made* him a star, since a monosyllabic killing machine is a role he was born to play... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gareth Owen (talk • contribs) 11:45, 18 July 2001 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right in this respect. I'll amend accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjc (talk • contribs) 11:51, 18 July 2001 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arnie vehicle? 

message: I have removed http://home.kc.rr.com/technoir since it is just a link to the anon contributors own site. --Tεxτurε 03:19, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  User's home page 

message: What was the purpose of the page move? --Cburnett 06:27, 22 April 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This movie isn't named The Terminator. It's just Terminator. Plain and simple. Even the front cover indicates this. There's no The on the front cover. Like any other movie that shares its name with a word, the move has resulted in (year movie) after the name. For instance, check Equilibrium and you'll understand what I mean. This is just wikification. --EliasAlucard|Talk 06:01, 23 April 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's generally not done to include the year when only one movie is named that. So Terminator (movie) instead. It's also expected that you fix the double redirects (SkyNet) and change the links to avoid the new redirect. As of now, there are only 2 links pointing to the actual article. --Cburnett 04:48, 23 April 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Equilibrium then? It's only one movie and has the year in the name. --EliasAlucard|Talk 11:10, 23 April 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Same thing, it should be at Equilibrium (movie). --Cburnett 01:24, 24 April 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to  and  the movie IS actually called "The Terminator" rather than just "Terminator". --Micpp 23:09, 24 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: Somebody said in the history tab of this article that Terminator 4 was cancelled according to IMDb. But I googled that, and it rendered 200,000+ google hits. That probably means that it could still be in production. Could somebody verify that? --SuperDude 06:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminator 4 

message: The "skin-less" termintator (:image:Terminator endoskeleton in Terminator 2.jpg) was originally labed as being from T2. This is incorrect because the terminator only gets stripped of his skin in a fire near the end of T1. I have changed the title. --2mcmGespräch 00:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, with that cute stop-motion claymation... =) --81.232.72.148 22:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image title renamaing 

message: Right now, the article begins: "The Terminator is a 1984 science fiction-action film which became the break-through role for former body-builder Arnold Schwarzenegger." However, in the page for Arnold Schwarzenegger himself, the first Conan movie is said to be his break-through role. --Dorfl 17:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. I've changed it to "The Terminator is a 1984 science fiction-action film featuring body-builder Arnold Schwarzenegger in what would become his best-known role" and rolled the next paragraph up so that it flows a bit cleaner. It could probably be worded better, but in a pinch, I feel that this will do. The "best-known role" concept (which, to be honest, has no real source) is culled from his article, should anyone be curious. --EVula 17:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: I removed this section on the grounds that it didn't contain quotes, but rather the transcript of two seemingly random scenes. I couldn't determine the notably of the scenes, so I removed them. --Ashmoo 02:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes section 

message: What kind of assault rifle did the Terminator use in this movie? I thought it might be an FN FNC, but I'm not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.20.221 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Terminator uses an Armalite AR-18 assault rifle for the assault on the police station. This rifle is relatively uncommon but I think its semi-auto derivative, the AR-180, is still in production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.87.53 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firearm question 

message: To whomever altered the "Opening Text":
I appreciate your contribution, but please understand that the opening text is rendered here exactly as it appears in the film. I've corrected it. If you would like to verify the text, and cannot get a copy of the film, the following Google query should yield a more than satisfactory number of references that quote the text directly.  If you have any further questions, please post them here before reverting the article copy. Thanks. --ManfrenjenStJohn 08:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed opening text 

message: There are many articles on films that contain plot summaries as long as this one or longer. If you feel the section can be improved, please discuss why and how you think this should be done to improve the article.  --ManfrenjenStJohn 02:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about Plot section 

message: I understand that someone feels the plot section is too long. I invite that person to state the reasons here, so that we may improve the article.
I fail to see how removing the formatting (which was placed there to improve readability) improves the article. I've reinstated the formatting (subsection titles and line breaks). If you feel the plot section is too cumbersome, removing the paragraph markers, thereby condensing the existing copy into 3 huge paragraphs hardly seems like a move towards improved readability.
However, I am certainly open to your concerns and intended goals, so I invite you to discuss them here.
Thanks, --ManfrenjenStJohn 02:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinstated Plot subsections and article breaks 

message: Is there not a parallelism between the ending and Revelation 12? --Krazykenny 02:30, 7 June 2007
:If there was, it would only be appropriate to report it in the Wikipedia article if there was a valid source for the comparison - not original research or speculation. --VisitorTalk 00:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ending 

message: Guns and Roses song "You Could be mine" is about T1... ! add that to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.60.184.116 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While you might be right about the song, the article is only about the movie, not about other creative works inspired by the movie. The reference would be inappropriate in the Wikipedia article. --VisitorTalk 00:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dont remember that... 

