Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. Please feel free to add your name the project participation list and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Article This article is a Article.

Contents

[edit] regarding the alternate versions (Sarah's behavior)

I stumbled across the following line: "While not a scene exactly, an explanation as to why Sarah attacks one of the wardens so violently during her escape with the broom handle is seen, showing two of the men attacking and harassing Sarah as to make her take her pills."

As I have just watched the "Ultimate Special Edition" of the movie I can add that she attacks this one guard so violently because there is a scene included in which he is licking her face after he has bonded to her bed. I don't know whether this scene is also in any other version. However, this is the best explanation for the behavior Sarah shows later on.

FYI the licking of the face scene is in all versions of this movie. Spazm 15:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

*The never-seen computer network, Skynet, was never mentioned in The Terminator. Skynet was introduced in the Now Comics series of the Terminator. Cameron liked the character and decided to include it as canon when he wrote T2.

This is not true. Skynet is infact mentioned in The Terminator. Reese states "Skynet new almost nothing of Connor's existence..." during the police interrogation.

[edit] Over the Top

The movie was made for approximately $100 million, and at the time was the most expensive movie ever made.
I somehow can not believe this was the most expensive movie made till 1991, 100$ million does not sound too much. For example I stumbled over the movie Metropolis just some minutes later and that cost about 200$ current million (I guess the USD has not decreased in its worth that much in the past 15 years), and I mean the 1927 film of course. -- Darklock 02:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

While far from a verifiable source, I can vouch that I remember hearing about T2 being the most expensive movie ever made back when it first came out. EVula 03:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Listen to the director's track. You will be suprised at how many times he will say what you are seeing is what really happened. That was a real explosion in the cyberdine building. That was a real truck turning over on the freeway. That helicopter that flew under the overpass, that actually happened. It's some pretty cool stuff.--God Ω War 05:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top

I have a question. Is there mercury in the T-1000's mimetic polyalloy?

In the article it says the movie cost $88 million, but the infobar on the right says the budget was $100 million. Shouldn't these numbers agree?

T2 is notable for having a record number of minor continuity errors

Is this a real documented record (if so, documented by whom?), or just rhetoric? -- Oliver P. 04:41 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

my vote: rhetoric. <G> -- Someone else 04:43 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Ah, thought it must be. :) Wasn't feeling bold enough to change it myself, though... -- Oliver P. 05:16 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Buck up and be on about it! There is much to boldly change of late, and not only in this particular essay<G> -- Someone else 05:35 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I believe the model is T-101 and the series number (i.e. serial number) is 800, not the other way around. But where did you find the reference to 800?

I can't remember any references to the number 800 off the top of my head, but in one of the films(I think the first), Reese says "the 600 series had rubber skin, we spotted them easily", or words to that effect, and I have seen several occurences of T-800 and T-101 used (confusingly) interchangably in the imdb's trivia/goofs pages for these films. Boffy b 23:45, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
The T-800 is "Cyberdyne Systems model 101" as quoted by Arnie to John Connor in the second film. Robert Patrick's charcter is the T-1000. I remember this from the time. --Ethikos 11:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


For the record, the never-before-seen footage had made it into a comic book version, though I grant that it doesn't qualify as footage. -- Kizor 20:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Someone had started writing the opening paragraph timelines using the present tense, as a clever homage to the way Arnold-Terminator narrates near-future events when talking to Sarah Conner. So I made that consistent throughout the opening section. Also I removed the continuity errors bit; without a reference it doesn't belong there, and certainly not near the top of the article. --jls 23 Mar 2005

  • maybe move the quotes to wikiquote? (clem 17:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC))

[edit] DVD Art

Is it possible that since this article was originally written in English, an English DVD artwork picture can be uploaded? Possibly moving the foreign language version into a link in the article or something, just to stay with consistency.

[edit] Please leave the incontinuity part alone.

