(March 12, 2014 at 3:11 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: Terminator 2 is an interesting example, because not only was killing him unnecessary...Did she know that?
As I remember, the only thing the Terminator told her was that Dyson invented the chip. He didn't say what Dyson's motive was. For all she knew, he could have been enthusiastic about creating killer robots for the Pentagon. Her near psychotic rant about "men like you created the atom bomb" indicated that she was doubtful about his motives. Just a question about sci-fi canon.
Quote:...Dyson's work could have been taken up by others (indeed, was, according to the sequels I hate and refuse to acknowledge as canon)...Off topic rant but I remember how I wanted my time back after "Terminator 3". I watched T2 right afterwards, just to take in the contrast (kind of like Star Wars and the prequels). T3 was a study in how not to make a sci fi movie:
- Arnold Schwartzenegger was the greatest actor they had on the set.
- Where Skynet's motive was understandable in T2 (the humans paniced and tried to pull the plug and therefore Skynet concluded that all humans were the enemy) the Skynet of T3 just started killing humans just because. It's always better when your villain has a well-understood motive, even when the villain is a machine.
- Too many continuity gaffes
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
