Talk:Terminator (franchise)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Citation

-Added a citation needed tag to the part about Kiefer Sutherland being cast as John Connor. Slinky317 03:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Links

This page was linked to from Artificial intelligence. I wasn't sure whether to (a) change the link to point to the Terminator films individually (or maybe just the first one), (b) make this a redirect to The Terminator, or (c) make this a new article which listed all the films in the series, and which could go on to contain an overview of the progression of the films and to compare and contrast them. I decided to go for (c), on the grounds that a three-way comparison would be awkward if split between three separate pages. However, I'm leaving the actual comparing and conrasting to someone more knowledgeable about the films than I am... If people think this page is pointless, they can always change it into a redirect. -- Oliver P. 23:20 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

T2 3-D: Battle Across Time (1996)

The Terminator series should also include an article about T2 3-D: Battle Across Time, a short movie presented as an attraction at the Universal Theme Park (summer 1996). See more info about the movie here.

Expanded plot details

The novelizations, books, comics, toys and video games all add details to the Terminator fiction. Future additions can include characters, technology, new terminator types, major events, and timeline dates. For example, the Terminator 3 novel gives additional details on the future.

I full agree with the above. (Psst... sign your posts.) A collection of all the time line information from all Terminator media would be really interesting to read about, and cover more then a rehash of the movies. Turlo Lomon 05:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one thing. Yes, I did remove several details about the movies from the time line. The time line should be a summary of events, not a detailed analysis of each movie plot. That is what the individual movie descriptions should be for. Turlo Lomon 05:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

How Could they win a war against the machines?

I always thought this was totally unrealistic about it. How could humans possibly win a war against an enemy that is vastly smarter and more intelligent, stronger, tougher, never misses, doesn't need to rest, eat or drink, as Kyle put it- doesn't feel pity, remorse or fear, and is capable of working 24/7 producing hundreds or thousands or terminators in a very short time period whereas humans struggle to stay alive? The snare 08:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, intelligence is a broad term. Computers may be more "intelligent" but that doesn't necessarily translate into combat cunning. Humans at one time were supremely adapted for fighting, and though we've been bred out of it, it wouldn't take a very long period of total war for us to breed back into it. And machines may be more fuel-efficient than people, but they still need to "eat" and "drink," especially if they're going to be expending the kind of energy needed to be totally awesome killing machines. 69.142.102.94 (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• First, this isn't a forum. Second it's not different in any other conventional warfare. Take out the factories, and no more machines. VERY VERY SIMPLE. Machines needs a PRODUCTION PLANT and RESOURCE GATHERING to be created. Say on the off chance it's impossible to destroy a completed machine, attack the home.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha if Judgement Day happened, the ammount of nukes fired worldwide would radiate most of the earth beyond hospitatility, and since they make emps, it would take out 90% of the machines as well. theres your realism 72.199.100.223 (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Terminator" book by Sean French is not a Novelization

It is apparently a BMI Modern Classics non-fiction short study of the film. I've changed it to correct it.151.197.24.168 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I readded the correction I made as described above; for some reason Coldfusion650 erased it when s/he did the chronological revisions and reformatting. I'm assuming this was a mistake. I added it chronologically and kept CF650s format. 151.197.24.168 21:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

How about merging Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins into this page? I mean, T4 hasn't started shooting yet, and the WP:NF says that the film has to be in production before the article is created. — Enter Movie 22:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support per the notability guidelines for films. The fourth Terminator film has been touch-and-go since around 2003 or 2004, and there's no guarantee that this will become a reality until it actually enters production. I think that the development history about the project so far can be placed here at Terminator (series), and if the film enters production, its own article would be warranted with the proper film article layout. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support as per Erik. Girolamo Savonarola 00:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree it's in pre-production and has been greenlighted. Jonesy702 20:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• That's what they said in 2004. As you can tell, development and pre-production do not always lead to production in Hollywood. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support There is not enough information to warrant it's own article. ColdFusion650 15:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree, this shows that it is certainly on the way http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riyZ7a2bnAc 86.31.239.190 21:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maybe it's time to split the film back off again, since we've got a release date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aatrek (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Already tried. It just gets changed back to how it was. Friedfrogz (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think its time for T4 to get its own page also. There is an IMDb page now >> http://imdb.com/title/tt0438488/ and reliable info that shows the film is now in PRE-PRODUCTION and is set to film soon.....with the IMDb page having been updated as recently as February 28 2008. Hollywoodnorthreport (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The question is, is there enough information to warrant its own article? Obviously not. ColdFusion650 (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think in its current form the Franchise page seems a little weighted to T4? Almost half the content on the page is about T4.....yet as you are stating T1-3 have way more info and content......so should the page not be more even and about the series as a whole and not mainly about T4? or a aleast not 50-50 about T4 as it is now? Seems like a Stub or Start page is in order for T4.....no? cheer! Hollywoodnorthreport (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:FUTFILMS. Movies not filming aren't allowed to have an article. Alientraveller (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to rush. A film has to be in production and started principal photography before it gets its own article. But you'll just to wait till May 5, so don't worry. — Enter Movie (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Chronology section?

