Talk:Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines/Archive 1

Archive 1

Two questions

Shouldn't the article say the T-800 be a T-850? (I think the T-800 article should state the diffrences between the T-800 and the T-850). Someone put in the article that they mistakenly put in the movie that it is a modle 101. Terminator modles are what the exterior skin looks like, so even though it is a T-850, it is a modle 101, for it looks exactly (in the external skin) like that of the previous T-800's.

Second, I can't see any article on the upcomeing T-4. I know the movie is being made, I don't know when it will come out or what it's premis will be. Should thier be an article on T-4 so others can be updated without having to do extensive research on the movie for updates? Thanks. --Admiral Roo 18:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Furlong's absence?

Would it be inappropriate to mention the reason(s) why Edward Furlong didn't reprise his role as John Connor? The main rumor was that he was in drug rehab, but if that was just a rumor then it probably isn't something which should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John DiFool2 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Superfluous Pictures

I removed the pictures of the of the three cars and Anold holding Sarah's coffin; neither picture added anything to the article, and weren't particularly relevant to the paragraphs they were beside (surprise surprise, since it was just four images in a row). I also staggered them a bit, so it looks better. Hope nobody minds, but it was just bugging me. --EVula 20:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger dipping into his own pockets

In the trivia section of the article, it is stated that Arnold Schwarzenegger had to "dip into his own pocket ($6 million) to help fund the production of the movie". In the summary box however, it states that the budget for the movie (persumably funded by the producers and Warner Bros.) was $175,000,000. Can a reliable source be found for the specific $6 million contribution by Arnold, as it seems silly him being asked to fund such a insignificant fraction of the budget. --Canderra 02:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added sections on how T3 was financed and where all the money went. As for Arnie's $6 million, you can bet your sweet bippy he was paid that money back as soon as the film was released. It's just good publicity. --Scott197827 11:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Critic and fan reaction to the film

During the course of this article, one would assume that the reaction the film recieved from both critics and fans should get a good piece of explanation. Something like at least several paragraphs that stick to NPOV, especially given the anticipation the film had due to T1 and T2. If nobody else wants to, I probably will later on in the week. --Ex-Nintendo Employee 12:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Silberman's hostage crisis

I've taken out the trivia note that claims that Dr. Silberman wasn't taken hostage in the second movie as he claims. He was indeed taken hostage by Sarah, when she jammed a syringe of drain cleaner into his neck and threatened to inject him if the guards didn't do what she said. If that's not being a hostage, I'm not sure what is. --MythicFox 10:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism?

What happen to all the criticism of this movie, why was it all deleted, could a criticism and appraisal section be made, or will that be deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BerserkerBen (talk • contribs) 14:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am under the impression that there is a bit of bias towards this movie. Why this bias is present is a mystery because this movie does not - in any way or form - deserve to parade around calling itself a Terminator movie. This movie is so bad, it makes "Hercules in New York" look like a masterpiece.

I posted some criticism (a long time ago, under the name cooljinx) with a question tagged on the end and someone - whose name I forgot - told me not to discuss it in the "discussion" section. The post was later deleted. (Hmmm)

There was, of course, no need to wonder why the "discussion" section exists because "discussion" (which on many occasions includes criticism) is the reason why the "discussion" section exists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psi pilot (talk • contribs) 14:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not looked through all of the page history so I'm not sure about what has been removed or why. There is in itself no reason that the article shouldn't include criticism of the movie, as long as it's not original research. This means that anyone including criticism must cite a source. A good way to avoid an edit war when including criticism in an article about a movie is to formulate it as "this reviewer had this to say about the movie". --Bergsten 14:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The second criticism/reation paragraph is nothing but a collection of fanboy rants, hardly worth of an encylopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.228.134.3 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, lets remove it! --Bergsten 15:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Plot Hole

STOP MESSING AROUND WITH THE PLOT HOLE PART!!! IT DESERVES TO BE THERE!!! SO STOP ERASING IT!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.136.128 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

True, the plot hole is a flaw, but it can be explained away at length. --Annie D 02:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Colin Wilson?

