terminator 3... anyone see it yet?

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by DEFELDUS, Jul 10, 2003.



    Jun 1, 2003
    Orlando, FL
    i was wondering what you guys think about this movie. i saw it the other day and thought it was friggin awesome. it had more action than xmen 2 or matrix 2 (which were both good too) and i thought the story was excellent as well. the ending was pretty suprising but good, and i would dare say this one was better than part 2. anyways, what did you guys think about it?
  2. Ryan Berry

    Ryan Berry Guest

    Dec 1, 2001
    Merrimack, NH
    I thought the ending was really lame. That sucked. The rest was pretty good though.
  3. Ben Mishler

    Ben Mishler Guest

    Jan 22, 2003
    San Jose
    My manager at work saw it, and he said that it was a good movie, assuming you just wanted to see a good action flick.


    Jun 1, 2003
    Orlando, FL
    yeah if u wanna see a good action flick this one cant be beat. the action sequences (i.e. every scene...) were all top notch and intense. great movie
  5. Christopher


    Apr 28, 2000
    New York, NY
    I loved it. I'm a little shocked it cost $200 million, but it has the speedy B-movie pacing of the original movie without the ponderousness or annoying amateur acting of Furlong in the second. And I thought the ending was great.


    Jun 1, 2003
    Orlando, FL
    yeah i thought the ending was pretty good, surprising too.
  7. Wrong Robot

    Wrong Robot Guest

    Apr 8, 2002

    That was good, far better than even my highest expectations. wow, I'm really impressed.



    I like how it was no BS, just movie, they COULD have made it 3 hours, loaded with a bunch of crap, but they realized that it just has to be WHAM WHAM WHAM with the action, that was a good call. sheesh, that was good.


    Jun 1, 2003
    Orlando, FL
    yeah i would definately say its the best action movie of the summer =]
  9. Bernie Connors

    Bernie Connors Supporting Member

    Apr 2, 2002
    Indiana, USA
    Yeah it was good. Definitely left it open for another one. Lots of questions to be answered.

    Today I'm off to see LXG. Woohoo!
  10. WillPlay4Food

    WillPlay4Food Now With More Metal! Supporting Member

    Apr 9, 2002
    Orbiting HQ
    I feel the whole movie should've been compressed into the first hour, then concentrated on the real "Rise of the Machines" for the second half of the movie. Guess they left that for T4.

    Personally, I thought the plot was a rehash of T2, only the inevitable finally comes. The action was good, but someone needs to write some new one liners for Arnold.
  11. lumankicks

    lumankicks Guest

    Jun 12, 2003
    Okay, I'll be a kill joy.

    If your a fan of the Terminator series like I am, you will be severely disapointed. They took the story line of the first two films and stuck in a blender basically and chopped the whole story line of the series.

    I did like the ending, the action sequences where good as well, but I don't consider it a Terminator movie, b/c it completly contradicts the first two story line wise. Me, I'd give it a C+. Its okay, better than some films I've scene come out lately, but it just can't hold a candle to anything James Camron done.

    And the guys acting wasn't great either.



    Jun 1, 2003
    Orlando, FL
    i'd be interested to know how it goes against the first two story wise, i thought it fit quite well
  13. lumankicks

    lumankicks Guest

    Jun 12, 2003
    Several things 1) how can he be the military leader and savior of humanity when he's dead? The third protector sent said he killed him in the future.

    2) Exactly how would a computer system like that exist without a mainframe? Especially when in the first Terminator they smashed there defense grid which is what I THOUGHT in the mainframe?

    Kyle Reese: "We smashed there defense grid. We won..." Terminator (1984)

    3) If the woman in T3 played such a large role in defending the world, how come we just now hear about her?

    4) Why didn't any of the Terminators blow up like Arnold's power packs did when they where crushed or melted in the first two movies? After all Arnold is still the same Model 101. And don't forget that the T-1000 sent a metal bar right through him in T2, that would've set off those power packs.

    5) How exactly and why exactly did they include the Buzzsaw scene? That was just rediculous. (doesn't go against the story line, but still my main pet peeve!)

    6) Exactly HOW does a computer program of this magnitude create and let out a virus that disrupts the WHOLE WORLD? No computer virus to my knowledge is capable of such a feat. And surely they would take certain systems off the internet to prevent it from corrupting them?

    7) The military is supposed to go completly unmanned, yet surprisingly never really does. I can accept this as a result of the actions in T2, but they need to explain it better.

    8) Why would he go to such great lengths in the first two films to teach everyone "No Fate but what we make" (which the phrase originally came from John Conner, check out T1, the bridge scene where Kyle is giving Sarah a message from her son from the future), only to decide that you can't escape fate in the end of the third film?

    All of these questions and more completly disrupt the plot points of the whole series. And these are just the ones I can remember from my viewing of the movie over a week ago. Its got great action, but it goes agianst the whole plot of the whole series. James Camron definitly should have directed it, would've made the movie a whole lot better (and he would've taken out the points that disrupt the plot of the series).