message: FTA: "Yet in Terminator 2, John and Sarah Connor and John's new protector, a model of the previous Terminator, managed to prevent Cyberdyne Systems from launching Skynet"
This, IMO, is conjecture. It is never explicit or implied that the trio succeeded in "preventing Cyberdyne Systems from launching Skynet" (whatever "launching" SkyNET means). If anything, the ending monologue by Sarah Connor supports the idea that they have NO IDEA if they were successful, and won't know until Judgement Day comes, assuming it does at all. This is further supported by the crappy "happy ending" Cameron filmed and never used, thankfully.
Additionally, if we accept the idea that they were able to "stop SkyNET from 'launching'," then T3 could have never happened. Let alone T2... or the original! Although I won't directly address the issue of T3 and how it totally shits on the Novikov principle and the story of the previous two films, T3 explicity states in the dialogue that SkyNET was not stopped, it was merely delayed.
Accordingly, I have removed this entire paragraph. Feel free to debate with me, but in the meantime I have removed the paragraph. It's just wrong. --66.245.30.238 08:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it's been months since your edit with no rebuttal, I recommend removing this section from the talk page. --VisitorTalk 06:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with a statement in "Philosophy" 

message: Hi everyone. I am quite new in Wikipedia. I've seen that we need mor contents on The terminator. I know really well this movie as it was one i choose for my thesis many years ago. I would like to add a section (roughly 10 short line). The title would be : Cultural Impact and Social Values. And i could specify 10 interesting aspects of the movie. Each aspect could be improved in the future by anyone. Could you tell me how should i proceed to submit those info. Should i just add it and see what you think about it? Thanks a lot for your advices. --Jjcolmax (talk)  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding contents? 

message: The article only shows the standard soundtrack, there is an updated version.  --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  21:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Terminator: The Definitive Edition 

message: I removed the inspiration section because, one will note, none of the citations actually speak to the inspirational effect of these films on Terminator. All of the citations speak to the various films that whatever editor added to the section felt him or her self were the inspiration for the film. Without connecting citation, it cannot - as per WP:SYN be included without it:
Inspirations
James Cameron states that the Terminator idea was originally his, and that it came to him in a dream after becoming ill in Rome. However, several works that predate his script bear some similarity. Some aspects of the story were sufficiently similar to two episodes of the TV series The Outer Limits written by Harlan Ellison, "Soldier" and "Demon with a Glass Hand", that Ellison pursued legal action against Cameron. The two settled out of court, and Cameron acknowledged Ellison's work in the film's credits. The concept of Skynet is similar to the evil intelligence featured in Ellison's short story, "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream".
The story is also similar to two stories by Philip K. Dick, "Second Variety" and "Jon's World". In these stories, robots, originally designed to fight for humans, design newer models that look like humans in order to infiltrate their bunkers and kill them. The novel Cyborg by Martin Caidin featured a cyborg assassin, a human rebuilt with machine implants, that relied on its human appearance for infiltration. Another film, La Jetée, featured a soldier from the future, sent back to obtain resources needed for humanity to continue. The film Cyborg 2087 had a similar plot of a killer machine sent back in time to change history.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060272/plotsummary
--Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Section 

message: IIRC, Bill Paxton's punk wasn't killed, since he complied by removing his clothes for the Terminator to wear. Also, IIRC, the Terminator doesn't kill anyone unless they interfere with his eventual goal of eliminating the Sarah Conner. --Mike18xx 06:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill Paxton was the Blue-Haired punk. He did not comply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.244.2 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Just ask the gunstorekeeper. ;-) --80.201.106.37 11:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above post is correct. Bill Paxton was the first one of the three to be attacked, as he pulled a knife then was thrown/smashed against the gate in the background. --HDC7777 14:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The punk on Paxton's right was the first one of the three to be attacked. All three punks pull out switchblades. The punk(with dark hair) on Paxton's right is thrown against the fence. Paxton(the blue-haired punk)is then thrown against the gate. The blond-haired punk then stabs the Terminator, and the Terminator kills him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.164.36.223 (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia errors 

