Fenwick said:

Dauphin said:

Oh definately, it was a plot that was adjusted to fit the screen. But since it DID happen the way it did, you have to fill in those "plot holes" with logical reasoning. Sometimes, plot holes require SO MUCH of a leap in logic. In this case, I don't think it takes that much. Obviously, the T-1000 decided to use Sarah as bait. That tactic didn't work, so he impersonated her (as you said). That didn't work, so he WAS going to kill her, but Arnold started blowing him away with a shotgun.

Somehow, in his programming, using Sarah as bait must have yeilded a higher probability of sucess in that environment.

It also goes back to the T-1000 as a foil for Arnold. If Arnold is capable of "evolving" to be a friend for John. Why can't all machines do the same? Well, as we see, the T-1000 was pretty "unsavable". That would hint that most machines would be bent on the destruction of humanity.

[Edited 8/13/10 8:57am]

NO - YOU ARE WRONG!!!!! (Obviously just kidding)

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Because I do view it is a MAJOR flaw that can't be explained away simply as a tactical manuever.

Heck tactically, if there was ONE person on the entire planet he could kill and assume the identity of to get to John it would be his mom. And when he finally gets the chance with his primary target, he decides on a new strategy?

Not buying it at all. You go on believing whatever hocus pocus you want to mister - I'm outta here!!!! (Hope you are laughing at my attempts at humor).....

isnt it possible that the terminator was damaged by all the explosions etc that Arnold's terminator struck it with, such that it wasn't able to morph anymore? huh? huh?

Another plot hole:

Liquid metal.

pls explain.

novabrkr said:

Another plot hole:

Liquid metal.

pls explain.

it must be this kind of thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_intelligence

ZombieKitten said:

My grandma took me to see Indiana Jones at the cinema because she believed me when I told her it was a movie for kids

well, it's a movie for kids...

regarding T2... been a while since I've seen it... but right after the "hasta la vista" scene, after the t-1000 has reformed... doesn't it take its sweet time walking, when it could have run... I guess you could say it was still repairing itself or something...

Also, there's no explanation for the being with 3 breasts.

JoeTyler said:

ZombieKitten said:

My grandma took me to see Indiana Jones at the cinema because she believed me when I told her it was a movie for kids

well, it's a movie for kids...

I wouldn't take any kid under the age of 8 to see Temple of Doom. And they got in trouble for that movie.

"In 1984, explicit violence and gore in the films Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Gremlins caused an uproar among parents over their PG rating.^[10][11] Their complaints led Hollywood figure Steven Spielberg, director of Temple of Doom and producer of Gremlins, to suggest a new rating to MPAA president Jack Valenti. Spielberg's suggestion was for an intermediate rating of PG-13 or PG-14.^[12] On conferring with cinema owners, Valenti and the MPAA on July 1, 1984, introduced the PG-13 rating indicating that some material may be inappropriate for children under 13."

ufoclub said:

JoeTyler said:

well, it's a movie for kids...

I wouldn't take any kid under the age of 8 to see Temple of Doom. And they got in trouble for that movie.

"In 1984, explicit violence and gore in the films Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Gremlins caused an uproar among parents over their PG rating.^[10][11] Their complaints led Hollywood figure Steven Spielberg, director of Temple of Doom and producer of Gremlins, to suggest a new rating to MPAA president Jack Valenti. Spielberg's suggestion was for an intermediate rating of PG-13 or PG-14.^[12] On conferring with cinema owners, Valenti and the MPAA on July 1, 1984, introduced the PG-13 rating indicating that some material may be inappropriate for children under 13."

+6/7 years old kids usually have a good time watching violent action/adventure movies...It's usually the parents, with their middle-aged crap and concers, who spoil the party for everybody else.

Hell, I remember watching Jurassic Park in theaters in 1993 (a PG-13 film), I was 7 years old at that time; there were A LOT of 4,5,6 and 7 years old kids with their parents) and they ALL enjoyed the film, they ALL applaused once the credits roll, they even LAUGHED when the T.Rex killed Gennaro in the toilet scene...

[Edited 8/14/10 11:28am]

The T1/T2 mess was further muddied by the awful Terminator Salvation. I frequent a well known movie site (far more often than I visit the org) and this conversation/debate has been going on for a decade. It will break out in the middle of a thread about pretty much any movie, too. People have gone way hardcore on it. Working in things like quantum mechanics, string theory and the "realities" of time travel. It's a big "WHATEVER!" for me. The first one is a just above B level classic (Cameron was not that far removed from his Roger Corman years at that point), the second would be freakin' great if Edward Furlong wasn't in it. All the other crap doesn't even cross my mind until someone brings it up.

The original SW trilogy justed started on Spike tv bout 20 minutes ago!!!

JoeTyler said:

ufoclub said:

I wouldn't take any kid under the age of 8 to see Temple of Doom. And they got in trouble for that movie.