The part which reads, "At one point during the end of the film the T-1000 tortures Sarah in order to attempt to get her to call to John. This makes little sense given the fact that this machine can copy anything it has touched. But perhaps the Terminator knew it wouldn't sound convincing enough, seeing as it doesn't appear to feel pain (except in the death scene), it would have a hard time simulating Sarah's voice in agony." Should be changed. I have attempted to do so and it seems have been over ruled. Please realize the self-defeated logic at use here-in by the poster of this bullet:

-"the terminator knew it wouldn't sound convincing because it doesn't feel pain..except in the death scene."

The continuity break is there and there is little justification for it. The logical result is that the Terminator 1000 violates the primary programming (kill Sarah Connor) in order to do something that it can do itself (use Sarah's voice to call for John). While this might make for a bit of cinematic melodrama it is in fact utter lunacy on the part of the writer.

I suugest it should read as follows:

  • At one point during the end of the film the T-1000 tortures Sarah in order to have her call to John. This makes no sense under the realization that the T-1000 has voice reproduction capabilities which includes the ability to reproduce painful outcries. The continuity of this scene breaks down even further as the T-1000 leaves Sarah alive in order to search for John after she does not comply and call for him.

Or something close to that....

I agree about that. --Admiral Roo 10:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
The T-1000's primary mission is to kill John, not Sarah. - Sikon 02:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Another possibility is that being frozen by liquid nitrogen in some way damaged the ability of the T-1000 to copy Sarah Connor's voice. I agree totally that not killing Sarah Connor when it had the chance makes little sense as she was actively protecting John throughout the movie. The fact the primary mission is to 'kill John' doesn't mean the T-1000 would spare her. Just look at the scene where Arnie almost kills the two thugs in the parking lot before John stops him. He says "I'm a Terminator" as justification for any killing. --Ethikos 12:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T3 and "no fate"

It was said in the article that T3 contradicted the "no fate" hypothesis. It doesn't, but the point people constantly miss (and blame the creators of T3 for ruining T2's "happy" ending) is that Skynet must exist in the future for the Terminators to be sent into the past, otherwise, a paradox would occur. Consider this:

  • if Skynet didn't exist, it wouldn't want to kill John;
  • therefore, Skynet wouldn't send the T-1000;
  • therefore, there would be no reason for John to protect himself;
  • therefore, John wouldn't send the T-800;
  • therefore, Sarah wouldn't know about Skynet's origins;
  • therefore, Cyberdyne would be left intact;
  • therefore, Skynet would exist.

As Skynet is necessary, we can assume that there is some sort of a Back to the Future-style "self-preservation effect" which prevents changes that would endanger the space-time continuum from ever happening. - Sikon 02:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to make this comment. If SkyNet never existed, the terminators never sent back in time, then a couple of things would happen. SkyNet would never exist, for it was the first terminator that gave Cyberdyne the idea for SkyNet. It was it's chip. Also, you left out the John Conner would never had been born, for Reese would never had been sent back. SkyNet caused John's birth by sending the first terminator back. - Geistson


Indeed, this is science fiction and the logic presented above would go against John's father being from the future, because Reese was sent back to protect John's mother... without him being sent back John would have never existed and he would have never been sent back. So the way Time Travel works in the Terminator Universe is not accurate to the way presented above.


There does seem to be a likely explanation for the course of events in regards to the time travel that no one has stated yet. Chances are that even without any interference, there would have been a Skynet and a Judgment day. In this first iteration there would have been no John Connor and Judgment day would have been later that in any of the films (say 2008 for instance). Someone else made trouble for Skynet in some way, necessitating the dispatch of the first Terminator. Kyle Reese was sent to stop it, and in the process of protecting an alternate target, met up with and got together with Sarah Connor. This led to John Connor's birth and an overshadowing of the original threat to Skynet. The second iteration is probably what we see in the first movie then, with its events pulling Judgment Day back to 1997. From then on, subsequent incursions make changes, but there are no fundamental paradoxes causing everything to unravel.