message: While the following movies seem to fully cement the fact that this movie takes places in 1984, this one doesn't as far as I know. The only indication of when this movie takes place is a card just after the opening credits, which reads "May 12th, 1:52 AM", and a police officer mentioning that May 12th is a Thursday if I'm not mistaken. Now, while May 12th was Saturday in 1984, it was Thursday in 1983, and since noother date specification is made in this movie, wouldn't that render all other date specifications in the following films irrelevant? Wouldn't it be much better to write in this article that the movie takes places in 1983, and NOT in 1984? --Mulder1982 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually says "Los Angeles 1984 1:52 a.m." --ColdFusion650 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, it does? Well, I don't remember seeing that when I watched the movie last time. Then again it was on DVD, so they might have removed it in order to make room for the subtitles or something. However, in any case, if you ignore whatever is shown on the screen and only focus on what the characters say, you get 1983. But oh well... --Mulder1982 (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "if you ignore whatever is shown on the screen... you get 1983". And you if spin a giant number wheel... --ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, you are on my team when we play any movie trivia game. Wow. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The date 

message: Is the name of this film "Terminator" or "The Terminator"? --Ewlyahoocom 09:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "The Terminator" --Name Theft Victim 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's "Terminator", based on the box, poster, and names of the sequels --DurinsBane87 21:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look closely the poster that is/was in the Infobox is actually foreign (Italian I think), the U.S. poster is titled "The Terminator". (See IMP Awards: The Terminator Poster to compare) —MJBurrage(T•C) 19:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Terminator" or "The Terminator" 

message: Hardly... Alex Cox way back during the 1980s when introducing films that were being shown on the BBC Two television series "MovieDrome" remarked that The Terminator was based on episodes from The Outer Limits. See also Wikipedia articles for Harlan Ellison and The Outer Limits. --Wfgh66 (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it was OR. I said it was removed as OR, meaning the person who removed it said it was, which is true. --ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe the editor is accusing the edits as OR, but without notable citations it looked that way. The Production section looks better now, but the inspiration should probably lead the section? --Nreive (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harlan Ellison - Original Research? 

message: In the reception section we have:
It currently has a perfect score of 100% on Rotten Tomatoes.[8]
Isn't it probably a bad idea to put something like this in which could change at some point, wouldn't a similar statement with a specific date or date range be more future proof? --86.128.50.177 (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is common procedure on almost all film articles. If it changes, we can always update it. --ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perfect score but... 

message: In the UK, The Terminator was originally rated as an 18. When the film was released to DVD, it was re-rated to a 15. Curiously, the U.S. version remains classified as an R. 
That last part about the R rating is ridiculous. Just because the film was re-rated in the UK to a 15. Doesn't mean it should be re-rated PG-13 in the USA. Whats so curious about a film with violence, strong language and nudity getting an R rating?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.85.85 (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "R" rating in the US is the equivalent of a "15" in the UK. They are the same level of classification. --HDC7777 12:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this relevant? --VisitorTalk 00:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating 

message: Does anyone else there should be a mention of the fact that the 5.1 and DTS mixes found on the DVD releases feature altered sound effects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.41.125 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, nice catch. The original sound mix in theatres was completly mono, and new sounds were introduced in the "DVD" 5.1 mix which does alter the original sound of the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.3.197 (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD Info 

message: Is The Terminator a Cyborg or an Android. The article calls it both, however I believe that The Terminator is an android. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.44.79 (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The script refers to a cyborg but not an android. --Rd232 talk 08:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: But based on the wikipedia articles for cyborg and android, it appears to be both. --Rd232 talk 08:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Android or Cyborg? 

message: I'm not familiar with the history of discussions about what year the film is supposed to take place, but to me the sentence "the machines send back someone from the future to May 12, 1984 (a cop mentions that the day was Thursday; May 12, 1983 fell on a Thursday)" is just self-contradictory and confusing. I've read the discussion above, but as a casual visitor to the page I still can't work out whether the action takes place in 1983 or in 1984. Maybe it's really simple and I'm just being dense, but can't someone re-word the sentence to make it clearer? Apologies for revisiting a discussion that's probably been done to death in the past --Dom Kaos (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved the Thursday issue to footnote. Possibly it should just be dropped, but it will probably crop up again so perhaps best leave it. --Rd232 talk 10:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you - that now makes perfect sense :-) --Dom Kaos (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The date (again) 

message: That phrase made me LOL. Surely there's a less, well, creepy way to put this? --87.236.134.146 (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Provoking their coitus" 