"In 1984, explicit violence and gore in the films Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Gremlins caused an uproar among parents over their PG rating.^[10][11] Their complaints led Hollywood figure Steven Spielberg, director of Temple of Doom and producer of Gremlins, to suggest a new rating to MPAA president Jack Valenti. Spielberg's suggestion was for an intermediate rating of PG-13 or PG-14.^[12] On conferring with cinema owners, Valenti and the MPAA on July 1, 1984, introduced the PG-13 rating indicating that some material may be inappropriate for children under 13."

6/7 years old kids usually have a good time watching violent action/adventure movies...It's usually the parents, with their middle-aged crap and concers, who spoil the party for everybody else.

Hell, I remember watching Jurassic Park in theaters in 1993 (a PG-13 film), I was 7 years old at that time; there were A LOT of 4,5,6 and 7 years old kids with their parents) and they ALL enjoyed the film, they ALL applaused once the credits roll, they even LAUGHED when the T.Rex killed Gennaro in the toilet scene...

[Edited 8/14/10 11:28am]

I heard a kid crying during Jurassic Park back in 1993 during the T-Rex scene which is the best part of the movie in my opinion. All I'm saying is that some kids don't like it at all. Maybe more like under 5 years old?. I personally know a 4 year old boy and his mother made the mistake of showing them one of my short films that actually had the four year old in it. The short film is not appropriate for a kid that young, and in the end, even though it was a horror COMEDY, the little kid was sitting paralysized with wide eyes shaking.

I saw the same thing happen when a 3 year old saw the part in The Matrix when his mouth was made to disappear. The parents were like, it's The Matrix, it's okay. It's an action movie. I pointed out what was happening. He was literally shuddering and completely silent. They stopped it and had to talk to him. He was okay. But it was obviously not fun for him.

I remember hen I was 3 or 4 watching Hawaii Five-O with my parents and there was a scene where a bad guy beat up an innocent kidnap victim and crushed his glasses. I was very disturbed by it inside my head, but never offered a clue to my parents of my reaction. I just remember refecting on th eimage of the crushed glasses and feelinghow disturbing it was that a "nice" guy got beat down and had his glasses (handicapped to boot!) broken.

I think for certain kids at a certain age, watching movie violence is believable, and therefore the equivalent of an adult watching a execution video (like the entire series of Taliban execution videos of westerners that I watched one night linked right here on Prince.org, where they are chanting and sawing off people's head while they are alive). It made me sick in a wierd mental reaction of dread and repulsion... but I watched every single one.

I think I stopped being disturbed by normal cinema violence around the age of 7-8, and instead became fascinated by the effects. But to this day if a movie is skilled enough to create empathy and then show the violence in a realistic manner I am disturbed by it.

ufoclub said:

JoeTyler said:

6/7 years old kids usually have a good time watching violent action/adventure movies...It's usually the parents, with their middle-aged crap and concers, who spoil the party for everybody else.

Hell, I remember watching Jurassic Park in theaters in 1993 (a PG-13 film), I was 7 years old at that time; there were A LOT of 4,5,6 and 7 years old kids with their parents) and they ALL enjoyed the film, they ALL applaused once the credits roll, they even LAUGHED when the T.Rex killed Gennaro in the toilet scene...

[Edited 8/14/10 11:28am]

I heard a kid crying during Jurassic Park back in 1993 during the T-Rex scene which is the best part of the movie in my opinion. All I'm saying is that some kids don't like it at all. Maybe more like under 5 years old?. I personally know a 4 year old boy and his mother made the mistake of showing them one of my short films that actually had the four year old in it. The short film is not appropriate for a kid that young, and in the end, even though it was a horror COMEDY, the little kid was sitting paralysized with wide eyes shaking.

I saw the same thing happen when a 3 year old saw the part in The Matrix when his mouth was made to disappear. The parents were like, it's The Matrix, it's okay. It's an action movie. I pointed out what was happening. He was literally shuddering and completely silent. They stopped it and had to talk to him. He was okay. But it was obviously not fun for him.

I remember hen I was 3 or 4 watching Hawaii Five-O with my parents and there was a scene where a bad guy beat up an innocent kidnap victim and crushed his glasses. I was very disturbed by it inside my head, but never offered a clue to my parents of my reaction. I just remember refecting on th eimage of the crushed glasses and feelinghow disturbing it was that a "nice" guy got beat down and had his glasses (handicapped to boot!) broken.

I think for certain kids at a certain age, watching movie violence is believable, and therefore the equivalent of an adult watching a execution video (like the entire series of Taliban execution videos of westerners that I watched one night linked right here on Prince.org, where they are chanting and sawing off people's head while they are alive). It made me sick in a wierd mental reaction of dread and repulsion... but I watched every single one.

I think I stopped being disturbed by normal cinema violence around the age of 7-8, and instead became fascinated by the effects. But to this day if a movie is skilled enough to create empathy and then show the violence in a realistic manner I am disturbed by it.

completely agree, but I just want to remark that I talked about action/adventure movies; I think that a 5-6 years old kid can watch Indiana Jones, Die Hard, Jaws, Jurassic Park or whatever because action/adventure movies are supposed to be entertaining, movies where the bad guys (or the monster) are truly bad and/or cartoonish, and where you know the good guy is doing the "right" thing. And the violence in those movies is usually shown in an operatic manner, it kinda "flows" with the music, the editing, etc. In other words, it's "beautiful" violence (sort of ), nothing nasty or gonzo-like...