[edit] An apparent "contradiction"

Removed from the article:

"This theory is contradicted because August 29, 1997 is the date Kyle Reese gives Sarah Connor for Judgement Day, without research on Terminator parts taking place. Afterwards, research IS carried out on the original T-800's CPU and severed forearm, which would resolve to make Skynet and thus Judgement Day occur sooner. There is a 2 year window between when those parts are destroyed (1995, the time setting of the 2nd film), and Judgement Day (1997), which can be used to explain this paradox again and prolong Judgement Day. However, in the second film, the T-800 proceeds to explain about Miles Dyson and the developement of Skynet, indicating that it is at least 3 years before Skynet is developed. That was 1995, and the only thing so far in the story to affect Skynet is the accelerated research occuring from the study of recovered T-800 parts, making the earliest possible date for J.D. now 1998. So, in effect, the paradox explains ITSELF in that it actually takes LONGER for Skynet to develop with Cyberdyne Systems researching futuristic parts, rather than simply inventing them themselves. This solves the paradox, while adding an element of disbelief that it would actually take longer through reverse engineering to engineer Skynet."

The T-800 tells Sarah the same date as Reese: August 29, 1997. Also, T2 took place in a different timeline than T1; since in the T1 timeline Skynet was designed using the remains of the first T-800, it changed the future and the information Reese had about Skynet. Therefore, in T2 Reese and the Terminators came from the same timeline and had the same information about the date of Judgment Day. So there is no contradiction. - Sikon 11:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


There is no suggestion in T1 that anything has changed. The events form a closed causal loop, contrary to what Skynet wanted.
On the timeframe thing, I don't recall Kyle Reese giving a date for Judgment Day. However, in T2 the T-800 does indeed give the date in August 1997 to John. In the very same scene he tells John that this is over three years in the future. Thus, T2 takes place in 1994, not 1995 as is sometimes claimed. Metamagician3000 00:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
T2 implies that the movies take place in a mutable timeline, so no causal loops, every event must have a primary cause and cannot be its own cause (although it may seem so). - Sikon 11:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The Terminator gives August 9th, 1997 as the date for Judgement Day while driving in the station wagon with John and Sarah. He explains to them that this is the date JD will occur unless they take action to stop it. If John were born in 1985, he would be 12 at the time of JD, far to young to be the leader of an armed resistance. You can claim that he was 44 (which he would be in 2029) at the time he became leader, but that leaves a 32-year gap of unexplained events.
  • The timeline Reese gives in T1 is meaningless, because the events of T2 either stopped JD completely, or altered when and how it would happen (depending on if you regard T3 as cannoical). Reese's birth could have happened at a different time and place than is sgguested in T1, simply because the entire timeline was adjusted by the evnts of T2. --64.36.17.218 09:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
But more importantly all this is unsourced original research. We could debate the logic of time travel forever, but wikipedia isn't the place to do it. If you've got sources that have analyses this, by all means quote them, but doing our own calculations and philosophising is forbidden on WP. Ashmoo 05:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Connor's Age

The article says that he's supposed to be 10 years old. I find this a bit young...cite? (I always thought it was more around 13)JD79 14:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem with Johns age is the fact theat that T1 and T3 take place in the years they are made in. Then T2 takes place three years after the movie was made thus being a possible explanation of the tree years til JD. This keeps his age at 10 or 11 not younger or older. [User:Anymous] 15;05, 11 January 2007


The following extract from the article is not true:

"The continuity of this scene breaks down even further as the T-1000 leaves Sarah alive in order to search for John after she does not comply and call for him."

The T-1000 does not leave Sarah alive as stated here, but is attacked by the T-800 because of which he turns and retaliates, ignoring Sarah.


Age:

Actually, John can only be nine in this movie! His birthdate in February 1985 does, indeed, flash on the screen early in the action. This means that he will not turn ten until February 1995. However, Judgment Day takes place in August 1997, and John is told by the T-800 that this is still more than three years away (i.e. Judgment Day takes place more than three years after the Dyson chip is released, which has not yet happened). Thus, T2 takes place no later than about mid-1994. The published script refers to John as being ten, but this seems to forget the nine months that Sarah was pregnant. It looks as if the events take place pretty much ten years after the events of T1 (one character says in T1 says that it's May 1984, which fits John being born nine months later in February 1985).

