Conference bookie::movies

> There'll be a third film, no doubt. Not for awhile I would imagine.

	Geez, I hope not.  The 2 part Saga reached closure, end of story.
	Trying to do a part 3 would fail the way of Aliens 3 and Preditor 2 ...

>> There'll be a third film, no doubt. Not for awhile I would imagine.

>	Geez, I hope not.  The 2 part Saga reached closure, end of story.
>	Trying to do a part 3 would fail the way of Aliens 3 and Preditor 2 ...
    
    Spoiler.....
    
    
    In the first one the arm of the Terminator was left over and ended up
    being the catalyst for the day when the machines would take over the
    world(i.e T2). In the second Arnies arm gets severed by a wheel. An obviuos
    loose end left for a sequel. In fact the ending was changed. The
    original ending was Sara Conner in the future with her son, John and
    her grandchildren playing.

    re.2

        I thought it was the chip from the first terminator that had helped
    them rather than the arm.Agree thou a third is unneeded,look at the
    mess that was made of Highlander II.


    SCott

If they brought back Michael Beihn, I'd watch a third one :-)

>     -< I still stand by .1, a 3rd one is not needed and would be a fail >-

    Which is exactly what people said about making a second one. No, I
    can't tell the future, but hell if there is money that can be made, (
    and let's face it, the second one did BETTER than the first) why not?

    
    Hey, if they can make a T3 as well as the first or second then why not?
    
    No sequel is ever "needed". Just wanted.
    
    There is plenty of room for endless sequels in this storyline. John
    Conner is a boy at the end of T2. How does he end up as the
    leader/general in the future? How does the machine revolution get
    started? 
    
    Great material just with the human vs. machine war. And the way the FX
    in films is advancing, they should be able to do some cool stuff.
    
    If you don't like the idea of a sequel, don't go see it. The other movies
    will always, and should always stand on their own, anyway.
    
                

> No sequel is ever "needed". Just wanted.

	Some sequels are "needed" because they were delibertately
	written that way.  Those that are wanted are usually wanted
	by the studios trying to make a quick buck on the coat tails
	of a previous profit maker, than really being wanted by
	the public (except for the couple of stragglers requesting
	it here :-).

>     There is plenty of room for endless sequels in this storyline. John
>     Conner is a boy at the end of T2. How does he end up as the
>     leader/general in the future? How does the machine revolution get
>     started? 

	You must of missed T2!!!!  John Conner NO longer ends up as the
	leader/general in the future (at least not against machines
	gone haywire) because they changed the future in T2.  That's
	why I said the two movies reached closure, they closed the time
	loop.

>     Great material just with the human vs. machine war. And the way the FX
>     in films is advancing, they should be able to do some cool stuff.

	Obviously they have a market for films with great FX, but the
	Terminator movies were great not because of the FX, but because
	it was a good story, not a seneless plot to exploit special effects.
	That's also why "Alien" and "Aliens" were a great pair, but look
	what happened to "Aliens 3" that had the best FX of the three, but
	a sucky story.  The Alien series however is different because that
	storyline really is continueable (they just screwed up making #3),
	where the Terminator series, like the Star Wars Triology, reached
	closure.

    
    Re:.8
    
    You've basically made my point. A sequel is good if it's written good.
    
    And having interesting material helps garner the audience interest. So
    if you feel they don't "need" a sequel, but somebody writes a killer 
    story with these characters, and this altered reality, then you may
    "want" to see it, and may like it better. 
    
    
    As far as the timeline goes... no way is it closed, or EVER closed.
    
    You say the future was changed, but how could it be changed if that's
    where they came from? And to confuse you even more, who says that the
    day after they sent the T1000 they didn't send a T4000, etc.
    
    Timelines in SF are worked many ways. But there is never any garuantee
    that you've changed the reality you wanted to change. Or that you've
    changed it the way that's expected. 
    
    We know that in one reality John Conner DID become the general, and
    there was a war. They tried to change that so that it wouldn't happen, 
    but it DID happen, so there is a story there. And who's to say you can
    change it? You wouldn't know if you changed history, because you might
    have changed yourself right out of existence.
     
    And even to take your point that the Conner/General reality doesn't happen
    because they changed the future, you still have tons of avenues to go
    down, with other ways they may have changed the future. 
         Maybe they threw everything into something worse... something where 
    the man vs. machine war starts sooner, and man loses. The possibilities
    are endless.
    