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) 11:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters 

message: I just completed the same with the T2 page; I am hoping to fix the lead so this article (and its richly deserving subject) can be restored to proper form and readability. Please feel free to post any suggestions here. --ManfrenjenStJohn 06:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you remove the trivia section?? Stuff like that is what makes the movie interesting to read about. --Crakkpot 21:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivia sections are outlawed. --ColdFusion650 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: why, exactly? To make Wikipedia BORING TO READ? This is NOT an encyclopedia, I don't care what anyone says! Encyclopedias are not user-edited on the fly. But I've seen editors remove valid info constantly, so I'm guessing you want the info on each page to be vapid and uninteresting. If this was an encyclopedia, then fictional characters would not have multiple-page-length bios. Fictional character histories are never in an encyclopedia. Therefore, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.162.204.6 (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting an encyclopedia wouldn't have an article about Robin Hood? I find that hard to believe. --DurinsBane87 04:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting lead to fix & remove "TRIVIA" template 

message: I added a good-faith paragraph to the plot summary about how the Terminator goes about "his business". I consider this important for several reasons. For one, the "phonebook" scene is important because it establishes the Terminator as an emotionless killing machine. It makes no attempt to see if the Sarah Connor in the phone book is the right one, he simply murders them all. This is in stark contrast to the rest of the movies, where the Terminators smile, tsk-tsk their victims, give the evil eye, etc., or in the case of the latest installment, are so full of emotion they don't even realize they're robots. The Terminators of the early movies are very different than their portrayals in the later movies, and the entire opening of the movie is used to establish that fact. Given that, and that the portion in question represents something like 1/4 of the running time, a single paragraph on the topic hardly seems egregious.
I also consider it important for other reasons. Without this section the summary still describes some of the main action points, but not others. IllaZilla suggests that the car chance is important to mention specifically, because it leads to their arrest. So, why is that important? Either the action scenes are important or they're not, it seems that one editor's ability to pick and choose is unlikely to be better than anyone else's. Given that it's a single paragraph, erring on the side of completeness certainly doesn't seem unwarranted. Further, the scenes show what Kyle later states, that they come through without any support, or even clothing. This isn't repeated in the later movies, the viewer is expected to understand this plot point. --Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated deletions 

message: The great Russian filmmaker Tarkovsky called the film "a work of art". Might be a nice addition to the Reception section. Just a thought. --110.32.134.56 (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tarkovsky 

message: I posted a simple remark The Terminator's "Skynet" future was inspired by Frank Herbert's Dune novel in 1966. However, it keeps getting removed.
This period in Dune, referred to as the Butlerian Jihad, was the conquest and enslavement of humans by thinking machines and, other than Spice, is the basis of all society that followed after it although its less central than this movie. I don't know of any other robot storyline before Dune that went to this depth. The first commandment in the Orange Catholic Bible is Thou Shalt Nnot make a Machine that thinks like a Man. Dune, like Lord of the Rings, was the inspiration for many, many stories after it, including Star Wars, so something like this is too much of a coincidence to ignore.
I kept the reference short, didn't elaborate on the three prequels on the Jihad, and where is the harm in pointing out the obvious parallel? I think fans of the movie believe The Terminator's premise is more original than really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.152.181.251 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to provide a source to prove that the writers of the Terminator were inspired by Dune, otherwise it is original research. --Ashmoo 05:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Despite settling out of court, Cameron still maintains to this day that the Terminator was his original concept." -- source on this? As I recall the basis of the original case and what caused Hemdale to insist on settling was an interview in Starlog where Cameron as much as admitted to have taken it from "a couple of old Outer Limits episodes" I think the phrase was. --LamontCranston 15:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's entirely possible that Cameron is telling the truth about waking up from the dream, and expanding on the story with his conscious creativity, without awareness that he was applying influences from Ellison and, perhaps, Dune.  If I recall correctly, either George Harrison or Brian Wilson was involved with a copyright lawsuit about a previous song that was determined by the court to be an influence, but an unconscious one. --VisitorTalk 06:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of war machines disguised as humans to infiltrate and destroy was developed previously by Philip K. Dick in his story "Second Variety", published in 1953. I have no information if Cameron was aware of this story. Ironically, there's a movie adaptation of that story, "Screamers", released in 1995 reference (11 years after "The Terminator"). --TheWiggin (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You would have to find a source to that effect, per our verifiability policy. If there's a reliable source, then it's worth touching on. Otherwise it's original research. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The plot of the 1966 movie "Cyborg 2087" looks almost identical to plot of the Terminator films. Any views? --90.192.136.222 (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspiration 

message: what gun was this?  It seems interesting enough to merit some identification. --67.187.91.103 (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think tis an AMT Hardballer Longslide, .45 ACP. --Fillosaurus (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds about right. Looks just like it and this gun is often flavored with a laser sight. I know Hitman 2: Silent Assassin had them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.227.129 (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The laser sighted pistol 

message: I just want to say thanks for this article. Even this sentence alone makes it worth reading: Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that "such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer." ;-) --92.192.179.23 (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks! 

