Just Watched Terminator 3:The Rise of The Machines...

[Nerull]

Actually, if you view the first movie, it seems to scream out "the future is set." It was like a big loop (send back Reece, conceive Conner, Conner grows up to send back Reece). Everything from the Polaroid photo on seems to indicate that the future is fixed, and all the time travel did was to ensure that it would happen anyway. If you read the book version (with scenes cut from the movie version), it is even more apparent. One of the parts that they cut out is Arnie cutting open the legs of the Sarah Conners he was killing, looking for pins put in the leg. The reason: there were medical records that Skynet got a hold of that stated that Sarah Conner had pins in her leg from an injury. However, the injury that causes this is the shard of the Terminator that goes through her leg at the end of the movie. Thus, the Terminator came back looking for an injury that its own presence in the past caused.

Personally, T2 was a really good movie, but I feel they could have left the original movie alone. It worked just fine as a single movie; many other movies out there that got sequels really didn't need them (Men in Black, Predator, Alien, etc.). Hollywood knows that people flock in droves to a sequel of a previous hit, so they just keep pumping them out. Is T4 supposed to (finally) show this big war in the future?

[Luvian]

When they said judgement day is inevitable, to me, they said:

"Human are a greedy war-mongering species, no mather what they do, they will end up creating weapons they can not control". That's why no matter how often they destroy the uncontrolable weapon (skynet) it just delay the inevitable.

As for John Connor, he is not destined to die. In fact, he got killed because of what happened in T2. In the T2, when they told what would happen, John Connor did survive and lead the human to victory. But when they stoped skynet in the past, it changed the future in T3, and John Conor was killed because of his love of the T-1000. I'm pretty sure that after the event of T3, he'll be more prudent and won't be killed.

[Gangrell]

Originally posted by Nerull: Personally, T2 was a really good movie, but I feel they could have left the original movie alone. It worked just fine as a single movie; many other movies out there that got sequels really didn't need them (Men in Black, Predator, Alien, etc.). Hollywood knows that people flock in droves to a sequel of a previous hit, so they just keep pumping them out.

Ok, I can agree with you about Predator, though I haven't seen MIB II, aren't you forgetting Freddy and Jason? They made far too many to actually have them be a popularity anymore.

But I don't understand (mainly because I haven't seen T3), but you mean that the storyline leads to T3 because they destroyed Skynet but it still didn't prevent the war of the machines. So, that means that it's creation is inevitable.

So confusing.

[Tancred]

Originally posted by Nerull: Actually, if you view the first movie, it seems to scream out "the future is set."

It may seem to, but that's because the first film seriously bungled the whole thing. Reece is told to tell Sarah that the fiture is not set, and he does; if that's not an obvious message, I don't know what is. T2 reinforces that message, heavily and thickly.

Oddly, I really do prefer T2 to the original. I think it's because of the villain. The T-1000 seemed to have something... I dunno. Something the T-X certainly lacks.