    -James
    
    

	The plot gets kind of thin when you play those type of games,
	and you end up with a so-called sequel that isn't a sequel at
	all (someone mentioned Highlander as a good example), except
	they call it as such so they can ride the coat tails.

	Even though bi-directional time travel creates a paradox that
	can be argued endlessly (ala, "go back in time and kill your
	parents before you are born"), it is clear to me Cameron's
	intent was to not exploit it as a cheap device as you would use
	it to base a seqel upon.

	But only time :-) can tell what the future holds ....

    	I would really be rather interested to see how Cameron would make a
    third film. There are all sorts of possibilities. A dark, gothic future
    where humans are scattered about and machines rule the planet. Sow how
    humanity comes together for a final stand against the machines. See
    humanity win and a whole new type of society is formed. Perhaps one
    where greed, prejudice, and other evils are less dominant. It makes for
    powerful stuff, in my opinion.

     I suppose a good way of telling it would be how the human resistance
    started.how they fought....how they managed to send Reese back..how 
    they reprogrammed The Terminator in the 2nd one.If they tell it like
    that I think it would work.

     If you start trying to workout the timelines it will blow your mind.
    Look at back to the future...in the 3rd one Marty goes back to 1885 and 
    runs out of petrol......why didn't they take the petrol from the car
    that doc got there in?????

    SCott

    re: .7
    
    I have to disagree with your statement that...
    
    "If you don't like the idea of a sequel, don't go see it. The other movies
    will always, and should always stand on their own, anyway."
    
    The "don't go see it" argument doesn't quite cut it for me because in
    most cases, if you're interested enough in the characters in the first
    place, then you'll be interested in what happens to them in a sequel. 
    For example, having seen JURASSIC PARK, I enjoyed it enough that I'd
    probably see the sequel if (when?) one comes out.  But I don't see the
    real need for one except to fill Universal's coffers.
    
    And I don't know about you but I found that the events in sequels like
    STAR TREK III, ALIEN 3, and RETURN OF THE JEDI sufficiently altered my
    view of the events in their predecessors.  I don't get quite the lump
    in my throat when Spock buys it in STAR TREK II; most of the action in
    ALIENS becomes pretty much a moot point; and Darth Vader doesn't seem
    to be quite as evil in STAR WARS and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK.  
    
    Of course, this whole discussion of a possible T3 is probably pointless
    as well because Cameron made it quite well known during the filming of
    T2 that he was not interested in doing another.  And Arnie's not
    interested if Cameron's not involved.  So I can't see the project
    getting a green light without these two.  And given the lucrative deals
    both these guys currently have with the studios, they really don't need
    much more money.
    
    - Skip

    If they did decide to make one. whatever the "rights" or "wrongs"
    of doing so, I think Sigourney Weaver would make a good Terminator - 
    I would have liked to have seen her in T2.

    
    Well, since I got this new fangled "surround sound" receiver I decided to
    rent T2 again. What a difference, like seeing..well like hearing it
    all over again. So I've now seen it at least 4 times,once in a theater
    with THX.
    
    Why was T2 great, Cameron. Just like Aliens the man knows how to make
    it happen. A third episode without the him at the helm would be a big a
    letdown as Alien III. Which wasn't terrible, but not in the same league
    as Alien (Scott) or Aliens (Cameron).
    
     Dave
    

    Does anyone know if a longer version of T2 was released on tape?  There
    were a lot of scenes cut for the movie theater version of T2.

    To my knowledge there is not a longer version on tape. HBO (I think)
    had a special on T2 with the scenes that were cut, but not as a movie,
    just showing the scenes, and commentary. (Unfortunatly, my cable was
    acting up, and couldn't record it....)
    
    Michael
    (Who would like to see the WHOLE version on video as well....)
    
    

    
    	It was SHOWTIME that had the "Making of" special.
    
    							GTI

  Anyone know if there is a T3 in the works?

  George

>     Does anyone know if a longer version of T2 was released on tape?  There
>     were a lot of scenes cut for the movie theater version of T2.

	Rober Ebert on "Siskel & Ebert" spotlighted a new laserdisc version
	of T2 as being one of the best he's ever seen.  Why though I don't
	know because he didn't elaborate that much.  Supposedly there is
	about 17 minutes of extra footage added, plus additional footage
	with the set not spliced in (ala out-takes?) such as an alternative
	ending showing an aged Sarah Conner with her grandchild.