Is the Colin Wilson who is one of the producers of this movie the same Colin Wilson who is the well known English horror and mystery writer? I find this doubtful. If they are not the same, the wikification of the name needs to be changed in this article. ---Charles 02:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The Sarah Connor Chronicles

Should there be a mention of The Sarah Connor Chronicles in the article? I understand that the continuity of this film won't be included in the tv series, but it might be worth pointing this out, especially for those who read the article and are confused why there is no mention of the connection (or lack thereof) to the series. --Annie D 05:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you said, there is no connection between T3 and The Sarah Connor Chronicles, so a mention here would be inappropriate. It is mentioned on the Terminator (series) page. --ColdFusion650 11:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Judgment Day Date

July 24, 2004- who came up with this date? I don't think it was mentioned in the movie. --Eaglestorm 09:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't mentioned, but when the Terminator synchronizes his internal clock with the watch in the Bronco, the very last date is the accurate one. It goes by quick, but if you frame through, you can see this. --ColdFusion650 12:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Just saw it. It does indeed indicate the date, and to think the novelization's dates are different too. --Eaglestorm 13:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Edward Furlong vs Nick Stahl

When watching T3, I think a question would naturally emerge in most viewer's mind. Why was Edward Furlong not cast in his original role? Why was Nick Stahl cast instead, when he doesn't really have the looks to be a great leader, and his acting skill is only average. I was hoping that Wikipedia would have the answer but it seems I was wrong. If anyone has the answer, please add a section enlightening us on whether Furlong rejected the role, or the reasons why the casting director rejected him. --ICEBreaker 16:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It would only be on wikipedia if a reliable source had seen fit to write an article about it. barring that, it won't be here. --DurinsBane87 16:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Edward Furlong wasn't in it because he was in jail to trying to free oppressed lobsters in a store. Check the Edward Furlong article. --ColdFusion650 16:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems with drugs so they went with Nick Stahl instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.102.43.193 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edit!

For about 3 times now I have had to make edits on the distributors list and the country of origin, but someone keeps changing it back; so whoever keeps reverting it back, please stop it because my changes are accurate and correct; 1: C2 Pictures are not a film distributor, 2: Germany actually did have a part in making the film because one of the production companies is based in Germany. I'm going to edit it again to how it should be and please don't revert my edit again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieranthompson (talk • contribs) 06:29, July 24, 2007

It is a German/American co-production. Template:Infobox film clearly states for the "country" field: Insert the home country or countries of the film's main production companies.. C2 Pictures is US company while IM Internationalmedia AG is a German company, as can be verified here: [1]. Following the rules of the infobox Germany should be listed along with the United States. Where the film is made or set is irrelevant for the purposes of this field. Betty Logan (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Radio transmissions to Crystal Peak

I suggest that the radio transmissions are not directed at Crystal Peak, nor at John Connor, as the current page implies. My initial edit to change this has been reverted, so to pre-empt an edit war, here's my rationale:

• Nobody else in the world knows John is the saviour of mankind - why would they be asking him for orders? They wouldn't even know who he is.
• The first quotes from the radio are "Hello - is anybody there" and "Is anybody reading me?" - these are general pleas for help, and although I concede they could be directed at Crystal Peak, it isn't apparent or conclusive, and it's unlikely that Civil Defence and Radio hams first thought would be to contact a cold-war era bunker on the off chance there's somebody currently breaking in. Far more likely is just to transmit a general help, and see who responds - then ask them for help.
• Once contact with Crystal Peak is established, the radio asks "Who's in charge there?" - and whilst after that point it is apparent that John will take command, prior to that question, the radio is a babble of "Who, what?" with no requests for orders or authority. -- a_man_alone (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the wording implied that the transmissions were directed at John, but I do see how it could be confusing. I've done a bit of tweaking to your wording, as I think it was a tad much detail, but preserved the substance of it. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - that sums it up nicely. -- a_man_alone (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Should that final paragraph in the Plot Summary be amended to indicate that Connor essentially places himself in command? IMO, the crux of the movie is that it was inevitable that he would lead the war, and this is the beginning of his command. --JD79 (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. It doesn't actually show him taking command of anything, and in Terminator Salvation he isn't in command, he's just a squad leader. I think adding this would basically constitute us forecasting or interpreting the events of the plot beyond what's actually shown in the film, so essentially original research. Especially considering that the next film shows he still has some hoops to go through before actually becoming the resistance commander (which he still isn't by the end of Salvation). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Prediction Vs. Statement of Historical Fact