(T3 fudges all of this by retrospectively making John at the time of T2 considerably older than he could possibly be in the established timeline of T1 and T2.)

However, as someone has already noted, there is no problem about the fact that John becomes a leader. He is 12 at the time of Judgment Day, and grows up afterwards. He is close enough to 45 during the 2029 scenes, old enough to be a veteran warrior and to have risen to lead the humans.

Metamagician3000 12:04, 23 December 2005

The problem is this: John would be 44 years old in 2029, but he would be only 12 when Judgement Day occurs. That leaves 32 years (1997-2029) where he's doing god-knows-what. Los Angeles would be a target for Skynet's nuclear launch, so how comes John doesn't die on JD, what's he doing for 32 years before he becomes leader, and how did he get to be leader?

The suggestion in both T1 and T2 is that Sarah planned to flee across the border to Mexico (and possibly even further south?), to avoid being nuked on Judgment Day. In fact, we know he spent some time in the jungles of Central America (I'm now not sure how clearly this is shown in the movie itself, as opposed to the script) in between the events of T1 and T2. So in the "original" order of events, in which Judgment Day happens in August 1997, John is not in LA when it is hit by Russian nuclear warheads. There is obviously a lot of scope here for the depiction of events between Judgment Day and 2029, but we learn nothing in much detail about this in T1 and T2 -- and it is not really relevant to T3, which takes a different approach. However, we do know that John emerges as a leader well after Judgement Day, after Skynet's machines have been built, have taken over, and have even created extermination camps for the surviving humans ... and he teaches the humans how to fight back. (Some novels written for the Terminator franchise have explored the events of these 32 years further. I expect that future Terminator movies might also explore the events in John's life after T3's version of Judgment Day, though John is much older at the time of Judgment Day in this version.) Metamagician3000 04:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any indication in either film - especially the first - that there is a definitive plan to flee south of the border. It's obvious that Sarah didn't intend for John and the T-800 to follow her back to Dyson's residence during T2, and that she had wanted them to stay in Mexico with her contact, but there's no way to know where they would have gone from there had they stayed and Sarah had not returned. In addition, keep in mind that until John and the T-800 free her during the 2nd film, Sarah is in state custody, has on several occasions unsuccesfully attempted to escape and that John is convinced she is insane. Had the T-800 not show up, John probably would have stayed in foster care, convinced that his mother was dellusional, and died during the Skynet nuclear strike on Los Angeles, so even if Sarah did have an escape plan, it was moot until she was freed from Pescadero, and was changed immediately because of the information given to her about Judgement Day and Dyson. All of this becomes moot by the end of the film though, because as far as the storyline of the first 2 films is concerned, JD gets stopped when Dyson dies and the research is destroyed.


I do think that we should avoid getting bogged down in these supposed "plot holes", or whatever they are. The movies give us some hints about possible answers, but I agree that I lot of it is moot. OTOH, because there are hints of answers (e.g., one way or another, John could have been somewhere south of the border on Judgment Day), these potential problems are not really holes or errors, just things that are left not fully explained ... it's always possible to come up with possible answers based on the hints. It's not much use swapping theories about what "would have happened if" in the part of John's life story that we are not shown. Although it's fun, I think it's more for a fan site than an encyclopedia. The only serious problem that I see is that John just can't be more than 9, but looks and acts older. I think we just have to accept this as a bit of licence taken by the moviemakers.

Then we get T3, of course, which retrospectively changes his age and the whole timeframe that T1 and T2 have established with at least a degree of care. There really are serious and unresolvable continuity problems between T1/T2 (on one hand) and T3, but that is another issue, not relevant to this article. If it were up to me, I'd drastically cut back the material in this article on plot holes, or whatever. However, there seems to be a general view that something is required here, and I don't want to vandalise other people's hard work. So, I've just expressed these opinions for others to consider and left it for someone else. :) Metamagician3000 09:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that these holes exist, or at least that certain people regard them as being plot holes. However, one thing I think needs to be removed from this article is any reference to "fixes" that T3 may have provided for some of those plot holes. As far as I'm concerned, the happenings of T3 should be adressed in that article.


