|
was the fact that it became almost like a comic book. I don't know how to describe it any better, but it just felt childish and often seemed to be going for the gags.
Another thing that I felt was ridiculous was the new Terminator. For example, the flamethrower/energybolt weapons and folding powersaw. On top of that was the fact that this new Terminator was so far in advanced of the Arnie Terminator that it was a major mismatch, but at the end of the movie it was killed easier than the very first Terminator!
But the biggest thing that killed the credibility of the movie was the fact that they fucked up the "science" of it. Consider: in the first movie a human and robot fight to protect and kill (respectively) the man who will become the leader of the resistance.
The outcome of this is that history is NOT changed. Thus in the second movie, it makes sense that the new terminators know what happened in the first movie, becuase they explain it via a paradox - the robot that came back is the root cause of the creation of the machines because its electronics were discovered and reverse engineered, while the humans lived to remember what happened and instruct one of the robots.
The problem arises at the end of the second movie: all of the electronics were destroyed so technically the machines could not have developed from it. Yet suddenly here we have the same machines doing the same things, and this is explained by the plot device that it is "destined" to happen and no matter how the past was changed the future would remain the same. So why send back the machines to try again?
It just doesn't make sense, which is one of the things that the first two movies were good at - although it is sci fi, it still seemed reasonable. But the third just reeks of silliness - changing the past doesn't change the future, thats why the robots were sent back to try and change the past etc etc etc..
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
