(March 12, 2014 at 4:17 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:(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.
She didn't know, and as I pointed out, she had no real way to talk him out of it on her own. After all, she had been trying to tell people about what she knew about the future for years, and everybody thought she was crazy.
However, had she managed to convince the Terminator to accompany her on her mission, that would have changed everything (indeed, as it ended up doing). Where Sarah possibly crosses the moral line is that she doesn't even bother attempting to do this. She makes the unilateral decision that only killing Dyson can solve the problem.
Quote:mber 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
My disdain for it comes from the simple fact that the second movie pretty much wrapped everything up neatly. There was no need for a continuation of the story, especially when it ultimately invalidates most of what happens in the second movie (after all, the entire Dyson plot involves preventing the nuclear holocaust).
I never even bothered watching the last new one.