In T3 it is clearly stated 'when I (John Connor) was 13, they (the terminators) tried again (to kill him)'. Raystorm 15:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


T3 is full of BULLSH!T. JOHN IS 10 for T2 - FACT shown by the police computer T-1000 looks at in T2. I don't give a rats rip what Mostow had to say because Ed Furlong did not look Ten. HE WAS 10, END OF DISCUSSION

[edit] Linda/Leslie Roles

I've tried to locate a corroberating interview on-line for this, but have been unable to do so. Last time I watched the DVD version of this film (I'll verify which version, I believe it was the Extreme Edition) the commentary notably mentioned something that this article may have wrong: Linda played the 'T1000 Fake' in the climatic scene of the film. Linda's explanation (which I can't quote perfectly from memory) was that as the filming went on, Sarah Connor was becoming more and more like a Terminator, more ruthless and emotionless. And as she'd had so much experience doing this during filming, she had a hard time actually acting the part of the emotional 'mother rescueing her son' in that scene, and ended up actually playing the part of the T1000 fake, her sister Leslie being the Sarah Connor that actually rolls up the conveyor belt. Can anyone out there verify if this is correct? And if so, kindly correct the article?

According to Ultimate Edition, the T-1000 version of Sarah was played by Linda. Rd232 talk 23:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Speculation"

The additions to the plot holes section that keep getting removed are not speculation, their issues not fully adressed by the film, they belong in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by anon IP (talk • contribs) 17 February 2006.

The issues may not be fully addressed, but the speculation in question [1] is a waste of time to the extent it isn't just wrong; and certainly none of them are "plot holes" (as the section title in the article says). For instance speculating how John got from living in an LA suburb in 1995 to becoming leader of the post-apocalypse resistance is pointless: we know he did (because otherwise Skynet wouldn't have sent back the time-travellers) but the film doesn't tell us how. Speculating that Sarah wouldn't have escaped between 1995 and 1997 is pointless (and in the film, she was on the verge of doing so alone, had the terminators not shown up). Describing John as "well grounded into his life in foster care" is plain wrong - there's every indication he'd be willing and able to run away from his family by 1997, to who knows where. None of this speculation adds to the article. Rd232 talk 09:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate the points with you other than to say that I disagree. There are numerous variables that could occur in the 32 years before John becomes leader and it's obvious that Sarah's solo escape attempts were worthless endeavours - she could never succeed in getting out. These issues are plot holes in that the film fails to give us a complete picture about the development of the war, it's impossible to view John as a leader when he;s only 12 years old, there had to be many things that changed about him in the 32 years.