	One thing I did find confusing is that Ebert said scene with
	Sarah pulling slugs out of the terminators back was one of the
	added scenes on this laserdisc.  But I remember that scene in
	the theatrical release, or am I going crazy?  Or did they remove
	it for the video release?

>	One thing I did find confusing is that Ebert said scene with
>	Sarah pulling slugs out of the terminators back was one of the
>	added scenes on this laserdisc.  But I remember that scene in
>	the theatrical release, or am I going crazy?  Or did they remove
>	it for the video release?

One thing that is presented at length in the "making of...T2"
(which seems to be shown every time T2 is on Showtime)
is that  the slug pulling scene was CONSIDERABLY longer in the planned
version.  The highlight is that they need to remove the magic
processor from T2's head to reboot it (or something).
This gives Sarah the opportunity to smash it then, which she almost
does, except John ORDERS her not to do it and she obeys.
This was one scene they decided they DIDN'T need in the film, since John's
development as a leader was being elaborated elsewhere.

- tom]

    I just saw the last 10 minutes of the "making" saga. I have to disagree
    with the director about cutting the scenes at end about how the T1000
    was failing. Ever since I saw the movie, I've been asking myself why 
    the final attack by the original Terminator was so effective. If I had
    seen the scenes where the T1000 was walking and taking on the shape and
    structure of the floor in the foundry, I would have said that it was
    damaged in some way. Then, when the explosive charge hit it, I would
    have formed the conclusion that it was damaged and couldn't recover.
    So, in this case he made the wrong choice.
    
    In the case of the 30 years+ scene, it made me feel good, but it did
    tie it up into a ribbon. If you had left those scenes in, there would
    be no possibility of a T3. However, by leaving them out, you still
    define the future as a river which can change its flows and bad things
    could still happen and it's up to us to make sure good things happen.

RE         <<< Note 221.22 by 33438::KOCH_P "It never hurts to ask..." >>>

>    In the case of the 30 years+ scene, it made me feel good, but it did
>    tie it up into a ribbon. If you had left those scenes in, there would
>    be no possibility of a T3. 

  Before they filmed the mini-series Rich Man Poor Man Part II the director was
asked how he could possibly use Nick Noltie, who he seemed to want back, when
his character was killed off in Rich Man Poor Man Part I. He replied something
to the fact that he could think of over 100 ways to bring a character back from
death without giving it much thought at all. 

  Same here. There's only one thing that would make it impossible to make a
sequel to any movie and that's if the box office for the previous one was so
bad no producer would want to take a chance on it. No story line twist or turn,
especially in SciFi or Fantasy could ever rule out a sequel. 

  As the scene opens Sarah and her son are sitting on a beach. Meanwhile [pick
one] 

  - In a high tech lab run by the son of the previous scientist a technician
    fires up a robot ...
  - North Korea sets of an atmospheric H-bomb which warps the fabric of ...
  - A micro black hole whizzes past ruffling the fabric of ...
  - A Quantum partical-o-tron burst into known space disturbing the fabric ...
  - A dog digs in the sand uncovering a box containing a mysterious computer
     chip ...

  ... and *thwump*, time changes, ... then *thwump*, the laser based T2000
lands on the beach chased by *thwump* Arnie S as ... 

      TERMINATOR 3, The Adventure is Reborn ...

  Easy Peasy,
  George

    If "Dallas" can bring back Bobby Ewing after a year in the grave,
    I don't think there's any problem with a T3, maybe one that finally
    does the job...
    
      John

  Here's more economic fuel. Arnie's summer block buster was more bust than
block. Conversely, the Terminator movies have been among his most successful.

  I have a feeling we'll be hearing "I'll be back" soon enough,
  George

    
    
    I bet there will be a t3 also. I have been reading a biography of
    Arnie and if I read right he will not be happy unless he is #1 in the
    movie star category again. T3 is the perfect vehicle to achive what
    he needs/wants/can't live without.
    
              -=-=-R~C~W-=-=-

    Can anyone remember which episode of The Outer Limits provided the
    original inspiration for The Terminator?  I seem to recall that it was
    something like 'Universal Soldier', and that Harlan Ellison won some
    money in a legal wrangle...
    