In terminator 2, as the T-800 is driving it outlines the "history" of judgement day, from Skynet going online to the nuclear holocaust. In doing this it makes statements of historical fact, since it comes from a future where this has already happened. Therefore this isn't a prediction (ie, you can predict the weather for next week, but not last week). I'd like a consensus on this. --Williamsburgland (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole premise of the series is that "the future is unwritten" and that "there's no fate but what we make". Therefore what is "historical fact" from the perspective of the future characters is actually fluid. It was a historical fact for the Terminator that Judgment day occurred in 1997. However, his stating this prompts the characters of 1995 to find and destroy the building blocks of Skynet in an attempt to stop Judgment Day from ever happening. Thus the Terminator's prophesy that Judgment day will occur in 1997 becomes false. Any statements the future characters make about future history are merely predictions based on their own knowledge & experiences. Once they travel to the past, where these events have not yet happened, the events themselves can no longer be called "historical fact" because they can be changed. The entire plot of the first 3 films (and the TV series) revolves around making changes in the past to alter this "future history".

Using your example, I can sit here on December 17, 2009 and state that "the weather on December 10 was x", and it is a matter of historical fact. However, if I then travel back in time to December 3 and state that "the weather on December 10 will be x", it is a prediction of future events. It's a prediction based on observable facts (which only I, as the lone time traveler, can possibly have observed), and may turn out to be true, but it's a prediction nonetheless because the events have not yet happened. By time travelling, I may cause a butterfly effect that causes the weather on December 10 to be y rather than x, and thus my prediction is proven false. This is even more true of the Terminator films, in which the entire aim of the characters is to alter specific future events. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sticking to my guns in that a prediction is based on calculations and assumptions, not foreknowledge. Furthermore it is Sarah that takes it upon herself (based on Kyle's mantra of 'There is no fate but what we make for ourselves') to change the future, the Terminator does not introduce this fact.

While I think you make a good arguement, I still disagree and feel we need at least one more set of eyes on this. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

One last point - the word "States" is more neutral than "Predicts" in my opinion and makes no assumptions about things we cannot prove. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

Here is a sentence from the production section of Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines page:

The film's final production budget was $200 million, making it the most expensive independently-produced film in history.

Here is a sentence from introduction of Terminator Salvation page:

The film is currently the most expensive independent production in history, with a budget of $200 million.

Here is this page citing the budget for Terminator 3 as $170 million; List of most expensive films.

I will be placing the contradiction tag on the Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines page. --Rent A Troop (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I wish I had seen this before I removed the tag, which you inadvertantly pointed to Talk:Terminator Salvation. that said, I'll update this article to bring it in line with the list you linked to.oknazevad (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Production companies

I am trying to add production companies (along with sources) which have been removed twice in favour of unsourced content: [2]

The production companies I am trying to add are obtained from the British Film Institute database, a highly reliable film database: [3]

The information clearly states that IMF Internationale Medien und Film GmbH & Co. 3 Produktions KG is the copyright holder of the film. It also states that it's an In[t]mermedia/IMF production in association with C2 Pictures.