message: In Roger Ebert's written review for Terminator Salvation he states "The first Terminator movie I regret (I suppose) I did not see.". While it is true that he did not write a review of the original film, He did review it orally on a November 1984 episode of At the Movies. In the episode both Siskel and Ebert mention that they had overlooked the film, and were now reviewing it for the show because it was No. 1 at the box office. Further, Ebert's written reviews for Terminator 2 and Terminator 3 compare those films to the original.
Most likely, he used his own archive of past written revues, when reviewing Terminator Salvation, and lacking one for The Terminator incorrectly assumed he had not seen it (or he meant to say "... I did not review."). Given how many films he has seen, I am not that surprised he could forget one, especially when he has no written record of seeing it. —MJBurrage(T•C) 21:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roger Ebert 

message: I have added the IMDb link again. I don't get why the IMDb external link keeps getting removed from this page. Almost every film on wikipedia with a corresponding IMDb-page has a link to that page, as they are relevant and useful, which is what WP:EL requires external links to be. I don't see what makes this article different. TheFreeloader (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Relevant and useful" is an opinion, and subject to debate. WP:EL says that external links should be kept to a minimum, and restricted to sites containing relevant, neutral, accurate material that can't be incorporated into the article for some reason. It also says to avoid "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." IMDb provides no unique, relevant information that wouldn't belong in the article itself if it were an FA. It contains nothing useful that can't be incorporated into the article itself. The only relevant information it typically contains is cast and crew listings; much of the rest is user-contributed which is why it WP:FILMS doesn't consider it a reliable source except for production details. In addition, IMDb is already linked in this article as a reference, so an additional external link is superfluous. Editors indiscriminately add IMDb links to the bottom of every film article without stopping to consider whether they actually provide any useful, reliable information that the article itself doesn't or shouldn't cover, which in the vast majority of cases they don't. It's the equivalent of adding an Allmusic link to the bottom of every album article, or a Gamespot link to the bottom of every video game article. These are links just for the sake of having links, and that's not what EL encourages. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDb provides cast and crew information that would be indiscriminate to list in a Wikipedia article.  It is not a reliable source, but it is a useful resource.  (Because of this, we should not cite this because it is driven by user voting, which is subject to vote stacking and demographic skew.)  IMDb also provides community interaction; it is pretty popular in that sense, and the link is appropriate. Erik (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Community interaction" isn't relevant to an encyclopedia. By that logic we should add external links to any messageboard community or forum for a given topic. There's very little relevant cast & crew information that shouldn't or couldn't be incorporated into the article if it were improved to FA status. That's beside the fact that the IMDb entry is already linked as a citation. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We agree that IMDb is not a reliable source, so we should remove it from the article.  As for community interaction, there is precedent -- major fan sites are appropriate to link to.  IMDb is the most popular for community interaction.  In addition, do you not think that IMDb serves as a resource for providing the full list of cast and crew information that would not be appropriate to list here? Erik (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it provides a more extensive cast & crew listing than what we would likely provide in the article even if it were an FA, an on that basis it could be included per WP:ELYES. But if we consider it reliable for cast & crew listings, shouldn't we just cite it as a source in the cast section? It's always preferable to have a citation than an external link. And wouldn't a citation to the film itself (say, a DVD copy), which of course lists the full credits at the end of the film, serve the same purpose? Either would be reliable sources that a reader could seek out to verify the cast info. I disagree that the presence of community interaction means that we should link to IMDb from