  14. BassWizard55

    BassWizard55 Guest

    Dec 21, 2002
    Rome, Ga
    I thought it was just a tad silly. I mean, come on, TX could remotely control cars? I don't think so. Autos are still dependant on the labor of the foot and hand, they are not controled by computers like the story portrayed. And the scene where T101 was reprogramed by TX is extremely silly too. If a computer is programed to do something, it can't contradict itself. It was almost like he was trying to do the moral thing, veeery silly.

    I also don't think TX was terrifying enough. At least not nearly as much as T1000, or Arnold in the first movie. She's a damn hot woman, didn't really work out as a villan.

    The movie just didn't have the fear the other two induced in you.
  15. mycranium

    mycranium Guest

    May 6, 2003
    Los Angeles, CA
    First of all, I don't mind anyone enjoying this or any other movie. What follows is my own opinion, so don't take it personally if you liked T3.

    I thought Terminator 3 was complete garbage. There was nothing interesting about it at all. The "plot" was just a diluted rip-off of the second one with some half-a$$ed references to lines from the original movie. Arnold, formerly bad, goes back to protect John Connor from uber-terminator. Lots of chasing and destruction follows. Arnold destroys himself along with the uber-robot. Woo hoo, that's dramatically compelling fer shuurrr. Oh, and the crap about how they stopped the specific incidents in the past which lead to Skynet's creation but couldn't stop mankind's general move toward that destiny was kind of neat, but what it really does is give the filmmakers license to invalidate anything they've set up in the world of the movie at any time. They can justify ANY violation of anything set up in any previous movie now. I can't believe how pathetically lazy the writing was for this movie.

    Claire Danes's character starts out with some promise, but is quickly reduced to being the simpering drag-along chick cliche. Nick Stahl actually looks like he could be the offspring of Lnda Hamilton and Michael Biehn, unfortunately he also looks exactly like Dr. Bashir from Star Trek: Deep Space 90210 (which is not a good association to have in mind while watching anything).

    Arnold's line delivery sucks - it's like he got the script right before they started filming. There's a difference between delivering lines robotically (which he has done well in the past) and delivering robotic lines badly (which he does in this movie).

    The TX was completely uninteresting. There were lots of ways they could have made her frightening, but the old "It's indestructible! It'll never stop" thing is f***ing played out. They didn't even take advantage of her good looks!

    Couple of examples of lazy writing and plot holes:

    The police psychologist who counsels Claire in the graveyard wasn't even in the police station when Arnold destroyed it in the first movie. So they sacrificed continuity of action from movie to movie for the sake of a weak gag. Way to respect the mythology, dudes!

    How would Arnold know about the weapons cache in the cemetary? He's not the same robot as in two, and Sarah Connor died of Leukemia before this particular robot was captured and re-purposed. He was re-programmed by the future Claire Danes, how would she know about the location of the weapons? Even John Connor didn't know.

    I understand how this film would be entertaining to action junkies and teenagers, but after seeing so many action films that have no compelling dramatic arc, I'm a bit jaded about a series of over-the-top action scenes with nothing interesting to support them. I mean, did anyone ever feel that there was any possibility that Claire and Nick would survive? Given that the movie is titled "Rise of the Machines," and given that they were only beginning to rise late in the movie, was there any sense that it would be possible to avert the outcome? To me it seemed obvliously "No" and "No." I'd be much happier with a smaller scale of destruction if the filmmakers would create some dramatic tension so I felt like there was something at stake. But that's why action movies keep getting bigger and more violent - the people making them don't create the sense that anything's at stake for the characters, so they try to compensate with bigger action. It's a diminishing-returns scenario.

    For f**k's sake, if they can spend 200 million on making a movie, how come they can't put together a decent script? Seems like that would be the EASY part of making a movie. But they don't write scripts to have interesting stories and then find cool ways to show it. They write from a standpoint of "Wouldn't it be cool if Arnold carried a coffin while shooting a machine gun" and then try to string a bunch of those kind of scenes together with the thinnest "story" they can barf out.

    This movie is a pale, disappointing rip-off of the excellence of the first two movies. If I could make a robot go back in time, I'd have it prevent the making of this wretched waste of time. If you're on the fence about seeing this movie, do yourself a favor and rent the first two instead.

  16. Wrong Robot

    Wrong Robot Guest

    Apr 8, 2002

    Yeah, that got me too :meh: oh well.


    Jun 1, 2003
    Orlando, FL
    well say what you want... but there is one absolute goodness about the movie that noone can deny, and that is the great eye candy kristanna loken (the T-X) is :D
  18. In terms of entertainment value, I thought the movie was wonderful.
    In terms of it being a good movie, I thought it was horrible.

    Sure, the point of movies is to entertain, but I'm not a big fan of senseless entertainment. I like entertainment that makes me think, like Fight Club. The first Matrix movie was ok, too. But this...not only did I not have to do any thinking at all to understand it, but the acting and script were pretty crappy.

    In all, I give it about a 5/10.