I would be grateful if the editor who is reverting my edits would explain why IMF is being removed - it seems rather arbirtary to include Intermedia and C2 Pictures but not IMF, which also happens to be the copyright holder. It makes sense to include them all or just limit to the main one, which is the company holding the copyright. Betty Logan (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Intermedia funds its films through IMF (Internationale Medien und Film). Both IM Filmproduktions-und Vertriebs GmbH & Co. KG and Intermedia Film Equities USA Inc are wholly owned subsidiaries of IM Internationalmedia AG. In other words, Intermedia and IMF are two arms of the same company (IM Internationalmedia AG). Intermedia is the production company, while the funding comes through IMF, but they're really part of the same parent company. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced the production information with information taken directly from the film's entry on the Intermedia website [4], and have included the sources for good measure. If you are not happy with the terminology you'll have to provide sources to go with any changes you make. Betty Logan (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Budget

There is currently a dispute over whether the budget is $170 million or $200 million: [5] It is impossible to know for sure what the proper budget is because studios very rarely officially release their budgets.

Box Office Mojo claims with this reference that the budget is $200 million: [6]

There are contesting budget estimates for $170 million from high quality sources—mainly a scholarly text (Elmer, Greg; Gasher, Mike (2005). Contracting Out Hollywood: Runaway Productions and Foreign Location Shooting (Critical Media Studies: Institutions, Politics, and Culture). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 4. ISBN 9780742536951. - Google books excerpt: [7]), the LA Times: [8] and Variety: [9]

However, in looking for sources I came across the completion bond company for Terminator 3. The bond company only accepts productions with budgets between $3 million and $170 million: [10] (scan down to Intl. Film Guarantors). While this doesn't tell us what the budget is, it does tell us what the budget isn't, and that the film could not have been insured by the company if its budget was $200 million. All films have to take out a completion bond to protect the shareholders, so we know for sure that the budget cannot have been $200 million. However, that still leaves us with the problem of what we should include. We can either go with the $170 million figure with the above sources (which the bond figures are consistent with), or we can go with bond range, or just pull the figure altogether. Betty Logan (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well researched, but if you were interested in more than proving your point you'd see that Arnold put some of his own money into production, and there may be other sources as well. Further, a bond company can't tell a film company what they can spend on their production; they can simply say they will only insure it up to a certain amount; based on your research it seems that amount was $170 million - the same way your car might be worth $20,000, but your insurance only covers $10,000. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I support using the budget range. Box Office Mojo is not a reliable source that trumps all others, and the sources that Betty has cited should not be dismissed outright. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur. BOM should be used if you cannot find anything better, but they are not the most reliable source and as Erik pointed out they certainly do not trump references like Variety or scholarly sources that probably do more digging than BOM staff when it comes to reporting the most accurate information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Despite the fact that only one of her references can be verified? Variety requires a subscription and the google book preview does not work. As long as we're accepting references other than BOM (no one has given any evidence that their numbers are not accurate), here's a few I found with a quick google search.

[11]

[12]

[13]

This third article introduces yet another number - 187 Million, and is very well researched.

--Williamsburgland (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Her references are perfectly verifiable. I can see in the Google Book Preview that it says "...to prevent the production of the $170 million U.S. feature Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines". Variety is also accessible with a Greasemonkey script, and it says, "This summer, the $170 million 'Terminator 3' leads a roster of at least eight pics costing more than the century mark." The reference about $187 million is interesting. Do others think that's the one to cite, or should we just set up the range of 170-200 million? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly worth a look: [14]. It's a budget statement dated November 2001 that puts above the line costs at 70m and below the line costs at 96m. That puts the greenlight budget at about 167m which ties in with the 170m claims. The same author (Epstein) then claims the costs rose to 187m after Schwarzenegger's demands were met. The evidence is compelling, especially given that he has a copy of the early budget accounts. I think we should include both amounts (the greenlight budget of $166m and the final cost of $187m). The greenlight budget was notable for being the highest ever greenlight at the time. We've found the information so I think we should use it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting to me that all or most of the references for the lower number are from before the film was made. I'm hoping the other two editors involved in the dispute chime in. --Williamsburgland (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The guy responsible for those budget estimates ($167m/$187m) is an investigative journalist: Edward Jay Epstein. Given his professional reputation I don't think he's in the business of typing out fake movie budgets, nor is he likley to publish one he has received unless he is able to substantiate it. Let's face it, this is about as close we're going to get to knowing the actual budget and it decisively resolves this issue. My suggestion is to use the $187m final cost figure in the infobox, and cover the $167m greenlight figure in the production section. Betty Logan (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the best compromise is $170-200 million as BOM and the other references should not be discounted. Further, I think Illa and ckatz should be given the chance to weight in before a call is made.--Williamsburgland (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