nearly every film article. It doesn't matter that "IMDb is the most popular for community interaction"; we're not a directory of forums, and links to discussion forums don't serve an encyclopedic purpose. In fact WP:ELNO says to avoid links to chat or discussion forums/groups (#10). I've also not seen that "major fan sites are appropriate to link to": note that WP:FANSITE goes to "Links normally to be avoided", #11 of which says "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." "Community interaction" is not a criteria for deciding whether to add an external link. The criteria is whether the link contains "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article". Discussion forums aren't relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, so I find the fact that IMDb has popular discussion forums to be irrelevant. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to expand on what I mean by community interaction.  You're right that there should not be an external link to a message board.  I would not link directly to the message board.  In addition to Internet Movie Database having a comprehensive list of cast and crew information, it is very multi-faceted, as you can see with all the links in the left column of a given film's page.  A lot of these sub-pages are resources that are not appropriate for the encyclopedia, but obviously they exist for certain audiences.  My point is that IMDb is too multi-faceted to declare that a link to a film's page would not be "useful" (one of the basic criteria) to readers looking for supplementary resources.  IMDb basically covers a lot of areas that Wikipedia does not.  As a result, most film articles are attached at the hip to the respective IMDb pages.  What from I've seen, there is inordinately high demand to have access to these links, and they do not quite fit the EL criteria to qualify for or be disqualified from inclusion. Erik (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm familiar with the typical IMDb "left column" contents, and besides the cast & crew listing I don't think there's anything there that we would consider relevant and encyclopedic beyond the scope of what a Wikipedia article would be expected to cover. Take the entry for this film: Trailers? Not really encyclopedic. Official sites? Should be externally linked already from WP. Trivia, memorable quotes, goofs, crazy credits, etc.? All user-submitted and thus unreliable, and not of encyclopedic value anyway. Plot summary and synopsis? We have that in the WP article already. Seriously, there's little to nothing there outside of a cast & crew list that is both relevant and unable to be included in a comprehensive Wikipedia article. IMO we need to divest ourselves of this notion that Wikipedia film articles are "attached at the hip", as you put it, to IMDb. It just seems to be one of those situations where "we've always linked to IMDb, so we should keep on doing it", and it needs to be re-evaluated. At this point we're talking about a larger issue than just this article, so we should probably take the discussion to WT:FILMS or WT:EL. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you're evaluating IMDb for encyclopedic value.  The point of an external link is to supplement encyclopedic coverage of a film.  I believe the different resources at IMDb accomplish that, and reliability is not imperative.  I think that the editor's perspective of IMDb is that it is not reliable enough, not flat-out unreliable.  (Except when we're talking about trivia pages, which IMO are seriously messy.)  Basically, I think that the resources qualify as "good enough" for readers who are seeking out resources other than an encyclopedia.  Even putting that argument aside, I think that the comprehensive cast and crew information is reason enough to include IMDb as an EL.  I just do not think that WP:EL forbids IMDb; discussion of its value will hinge on consensus.  We can discuss IMDb as an external link at WT:FILM, though.  I'm just not sure if it's possible to overcome its entrenched nature... I advocated removing Allmovie, a much lesser resource, but there was not interest in removing it.  I mean, if you put up the IMDb template for TfD, you will very likely see serious backlash.  Just my $0.02. Erik (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created a section about this on the WP:Films talk page. TheFreeloader (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Like Erik said, if you place the template up for deletion, you will very well see that consensus is just not ready for IMDb to be removed from ELs.  At this point, there's no valid argument or reason to remove the link. I believe Erik covered the basics quite well. —Mike Allen 01:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMDB link 