But of course, nasty thrillers or gore films should not be seen by 3-14 years old kids...

Biggest plot hole of all time, George Clooney playing me!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cerebus said:

The T1/T2 mess was further muddied by the awful Terminator Salvation. I frequent a well known movie site (far more often than I visit the org) and this conversation/debate has been going on for a decade. It will break out in the middle of a thread about pretty much any movie, too. People have gone way hardcore on it. Working in things like quantum mechanics, string theory and the "realities" of time travel. It's a big "WHATEVER!" for me. The first one is a just above B level classic (Cameron was not that far removed from his Roger Corman years at that point), the second would be freakin' great if Edward Furlong wasn't in it. All the other crap doesn't even cross my mind until someone brings it up.

Terminator: Salvation would have been a depressingly unwatchable movie were it for Sam Worthington's perofrmance. Having said that, it was still incredibly disappointing. I expected so much more with Christian Bale being in this movie, but he was so stiff in it. I thought that the TV series Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles did a better job of advancing the whole timeline of the Terminator saga than the T2/T3 movies, but it got canceled before it could really get going with the storyline.

But my biggest plot hole movies have to be Independence Day and Big Mama's House 2. The plot holes in Independence Day have been well doucmented, but In Big Mama's House 2, Martin Lawrence's character was going undercover in drag and went to a spa, where he subsequently got some hot stone treatment. Now at this point, wouldn't it have been obvious to the staff of the spa that Big Mama was fake and that it was a guy weraing a fat suit?

728huey said:

Terminator: Salvation would have been a depressingly unwatchable movie were it for Sam Worthington's perofrmance. Having said that, it was still incredibly disappointing. I expected so much more with Christian Bale being in this movie, but he was so stiff in it. I thought that the TV series Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles did a better job of advancing the whole timeline of the Terminator saga than the T2/T3 movies, but it got canceled before it could really get going with the storyline

Couple of points on that.

1) I agree about Bale. He's SO obsessed with method acting (as noted heavily in the special BluRay commentary w/ director McG), and knowing why a character blinks or twitches, that he just loses the best parts of the performance. However, his normal by-default-stone-face makes for great drama roles, even that of John Connor.

2) The T3 movie is so different that it really has to be considered an alternate time line, or a parallel universe. It never really fit into the whole scheme of things, and even James Cameron said T1 and T2 were the Terminator story in full, for him. T3 should have never been made.

3) Sarah Connor show did a good job, although it was slow on the upstart. It started to get a little twisted and confusing there for a bit. I agree that it could have went a couple of years and really developed the franchise a bit, and lead better into Salvation. The could have echoed each other and created a great synergy. I still love Salvation and watch it from time to time.

4) The problem w/ the Terminator franchise is that, like Superman or Batman, it now seems to be up for retelling and various interpretations at anyone's whim. A lot gets lost in translation, unfortunately. I felt like T:TSCC was going to go in a weird off shoot direction had it continued. I doubt anyone was really there to hone that stuff in and keep to the story line established in T1/T2. Cameron did a great job of writing a 4 hour story of time travel, changing the future, and subsequently effecting the whole world (and/or protecting it by certain technological evil). His ego is huge, but his story telling back then was really good.

The problem with time travel type situations is that, really, anything is possible, and that gives movie companies and television production studios card blanche to fuck things up. The same goes for a popular franchise where people are more interested in the lore of it, than the basis of how it all started. That's what annoys me about stuff like Smallville. I love Smallville, but it's so off center, it's not even Superman anymore. We'll never see Tom Welling in tights, which is fine (!), but it's truly an alternate universe.

kpowers said:

Biggest plot hole of all time, George Clooney playing me!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey Freeze...the heat is on...

Not a plot hole but a character issue:

Crimson Tide: When Hackman VOLUNTARILY releases his command to Denzel - that shit would never happen according to his character. If the military is all he has, as one of his chiefs of staff mentioned, then there's no way in hell he'd just simply "give up" his ship to some new booty, regardless of what military law he was in violation of. That scene should've had him kicking and screaming and forcibly removed from the com, especially since he needed to get a small 'army' of men to take back command from Denzel.

Other than that major issue, that was a great movie.

ufoclub said:

JoeTyler said:

well, it's a movie for kids...

I wouldn't take any kid under the age of 8 to see Temple of Doom. And they got in trouble for that movie.

"In 1984, explicit violence and gore in the films Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Gremlins caused an uproar among parents over their PG rating.^[10][11] Their complaints led Hollywood figure Steven Spielberg, director of Temple of Doom and producer of Gremlins, to suggest a new rating to MPAA president Jack Valenti. Spielberg's suggestion was for an intermediate rating of PG-13 or PG-14.^[12] On conferring with cinema owners, Valenti and the MPAA on July 1, 1984, introduced the PG-13 rating indicating that some material may be inappropriate for children under 13."

I was probably about 13 I definitely didn't think it was suitable for grandmas! That's interesting those movies were the catalysts.