You don't seem to understand the time travel element - "numerous elements that could occur" yes, but we know the end outcome. (I know a hamburger when I see one, but I don't need to speculate on whether the cow was happy.) And "it's obvious that Sarah's solo escape attempts were worthless endeavours" is (a) wrong - the attempt we see in T2 looks likely to succeed if no terminators had been involved - (b) irrelevant - her not getting out doesn't necessarily prevent John becoming the leader (it's perfectly plausible for that to happen whilst she remains stuck in hospital til 29 August 1997). Rd232 talk 10:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
In regards to Sarah's escape attempts, I don't see how you can just pan the point as "wrong". If the Terminator and John hadn't shown up, she would have been subdued in the hallway by Dr. Silberman's "goons" via sedative (they were about to inject her) and she would have been carted back to her room. Her getting out of Pescadero only occured because they were there to aid her. There's not much speculation neccesary to see that she wasn't going anywhere without help. In regards to John becoming leader, the whole thing hinges on the success of the mission in T2, without meeting the T-800 and realizing his mother isn't insane, he never would have persued the path of leader, and it's fair to assume that he would have died on Judgement Day because without having met the T-800, he wouldn't have believed that it was going to happen. I'll conceed that the 32 year gap is unimportant, because as far as the story of the first 2 films is concerned, it's no longer going to happen because JD has been stopped.
Sorry, but... You're wrong about Sarah's escape attempt: recall that the elevator opened in time for her to escape the 'goons', but she fled towards them because the Terminator came out of it. You're wrong to say "without meeting the T-800 and realizing his mother isn't insane, he never would have persued the path of leader..." - no basis for saying that, as if he survives Judgement Day (and by timetravel fact we know he does, though not the circumstances) he knows she was right! Rd232 talk 00:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You're only speculating yourself that had she made it into the elevator she would have gotten away, she may have been captured on another floor of the building or in the parking lot (keep in mind that there was a guard at the gate who was only subdued via being shot by the T-800) or she might have been picked up by the police later on. I maintain that her escape hinged on the T-800s presence. Even if she had escaped and reached John, again, you're only speculating that John would have gone anywhere with her. He tells his friend near the ATM that he thinks she's "tottally nuts" because she tried to destroy Cyberdyne, he obviously does not believe in the existence to the Terminators or Judgement Day, it's only his encounter with the T-800 that convinces him of this truth. His encounter with the T-800 in the second film is the catalyst that sets up the timeline toward his leadership, and that timeline is squashed (as far as the first two films are concerned) when the Cyberdyne facility is destroyed and Dyson is killed in the explosion. So if anything, the events of T2 effectivly end any possibility of him becoming leader. This opens up another plot hole, that by sending the T-1000 back in time to kill John, prompting his future self to send back the T-800 as protection, the machines effectively destroy their own future existence, the same way that John creates his existence by sending Kyle back in the first film. John's becoming leader was enevitable after the end of T1, it's only the timeline between his childhood and his becoming leader we are unaware of, but that timeline and his eventual succession to leader is destroyed by the events of T2 - he never becomes that leader because Judgement Day is averted.
I never said I thought Sarah would get away, merely that it was speculation to say that she wouldn't have without the intervention of the T-800. Equally, it's speculation that John wouldn't have become leader without her assistance. Rd232 talk 00:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Paradoxes" section (removed from the article)

Reposting here.

There are a few paradoxes in the Terminator storyline (assuming a single-timeline model of time travel). If the Terminator did destroy Cyberdyne and Skynet, he and the T-1000 would never have come into existence. Also, if the Terminators succeeded in killing John Connor, there would no longer have been a reason for them to have been sent back in time to kill John Connor.

However, by adopting the multiple timelines model, the paradoxes mentioned can be resolved. In fact, the entire Terminator series demonstrates the 'NO FATE' hypothesis, by suggesting that Sarah, John and the T-800 changed the future. So when they blow up Cyberdyne, they end up in a timeline different from the one Cyberdyne's Skynet existed in.

Fortunately, John is not killed throughout the movie, so the paradox that would have occurred had he been killed never comes into being. Also, since Skynet and the Terminators must exist in timelines following the destruction of Cyberdyne, it must still be developed by someone else without using the cybernetic arm and processor chip. There are two theories to explain Skynet's creation.

The first theory assumes that the United States Defense Department, the ultimate developer of Skynet, is also its original developer - the same one that created it in the very first timeline, in which the Terminator and Reese did not appear in the past, John Connor had a different father, and Judgment Day occurred later than 1997 (it took longer because there was no future technology on which to base the research).

The second theory says that the new Skynet development could be based on the second T-800's severed forearm, which John and Sarah neglect to recover and destroy.

Thankfully for the timeline in general, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines satisfactorily answered most of these questions. Also, it may be postulated that SkyNet, being an advanced computer, may have realized the chance of paradox, and programmed the T-1000 to contact SkyNet once the relevant dates of time travel were reached, hence sending back the necessary Terminators (however, how to find Kyle Reese and change his memory would be a much more complicated endeavor).

