Terminator 3 vs. Terminator Salvation

Tools    





All i can say this, terminator salvation is a perfect example about bad bad film making....if that even says it all...



Why do u guys think terminator 3 failed in??? Maybe it didn t have the scope of two, maybe because james cameron isn t there to direct..



ᱬWanda Maximoff-Scarlet WitchᱬElizabeth Olesnᱬ
well to me i prefer T1 and T2 judgement day

__________________
https://youtu.be/M-7QBR6hugc Wanda Maximoff-Scarlet Witch -Elizabeth Olsen
https://youtu.be/78oLEoy5Npo Natasha Romanoff-Black Widow-Scarlett Johansson
https://youtu.be/0LXhnd-CMrQ Agatha Harkness-Kathryn Hahn
https://youtu.be/4E880wNeB2g Yelena Belova-
Florence Pugh
https://youtu.be/V8BhIsWTGUI Clint Barton-Hawkeye-Jeremy Renner
https://youtu.be/Zy66zOMkGsM Loki Lufeyson-Tom Hiddleston



\m/ Fade To Black \m/
Salvation for me. I canít stand T3
__________________
~In the event of a Zombie Uprising, remember to sever the head or destroy the brain!~



The doors of wisdom are never shut. - 'Socrates'
If i was forced to pick one out of these two then it would be Salvation. It at least tried to do something different with the franchise.
__________________
Did you know that Blue Harvest was the fake working title to hide the 1982 production of Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi.



Registered User
I liked the idea in T3 that Judgment Day was actually inevitable and that the whole movie was about getting people to where they needed to be to fight the war. John Connor stumbled into an old command center and became a default communication node when the nukes launched, which explains how he was positioned into a leadership role in the crisis. T2 was rather insipid in its plucky message, "There's no fate, but what we make!" T3 gets the universe back on track a bit by establishing that the storm is, in fact, coming.



There should have never been a sequel to the original Terminator. The film was complete.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I liked the idea in T3 that Judgment Day was actually inevitable and that the whole movie was about getting people to where they needed to be to fight the war. John Connor stumbled into an old command center and became a default communication node when the nukes launched, which explains how he was positioned into a leadership role in the crisis. T2 was rather insipid in its plucky message, "There's no fate, but what we make!" T3 gets the universe back on track a bit by establishing that the storm is, in fact, coming.



There should have never been a sequel to the original Terminator. The film was complete.
This is what people say about The Matrix as well, that there should have never been a sequal, but that movie, and the first Terminator, both ended, with too be continued type endings though, intended for sequels, so how can people say that there shouldn't have been sequels to such movies, when they were set up that way?



Registered User
This is what people say about The Matrix as well, that there should have never been a sequal, but that movie, and the first Terminator, both ended, with too be continued type endings though, intended for sequels, so how can people say that there shouldn't have been sequels to such movies, when they were set up that way?

The Terminator ends at just the right moment. It closes the loop of the circle. There's nothing about the first film that indicates that we don't know what happens next. We've seen what happens next in Reese's flashbacks and exposition. What happens next is that we start the movie over again. The film does not, by my lights, communicate any intention or need for more. On the contrary, the film has perfect closure.



Perhaps the intention of which you speak is not in the film but the filmmaker? I don't know that James Cameron made that film with any intention to do more at the time that he made it. And even if he did, I don't know that his private intention has any bearing on whether the film should've had more--at least, not in any artistic sense (e.g., if you own the property you have a legal right to make more, but that doesn't mean that the world needs it).



Welcome to the human race...
It seems a bit of a stretch to describe the ending of 2 as "plucky" simply for entertaining the slightest possibility of hope amidst a still-uncertain future (especially compared to the deleted original ending that unambiguously shows an older Sarah and John living happily ever after) and 3 doesn't become better simply by ending on such a fatalist downer note (especially since it's capping off a fairly weak arc for John, who spends much of the film being such a passive/reluctant hero that him stepping up to accept his destiny as a resistance leader comes across as too little, too late). That it and subsequent sequels never really figured out what to do with him as a character is very telling.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



People here know I unabashedly love Terminator 3, so that one.
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!



Registered User
It seems a bit of a stretch to describe the ending of 2 as "plucky" simply for entertaining the slightest possibility of hope
I think it is. "There is no fate but what we make," is the mantra of the whole film. What's more plucky than that?

T2 play's Tony Stark to T1's Captain America



T2 would "just cut the wire" of causality. The film is plucky in that it defies the closed logic loop of T1, which is self-completing. T2, with it's open structure of causality, is much more obviously implicated in causal paradoxes (changing the future and the past) and if you think you can beat logic, you're definitely plucky. With T1, on the other hand, Sarah is galvanized, transformed, prepared to meet the oncoming storm.

Where T1 gives us, Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It canít be bargained with. It canít be reasoned with. It doesnít feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead. T2 gives us







3 doesn't become better simply by ending on such a fatalist downer note
Better than T2? Overall? No. Of course not. But that's not the central claim, is it? T2 is a least a competent, if mindless, action film. However, it is good that T3 "closes the loop."



T2 just may be the most boring well made, action packed film in the history of film.


Ive watched it three times, at different times in my life, and it always is just a lifeless bit of noise. Has none of the slick and gloomy dread of the original, which was that one's selling point.


As for the question, that was the end of Terminator movies for me



Welcome to the human race...
T2 play's Tony Stark to T1's Captain America
WARNING: "Avengers: Endgame" spoilers below
This comparison is really funny considering that Tony Stark is the one who kills himself to save the day and Steve Rogers is the one who defies time travel logic to live happily ever after with Peggy Carter.


T2 would "just cut the wire" of causality. The film is plucky in that it defies the closed logic loop of T1, which is self-completing. T2, with it's open structure of causality, is much more obviously implicated in causal paradoxes (changing the future and the past) and if you think you can beat logic, you're definitely plucky. With T1, on the other hand, Sarah is galvanized, transformed, prepared to meet the oncoming storm.
There's a difference between the characters thinking they can change things and the reality of the film's world confirming that they can (which is why I pointed out the differences between the original and theatrical endings). I'd contend that T3 implicates itself by explicitly confirming that the events of T2 did ultimately disrupt the timeline enough to keep Judgment Day from happening in 1997.



Registered User
There's a difference between the characters thinking they can change things and the reality of the film's world
We are the characters. If they believe it, we believe it. A desperate fight against an unstoppable heartless robot heralding the dawn of a nuclear apocalypse is a bit more menacing than our heroes singing a chorus of free will (there is no fate but what we maaaaaaake!) and domesticating murder bots into pets ("He'll live").

I'd contend that T3 implicates itself by explicitly confirming that the events of T2 did ultimately disrupt the timeline enough to keep Judgment Day from happening in 1997.
You can't keep T2 in the continuity of the story (between T1 and T3) and not have damage remain. The damage to the logical circuitry is done. T3, however, does reset the tone of the proceedings; the future is not only inevitable, but there are several ways Skynet might spawn. There's no version of this where Dr. Strange sees a reality in which humanity does not have to run this gauntlet. Skynet is happening. The whole point of the film was to get our heroes in the starting position for the apocalypse. I like that twist. It returns us to the spirit of the original. Not only is "there a storm coming," but a storm of equifinality (e.g., a man about to die of a heart attack is killed in a car accident in the same moment that a car bomb under his car goes off), a logic that functions like fate.



Again, I would prefer for there to be only one Terminator film, so I am not lobbying for T3 to be put on some filmic Rushmore. All things considered, T2 > T3, but that's not the global comparison we're discussing here.



I liked Terminator Salvation much more then T3.