message: I thought I would start a discussion here so we can form some kind of consensus on the issue of the action-horror category since there has recently been some controversy over it. Note that I am not saying the Terminator is a horror film, I am merely saying that it does utilize enough elements of one to merit inclusion in the Action-horror film category. That does not make it an out-and-out horror film however, which is why it should not be included in categories such as American Horror films, 1980s Horror films, etc. To me this makes sense. It is comparable to including the category Tech Noir films while not including the Noir films category. In addition to action and horror, The Terminator mixes aspects of both film noir and science fiction, to the extent where it is acceptable to include that category. That does not make it a film noir however, so we leave that category out. Another example is the film Evil Dead 2, which is in the Action-Horror category because it mixes enough elements of the action genre with horror to merit inclusion, yet it remains out of the Action films category because that does not make it an out-and-out action film. Ash Loomis (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When in doubt, call forth the sources. Can you present some that call or classify it as horror or action-horror, or describe its horror elements? If so, problem solved. If not, then it probably isn't. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Action-Horror 

message: Despite the film being set in the U.S. and made in the US the film takes its nationaility from the nationaility of its production country according to Template:Infobox_film. The relevant section for country states: 
Insert the home country or countries of the film's main production companies.  
Given that the film is produced by Hemdale Film Corporation, a British company then this makes The Terminator a British production. It is no more strange than say the Harry Potter films being a part US co-production despite being made and set in the UK, simply because a US company is involved in the production.
Accordingly, the Infobox rules state in the case of release dates (WP:FILMRELEASE): 
Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings.
There is a clear consensus on this issue, and the usage of nationalities and release dates must be consistent across all film articles. This means that some films that seem American aren't and some that don't seem to be are, but the guidelines are precise in this respect. Betty Logan (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you as far as the infobox goes; since Hemdale Film Corporation is a British company, we should list the United Kingdom in the "Country" field and give the UK release date, per the template instructions. However, I think we should also list the United States among the countries, as Orion Pictures, the primary distributor, is an American company and the US was the film's primary country of release (in fact it was in theaters there almost a full 3 months before it hit theaters in the UK). As for the lead sentence, though, I don't think that nationality needs to be mentioned at all. Calling it a British film is a bit misleading since other than the Hemdale connection the film is not "British" in any way: it was written, directed, and produced by Americans, stars Americans, was set and filmed in America, was released first in America, and was distributed by an American company. There's no particular need to attach a nationality label to the film in the lead sentence, unless that nationality is particularly significant to the film itself (as with Australia or The Patriot). The MOS for WP:FILMS says that we should ideally identify the nationality of the film in the opening sentence, but "if the nationality is ambiguous, clarify the circumstances at a later point in the first paragraph." I think that since this film is so blatantly American in all aspects except for the nationality of the production company, we should leave nationality out of the lead sentence and mention the nationalities later in the paragraph, for example: "The film was produced by the Helmdale Film Corporation, a British company, and was set and filmed in Los Angeles". This would be similar to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, which was produced by an American company but is otherwise blatantly British in almost all aspects. I really think that any reader who is at all familiar with The Terminator and sees "British" in the opening sentence is going to be at the very least suprised, if not incredulous. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Adding to the ambiguity is the fact that The Terminator was inducted into the National Film Registry of the Library of Congress, who claim to "represent a stunning range of American filmmaking...the registry stands among the finest summations of American cinema's wondrous first century". So it's evident that the Library of Congress considers it an American film, despite the British production company (unless I'm mistaken, the NFR only considers American films for induction). --IllaZilla (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware the rules for the infobox don't apply to the actual text of the article, so you are perfectly entitled to challenge it on that basis. I actually agree with you it is ridiculous to call The Terminator a "British" film, given that it was written and directed by a Canadian, while it is made and set in America - the problem here is not The Terminator's nationality but with the rather peculiar criteria Wikipedia has for setting a film's nationality. Anyway, while researching The Terminator I have discovered "Pacific Western" was also involved in the film's production which is an American outfit so the situation is easily resolved in this case. Orion is just a distributor so is irrelevant to all intents and purposes. Betty Logan (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pacific Western" is just a company developed by Gale Anne Hurd. She's American so it would be american based. The film was funded by HBO as well. I would like to have US listed first as it is predominantly an American film, not a british one. It was shot in the US, had American actors, released first in the US, and had American producers. Anyone disagree? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any record of HBO, where is it credited? The two credited companies are Hemdale (British) and then Pacific Western (US). Since Hemdale is credited first then the film should draw its nationality first from this prodiction company. The poster on the article makes the credit order clear. The infobox rules make it very clear that a film does not draw its nationaility from the nationality of its producers (hence why "Avatar" isn't Canadian) or where it was filmed (hence why "Star Wars" isn't a UK co-production). The only criteria for the country field in the infobox is the nationality of the production companies, and this should use the credit order of the production companies to remain impartial. Betty Logan (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm bringing that up on the infobox page. HBO is listed right on the page that the film got backing from "HBO" and "Orion". Here's the source: here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  British production, and British release dates 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyborg_2087 ? No evidence of plagiarism ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.68.120.249 (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. If you're suggesting that The Terminator somehow ripped off Cyborg 2087, you'll need reliable sources to back up that assertion. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Cyborg  2087? 