It also stands to reason that since John sent his true father back in time to impregnate his mother, when the machine future is changed, John could never send his father back in time, and would therefore never be born, creating another causality parodox.

- Sikon 15:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mossberg?

I coulda sworn Sarah Connor wields a Remington 870? --Cancun771 14:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I just watched the scene where she tries to blow the T1000 into the molten steel with multiple shotgun blasts and the weapon she was using was definitely not a Mossberg 500. If it's a Remington, I have yet to see it in that configuration.

I'd bet money that it's a Franchi SPAS-12.

--Wulfe 08:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fifth Weapon ?

In the production section, it states that the T-800 uses four weapons. What about the gun he uses to shoot the T-1000 full of holes while it is driving the tanker truck? Looked like an AR-15, but I haven't seen the movie in awhile.

[edit] Why Schwarzenegger good

Would it be Wikipedia:Original research to say that in this movie, the terminator is a good guy because the career of Schwarzenegger had advanced and he wouldn't play villains?

Yes, unless you can find a 3rd party reliable source who has stated it. Ashmoo 05:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What did you mean by unsourced weasel words?

I posted this twice, and it's been removed for this particular reason stated in the heading. In the first movie, the Terminator's left eye is damaged by Michael Biehn's character, and eventually loses his left arm. In this movie, the Terminator loses his right eye while fighting Robert Patrick's character, and also loses the left arm again. Some fans consider it poetic.

See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Basically, it means a person feels you're adding personal insight/opinions into the article and adding the weasel word "some fans" to cover it up. In this case, "some fans" wouldn't be an authority on the subject anyway, and unless you have a specific source for the statement, it doesn't belong in the article. - Bobet 18:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] plot holes

jesus christ!!!!!just enjoy the film and give credit to its makers!!

[edit] August 29, 1997

In the plot holes section the date of Judgment Day (August 29, 1997) is linked to the Wikipedia articles for August 29 and 1997. Why? Being as that this is the fictional date of Judgement Day within the context of the film, it's a date of significance in a fictional universe, while the pages being linked to discuss events that really happened. One doesn't have anything to do with another. The link provides no related or relevent information to readers of this article. The link should be removed. 65.120.75.6 16:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Tim

[edit] "Plot holes" section

I think this section needs to go altogether. It is 100% original research. --Hnsampat 18:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the bit about the "no fate" quote isn't original research; it simply is different between the first and second movies. The bit about time travel (the third item) is most certainly OR, and the first one (about the years)... yech, that's very borderline OR in my book. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The "no fate" quote is different between the two films, but to call it a plot hole is original research. There are tons of potential explanations for the difference (e.g. Reese not remembering the quote properly, Sarah changing the quote when she taught it to John, etc.) and attributing any explanation to it (such as by dismissing it as a plot hole) is original research. If we want to keep this tidbit, we need to incorporate it into the article elsewhere. The rest of the section needs to go (especially the third item).--Hnsampat 20:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be fine with documenting the comment elsewhere and scrapping the rest. For lack of a better place, I shifted it to the trivia and terminated the rest. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing template

I removed the {{Infobox movie certificates}} template. Why? It doesn't convey much information (the rating in two countries is hardly exhaustive), plus is severely screws up the article (shifting edit links around, causing text to reflow oddly around images). I'd rather see the information in it get moved to the body of the article, rather than this template. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Easter Eggs Mentioned

The section on the Extreme vs the Ultimate DVDs specifically outlines the Easter Eggs on the Ultimate version, but only vaguely mentions the Extreme version's Easter Eggs. I don't presonally care whether those are in there or not, but shouldn't either both be outlined or both excluded? I dunno, maybe I'm nuts. 68.102.179.135 04:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Director's Cut

While the Director's Cut is considered the definitive version by now, would it be worth mentioning what the differences are between it and the original theatrical cut? Some differences are mentioned here and there in the article, but not the full list. -- Annie D 06:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, be bold. :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/r/Talk%7ETerminator_2%7E_Judgment_Day_43a0.html"