    Ta
    
    Mikef 
    
    

    It was two seperate epsiodes which were alleged to have inspired The
    Terminator; Soldier and The Demon with the Glass Hand. Dear Mr Ellison
    went to court and won $70K in damages.
    
    Clive

    > Dear Mr Ellison     went to court and won $70K in damages.
    
    Why did Harlequin Ellison sue? Did he author a similar story? And could
    he now get bucks from Terminator I and II on the same basis?
    			Jim B.
    

    re .29
    
    He wrote both stories. I believe it was a one-off payment, similar to
    that which AE Van Vogt got from 20th Century Foxover Alien.
    
    Clive

    Anybody heard anything about Terminator 3????
    
    Will there be one... and when is it due to go into production??
    
    Cheers,
    
    	Rick.

    RE: -1
    
       I remember not long after T2 came out, when Arnold ended up doing the
    Arsenio Hall show, he joked saying that he would use Arsenio as the next
    Terminator.  But like it says, he was just joking.  I'm kinda torn as to
    whether I would wanna see a T3 or not. It seems some sequals just don't
    know when to quit!  Of course with the time travel thing they wouldn't 
    have a problem writting in a new story. But I liked they way they ended
    T2 and it's not like they can really top the F/X.  Bottom line is how
    ever, I would go see it!
                             
    H.A.G.O.

    
    T3 would be a step too far I think.
    
    
    
    I.

  Terminator is by far the best thing Arnold has ever done. He and Hamilton(?)
work really well together, to some extent I think her character makes these
movies work.

  In general there's nothing wrong with sequels. Some stink, some are fine.
Actually "Rambo" was a sequel to "Rambo 1st blood" and it was one of the most
popular action adventure movies of all time. 

  Unless the critics and word of mouth was terrible, I'd go see T3.

  George

    
    	I preferred "First Blood" to "Rambo".
    

re: .31
>>        Will there be one... and when is it due to go into production??
    
    Yes.  And already is.  I know nothing about the storyline, but was told
    by someone I've met a few times that the special effects are going to
    blow the previous movie out of the water.
    
    tom

    I wish they could find some way to write Michael Biehn (Kyle) back into
    the story.  

What I find most amusing about all the comments here, plus my own feelings
on the matter ("the first one was so good", "how will they ever top it",
"they should leave well enough alone", "sequels are never as good as the
original", etc), is that these were *exactly* the same comments we heard
about T2 vs T1.

If James Cameron is involved, then I trust his judgement.  If he thinks that
the story line is decent, if the characters are acceptable to him, if the
action sequences and special effects are to his liking, then I will be the
first in line to see it.  He has never disappointed me yet.

But if someone else is doing it, then I am very concerned (Aliens 3 anyone?).

-- Ken Moreau

    
    	I agree.
    
    	Cameron is very probably not hurting for money and will pick
    	the projects HE wants to do and not the projects that someone
    	else wants him to do.
    
    	And if he does indeed pick a project, you can bet he'll do it
    	right.
    

	In case anyone is getting a feeling of DeJa Vu, the last several
	notes are indeed a rehash of the discussion from two years ago...

  So are Arnie and Linda Hamilton going to be in T3?

  "WE'LL BE BACK"!!!

  George

    It would have been a laugh if they had used the date 19-May-1997
    instead of 29-Aug-1997 for the nuclear attack in T2.
    
    They could have blamed Skynet for not installing the OpenVMS Delta Time 
    patch :-).
    
    Royston

    RE -  Ever be a T3? debate...
    
    	Ah, but there is ( sort of ) - the Terminator attraction at
    Universal is a 3-D movie with Arnold & Linda and the Kid ( and a
    T-1,000,000 :-) ).  Excellent show.....
    
    Jimbo

.-1:
> Although I don't think Cameron directed...

Actually, he did direct at least part of the live-action shoot.

Incidentally, on a per-minute basis, Terminator 2: 3-D is the most expensive
movie ever made, and I don't think that counts the stage show development
costs.  For a comparison, assuming Titanic runs 2 hours and the current cost
is around $200 million, T2: 3-D would still be 3 times as expensive per second.

On the other hand, Titanic needs to make its money back in a 3 month theatrical
window, plus another 9 or so for foreign, video, and ancillary, while T2: 3-D
can spend a few years (and won't have to spend $4 million creating and
shipping thousands of prints, plus another $20 million on advertising).