BOM is generally considered reliable by WP:FILMS for both its budget and gross figures, and by WP standards it's just as reliable as any "scholarly text". That said, this would hardly be the first time that there are discrepancies in figures between equally valid sources. I looked through BOM & saw that they get their gross figures from actual box office reports, but it doesn't say where their budget figures come from. That doesn't mean their figure isn't relialbe, just that it's unknown whether it reflects more up-to-date info than the other sources (FWIW, IMDb also gives an estimated figure of $200 million, and I imagine it'd be easy to find other sources that give that figure too...it all begs the question where these various sources are getting their numbers from). Given that, I support mentioning the different figures in the article body, citing the sources, and then using a range ($170-200 million) in the infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

←Using a range would seem to be a good solution. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That's how we'll go then. We'll have a budget range in teh infobox and elaborate on the other estimates in the production section. Betty Logan (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree... I wish you had been more communicative from the get go... getting here would have been much easier.--Williamsburgland (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The only reason this went to discussion is because you removed the budget range I added, and you only changed your tune once you got licked by the consensus. Budget ranges are normal practice on film articles and don't generally require discussion by experienced editors. Betty Logan (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You are by far the most childish editor, trolls included, I have had the displeasure of dealing with here. I didn't remove anything, I added the BOM figure, which I still feel is correct. As for consensus, all of the regular editors of this article agree with me... you didn't get your way until you invited editors via another page. I'm fine with the compromise that came from Ckatz, and I'm glad the attention I drew to you cooled you off enough to explain yourself (you know, after you had already reverted three editors changes without any real explanation). Here's to hoping I avoid your childish ire in the future.--Williamsburgland (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Explain this then: [15]. That is the compromise we have now, that is what I suggested which was backed up by impartial editors and which Ckatz agreed to, and which you removed. You lost, consensus won. Betty Logan (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please folks, can we drop it? We had a dispute, which led to a discussion, which led to a consensus, and now we have a more accurate article. In the end it's not really important who got whose way. With the issue settled, what possible good comes of maintaining a hot temper? --IllaZilla (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

cultural significance

Released 12 years after T2, the film did not match its predecessors in terms of cultural significance:

Umm, isn't this part more than just a little subjective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.167.86 (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We can easily compare facts such as gross revenue and critical ratings/opinions, and let the readers draw the conclusion for themselves. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree but...is this a case of being a summary of reviewer thoughts? If so perhaps we could just clarify that: "Reviewers felt that...blah blah blah". Millahnna (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious, and true, but it does violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR so I have no problem with pulling it. Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Cast list

I removed the following actors from the list, because their characters didn't really contribute enough to be part of the main cast list.

• Moira Harris as Betsy
• Chopper Bernet as Chief Engineer
• Christopher Lawford as Brewster's Aide
• Carolyn Hennesy as Rich Woman

--MikeZ (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Generally I agree, but Carolyn Hennesy could maybe be added back - she's the template Tx uses, and provides the car for the opening part of the film. Not a major part, but a fairly important one? a_man_alone (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

When there are notable actors whose roles in the film were minor, I usually leave them out of the bulleted list but include a sentence or 2 at the end of the section covering them. See for example Alien vs. Predator (film)#Cast. I think that might work here. --IllaZilla (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation wrongly quotes Cameron saying T3 and T4 ruined the franchise.

I corrected the text related to the citation claiming to quote Cameron as stating T3 and T4 ruined the franchise, and saying that's the reason he won't return (Issues: Verifiability/Neutrality). Nothing like this is in the citation. Cameron does not speak ill of any movie in the series, and clearly states his reasons for not returning are to let others have a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.115.140 (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)