As the chronology of 1, 2, 3, Salvation and Chronicles are all speculated upon quite a bit in the geekymedia, I think a concise section discussing this aspect of the series would certainly be notable.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If it is properly cited, go ahead. ColdFusion650 (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

i did this after much thought as it solves the paradox. i'm also probably the only person here on wikipedia whose seen all the films at the 'cinema' in the correct order. :) though would it just be deleted as original research when all i did was listed to what the characters say an did? my citations would only cover what was said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcorani (talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC) ps- belatedly signed VC 18:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcorani (talk • contribs)

John Cena!?

John Cena has been announced to be the man who will play The Terminator in the upcoming 2009 Terminator movie. 71.82.169.119 (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll need to see some kind of official reference for that. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and I've not heard of any rumor on this one myself. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 04:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

T4

Just curious as to the point at which the section on the upcoming T4 will need to be split into it's own article. I know that it was recently merged into this article but it's starting to get large as the film moves closer to reality. ONEder Boy (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Although the T4 section is larger than the others, it's still not large enough to have its own article. ColdFusion650 (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a film can have its own article when it starts production. The film has already started production since May 5th, so feel free to make an article. There's enough info, too. — Enter Movie (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know man. It's no more than a stub really. I don't really think it should be moved into its own article until there is actually enough content for it to be on its own. Just because the rules say that it can have an article doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The article can look like Saw V. It doesn't need that much information. — Enter Movie (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess since Saw V has a bunch of extra subheaders, infoboxes, and stuff, it makes it look bigger. Go ahead if you want. ColdFusion650 (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Arnie has confirmed that he is NOT involved in T4 [1] magnius (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Terminator 4, 5, 6?

I'm watching a video with the two men who own the Terminator franchise and they're saying that three more terminator films are going to be made... basically pulling a StarWars.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.150.211 (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

But the future is not set, remember? I know, paradoxes, but the future is not set, and we don't even know yet all of the rules of the time travel in the terminator series. Maybe, even though it's a paradox, the future can change. Or maybe its a parallel universe, like Donnie Darko. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.208.167 (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees that it would totaly suck if John were to travel back to 2011 in Terminator 5. It would ruin the storey line completely.83.67.74.227 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually in 5 they were to get the machinery to go back in time, and then in 6 send back Reese 72.199.100.223 (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

T5

It says on the page that in 5 john may travel back? but then he can't go back and we know john dies in 2032 from t3, where are the sources for this quote from McG? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.208.167 (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees that it would totaly suck if John were to travel back to 2011 in Terminator 5. It would ruin the storey line completely.83.67.74.227 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I believe in T5, it should be the year 2029. John would be 44 years old and Kyle in his mid-20s. John's 11 year old son would be named Reese Connor, after his father. John finds a time machine and has Kyle go back to 1984 to save Sarah. Although having Kyle believe the time machine was destroyed, John sent back a reprogrammed Terminator to 1995 to save himself from the T-1000. Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

About the cast and character grid

Arnold Schwarzenegger is NOT in Terminator: Salvation. This should be corrected but I don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addistheman (talk • contribs) 22:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Just saw a trailer for the new film, pretty sure I spotted "Jesse" from the series (Stephanie Jacobsen). Can anyone confirm this? 15th Jan 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.101.82 (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Heath Ledger, listed in the possible fifth movie, is deceased. 24.116.19.206 (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It currently doesn't say that. I've been reverting the edits by the two IPs that add that information. If you see it added back, feel free to revert the edit as it is unsourced and with Heath Ledger in it highly unlikely. (Though I suppose they could CGI him into the entire flick.) --TreyGeek (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously vandalism. Have you looked at that cast? Come on. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that while that was Schwarzenegger's face we saw, it was CGI'ed onto Roland Kickinger's body. In fact, when you watch the credits, Schwarzenegger isn't in the list; instead they credit Kickinger for the role. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(SPOILER WARNING): >Arnold Schwarzenegger is NOT in Terminator: Salvation