message: I passed this article as a GA. I had to do some light copy-editing but nothing too major. There were few typos that were a little problematic try to more thorough looking the article over next tim. Two suggestions however, I added a fact tag about the Sting comment, and the modern critical reception section needs a link to the rotten tomatoes page for this article to put things in perspective. Quadzilla99 (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That was quick! The Sting information is from the cite that it follow up on, but I've added a cite to follow it. I didn't want to use the Rotten Tomaotes link as some reviews from it are modern, while some on it are decades old. I try to only use the link when it's has only reviews that are at least from the same decade. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: I really can't understand the reasoning behind changing "make love" to "have sex" or "have sexual intercourse" - it's perfectly clear that making love means having sex, and nobody is going to be confused about that. We don't need clinical descriptions in an article about a movie because it's a work of ART, for pete's sake. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:EUPHEMISM. "Make love" is a euphamism not used worldwide, and Wikipedia has a worldwide readership. It is also important to be clear that this is sexual intercourse, as the resulting pregnancy is central to the plot of the entire franchise. "They have sex" is hardly a "clinical description", it is merely an accurate, unambiguous statement of fact. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it's a cheesy euphemism.  Millahnna (talk) 07:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "...he gave her a damn good rogering"? Consensus? Betty Logan (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That or "they shagged, baby" ;-) --IllaZilla (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's it...I'm going to build my own wiki where everything it written like Austin Powers wrote it.  Millahnna (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be great! Hopefully you can demand one million articles from the masses! :) (I concur with IllaZilla about WP:EUPHEMISM.) Erik (talk | contribs) 15:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:EUPHEMISM may say that it's a euphemism but honestly, it isn't. It would be normally understood to include coitus, and not just kissing or holding hands, or even fondling. Nor do I think it's "cheesy"; I'm sorry if some people think that. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, it is. It may be "normally understood to include coitus" in the US, but again, Wikipedia has a worldwide readership & slang terms/euphamisms like this do not have universal meaning. According to Merriam-Webster the definitions also include "woo, court, neck, and pet", none of which are coitus. "Make love" is fine for romance novels and soap operas, it's not the right language for an encyclopedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  They make love, guys 

message: To quote Kyle when Silberman asks him why they didn't kill Connor then, "Their defense grid was smashed. We had won, taking out Connor then would have made no difference. Skynet had to wipe out his entire existence." So, it's pretty clear they had won the war and Skynet could not have won by fighting in the-then present. You don't have to destroy all your enemy's forces to win a war. The snare (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Winning the war means destroying Skynet. If Skynet was destroyed, it wouldn't be able to send things back in time. Skynet sends the Terminator back in time as a last-ditch attempt to prevent John from being born. "Smashing the defense grid" may make victory a certainty for the Resistance, but to imply that the war is over makes little sense. If the war was over, then there could be no Skynet to send Terminators back in time. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on how you look at it, they had won the war in the future The snare (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't. If they'd won the war, Skynet wouldn't exist anymore, and it wouldn't be able to send Terminators back in time. The opening scene of the film clearly shows a war still going on. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think IllaZilla is correct in this instance. Kyle's declaration "We had won" is akin to a sports commentator declaring a game "won/over" in the dying minutes.  What he was essentially saying was that Skynet was beaten on the battle front in the future.  Like WW2—the Germans were beaten once the allies stormed Normandy in 1944, but the war wasn't over until VE day in 1945 because fighting was still going on. Remember plot summaries should just stick to relaying events rather than intepreting them. As Roy Walker would say: "Just say what you see". Betty Logan (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tech-com winning the war 

message: Should we dump them on Terminator 2 and Terminator 3 too? These parameters are infected by corporate nationality (French/German) on these two articles and it isn't clear in what respect they are French and German.  I suggest ditching them backed up by the new guidelines, since they don't have a self-contained nationality. Betty Logan (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree w/ dumping them, per the new wording at Template:Infobox film#Parameters. Nationality is not an intrisic characteristic of these films, and their production crosses multiple national lines. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Addendum: Looking at the new wording, there could be a case made for leaving "United States" in this article's infobox, as the film was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry of the Library of Congress, whose stated goal is to "showcase the range and diversity of American film heritage" and to "represent a stunning range of American filmmaking". So apparently the Library of Congress considers The Terminator an American film. That's already mentioned in the lead, though, and like I said this isn't a movie where attaching a national identity to the film itself is particularly significant (as it might be for films like Australia, The Patriot, or Dr. No). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we discussed this during the infobox discussion. I don't have a problem with using the NFR because it provides a context for the claim of nationality, but we need to make it a bit more explicit in the lede that we are using the NFR as the basis for the nationality claim.  That way readers know why we're saying it is an American film. It might be a good idea to do that because if the country removal is challenged on the others this article can be held up as an example. Betty Logan (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country parameters on the Terminator articles 

message: OK, this is getting out of hand. Does anyone else think that the exact calendar date and day of the week are important to the overall plot or flow of events? I'm of the opinion that merely the year suffices. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, only the year is relevant.  It's not like "Back to the Future" where the exact time and date are a major factor of the plot. The IP will probably move on soon, so I'd let it go and remove it tomorrow just to avert the edit war.  It's not like it's factually incorrect, just irrelevant, so leaving it in for a few hours won't hurt. Betty Logan (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, reverting it again would put me in 3RR, so I'll let it be for now. The IP's attitude in that last edit summary gave the indication that this was going to become an edit war. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exact date