Uhm, yeah he is. It's a surprise cameo. As such, however, we should change the introduction that says he has only appeared in three films. Though, in the interest of maintaining the surprise (since it's revelation seems hardly necessary for the article) perhaps we might want to simply remove the number and leave it factual but ambiguous? As in: "such as the original "Terminator" character, portrayed by Arnold Schwarzenegger in the movies." Silasthecat (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The "T-1000"

Under the character "T-1000" are listed "Robert Patrick" (in T2) and "Shirley Manson" (in TSSC). This is pretty silly. While they both appear to be "liquid metal" model, it's a silly assumption -- and impossible, given what happens in T2 -- to say they're the same "character". So I will make them separate. -- Have just found that the TSSC model is supposedly "T-1001". Barsoomian (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Terminator-salvation-poster.jpg

The image File:Terminator-salvation-poster.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Connor Chronicles

Do the Sarah Connor Cronicles really need to be inlcuded here as part of the film franchise ? I think not. 193.195.193.57 (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The title of the article is Terminator (franchise), not ... film franchise, therefore it includes all aspects of the machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.34.88 (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Franchise Rights

The franchise rights to this film series has changed hands more than any I can think of. Can someone include the production companies involved in making the film series? Preferably under the Crew Section. Gemini2525 (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Overlooked Game: Resist Or Be Terminated

There was an internet empire simulation game up for a while in 2009 called Resist Or Be Terminated, which was mostly a remake of the game Galava, with a few changes to the market and progression system, a Terminator-style layout, features renamed to fit into the Terminator world, and a major change, the creation of the two opposing factions, Skynet and Resistance, which a new player can choose which side to play on upon registering. I don't know how we could reference this, seeing as how Resist Or Be Terminated shut down in the fall, with Galava following about a month afterwards. Any suggestions? Mego (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Future

The future section includes several "as of" qualifiers. This whole section needs to be rewritten. 66.27.178.243 (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Robotics attention needed

• Assess on B scale  Done Chaosdruid (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Chaosdruid (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Aaron Cash in Character Grid

Under The Sarah Connor Chronicles, actor Aaron James Cash is named as the The Terminator. The character Cash portrays is a random Terminator in Sarah's nightmare in the pilot episode; nothing in this episode suggests that this is meant to be the original Terminator. While this is an interesting theory, this information falls under original research and should be removed. ChibiKareshi (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Model vs unit

I changed the word "model" to "unit" in the introduction sentence: "Schwarzenegger also portrayed other Terminator characters; however, it is made clear that these are different models" as it is not true that the various characters played by Schwarzenegger are different models. They do are different units, but they are both "Cyberdyne Systems Model 101". Olivier Diotte (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Novels By S.M. Stirling

What about these novels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM_Stirling#Terminator_2_series http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T2:_Infiltrator Most of them are worth mentioning. --108.17.135.195 (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Terminator Salvation: The Machinima Series

I placed Terminator Salvation: The Machinima Series (which was actually a web series) under the TV series section of the media infobox, as there is no web series section available. Is it alright to keep it there or would it be more appropriate to move it to the miscellaneous section? I will be adding information about said series at a future time, unless someone else feels more inclined to do so sooner. Neuroticguru (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

deadline.com - exclusive - Jan 17 2013

Laeta Kalogridis And Patrick Lussier Set To Script New ‘Terminator’ - and still exclusive on 22 Jan. I think that is spelled "rumor". I don't expect to kill it if reinstated, but please add a source.User talk:Unfriend12 02:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of "Top Critics" scores

I recently removed the Rotten Tomatoes "Top Critis" scores from the article. That edit was reverted with the summary comment "get consensus first". But in my edit summary I indicated that these edits were based on the Film MOS (specifically the section MOS:FILM#Reception). If you check that section of the MOS you will see that my edits were in line with it. The MOS was recently changed as a result of discussions that took place over several weeks (which you can read here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 45 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film). There is a consensus that has been established for a policy for all film articles, so I have reinstated my edit. 99.192.76.230 (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.92.87)

Terminator 5

It looks like some info on the next one has been released. http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/13/4427946/schwarzenegger-confirms-terminator-5-shooting-in-january 131.217.33.146 (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Genesis section could use a trimdown

I think the Terminator Genesis section needs to be trimmed back. All of the information there was there because at the time an article for the film couldn't be created as the filmn hadn't officially entered pre-production. Now it is in production, I think there's a lot we could remove or summarize, especially given that info is now on the Terminator Genesis page. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)