![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
While this is important information, it is also a description that I think plenty of people would disagree with (I'm not one of them). How could we rephrase this? I don't know, which is why I left the text alone. But I do think it needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry_Sanger ( talk • contribs) 08:33, 23 July 2001 (UTC)
The middle sentence of the entry originally read: "The pretext of the movie is that a cybernetic construct, the eponymous Terminator (played by Schwarzenegger), has been ported back in time from a future where the world is ruled by computers, (who are bent on eliminating the last traces of mankind), to eliminate the mother of a child that the computers perceive may be a threat to their superiority." That sentence seemed a bit too long to me.
Also, why is the Terminator "eponymous"? What people, place, or institution was eventually named after it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoyaanisQatsi ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 18 July 2001 (UTC)
Was it really an Arnie vehicle from the outset?
He has hardly any dialogue, and is only in the action sequences, with Hamilton and Biehn on screen far more, and doing most of the acting. Sure, its since been repackaged as a star vehicle, but prior to that he'd only been in the Conan movies and various projects related to his status as a bodybuilding champ.
I think a better description is it was the film that *made* him a star, since a monosyllabic killing machine is a role he was born to play... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gareth Owen ( talk • contribs) 11:45, 18 July 2001 (UTC)
I would like to revisit the issue of this moving "making him a star". Conan was his first big star vehicle and was also widely successful. Perhaps re-wording this to "was his break-through role". Many millions of people knew who he was outside of body-building because of Conan made several years earlier. -- Lestatdelc 22:30, 8 April 2004 (UTC)
I have removed http://home.kc.rr.com/technoir since it is just a link to the anon contributors own site. -- Tεx τ urε 03:19, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
What was the purpose of the page move? -- Cburnett 06:27, 22 April 2005 (UTC)
Somebody said in the history tab of this article that Terminator 4 was cancelled according to IMDb. But I googled that, and it rendered 200,000+ google hits. That probably means that it could still be in production. Could somebody verify that? -- SuperDude 06:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
A point of detail. While the Terminator may have a "living" skin covering, I would argue that the Terminator is in fact an android rather than a cyborg. The design itself was created artificially from scratch from a factory, not from an existing humanoid organic base like for instance Seven of Nine in Star Trek - it has an alloy endoskeleton, there is no heart or "brain", there is no blood in the innerworkings and it has no organic metabolism throughout its body. Its skin is created artificially. The later T-1000 and T-X series of Terminators were explained as having "liquid metal" skins. What do you people think? I myself believe the Terminator should be called an android. -- Iam 22:58, 31 December 2004 (UTC)
The "skin-less" termintator ( image:Terminator endoskeleton in Terminator 2.jpg) was originally labed as being from T2. This is incorrect because the terminator only gets stripped of his skin in a fire near the end of T1. I have changed the title. -- 2mcm Gespräch 00:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Right now, the article begins: "The Terminator is a 1984 science fiction-action film which became the break-through role for former body-builder Arnold Schwarzenegger." However, in the page for Arnold Schwarzenegger himself, the first Conan movie is said to be his break-through role. -- Dorfl 17:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed this section on the grounds that it didn't contain quotes, but rather the transcript of two seemingly random scenes. I couldn't determine the notably of the scenes, so I removed them. -- Ashmoo 02:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
What kind of assault rifle did the Terminator use in this movie? I thought it might be an FN FNC, but I'm not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.20.221 ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If the film cost $6.5 million, how could it be considered low budget? -- Alexrules43 20:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
To whomever altered the "Opening Text":
I appreciate your contribution, but please understand that the opening text is rendered here exactly as it appears in the film. I've corrected it. If you would like to verify the text, and cannot get a copy of the film, the following Google query should yield a more than satisfactory number of references that quote the text directly. [3] If you have any further questions, please post them here before reverting the article copy. Thanks. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 08:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I see what happened, one user vandalized it and another with good intentions tried to fix it, but did not do so accurately. To the "fixer", you have my thanks, and I hope you will find my reference above useful if it should happen again. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 08:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There are many articles on films that contain plot summaries as long as this one or longer. If you feel the section can be improved, please discuss why and how you think this should be done to improve the article. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 02:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand that someone feels the plot section is too long. I invite that person to state the reasons here, so that we may improve the article.
I fail to see how removing the formatting (which was placed there to improve readability) improves the article. I've reinstated the formatting (subsection titles and line breaks). If you feel the plot section is too cumbersome, removing the paragraph markers, thereby condensing the existing copy into 3 huge paragraphs hardly seems like a move towards improved readability.
However, I am certainly open to your concerns and intended goals, so I invite you to discuss them here.
Thanks, -- ManfrenjenStJohn 02:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there not a parallelism between the ending and Revelation 12? -- Krazykenny 02:30, 7 June 2007
Guns and Roses song "You Could be mine" is about T1... ! add that to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.60.184.116 ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
FTA: "Yet in Terminator 2, John and Sarah Connor and John's new protector, a model of the previous Terminator, managed to prevent Cyberdyne Systems from launching Skynet"
This, IMO, is conjecture. It is never explicit or implied that the trio succeeded in "preventing Cyberdyne Systems from launching Skynet" (whatever "launching" SkyNET means). If anything, the ending monologue by Sarah Connor supports the idea that they have NO IDEA if they were successful, and won't know until Judgement Day comes, assuming it does at all. This is further supported by the crappy "happy ending" Cameron filmed and never used, thankfully.
Additionally, if we accept the idea that they were able to "stop SkyNET from 'launching'," then T3 could have never happened. Let alone T2... or the original! Although I won't directly address the issue of T3 and how it totally shits on the Novikov principle and the story of the previous two films, T3 explicity states in the dialogue that SkyNET was not stopped, it was merely delayed.
Accordingly, I have removed this entire paragraph. Feel free to debate with me, but in the meantime I have removed the paragraph. It's just wrong. -- 66.245.30.238 08:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not interested in getting into a big debate over this, but these are the problems with the pieces I removed and had reverted. In order of importance:
Regard, -- Ashmoo 03:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I have made a number of edits to the page after receiving no comment to the above. I am sure my removal of large sections of text will annoy some editors, but I ask for calm. As it stands, a lot of the article, while good and interesting analysis, is unsourced and as such does not really belong on wikipedia. I'm happy to discuss any issues relating to this before making any more changes. Regards, -- Ashmoo 23:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I am quite new in Wikipedia. I've seen that we need mor contents on The terminator. I know really well this movie as it was one i choose for my thesis many years ago. I would like to add a section (roughly 10 short line). The title would be : Cultural Impact and Social Values. And i could specify 10 interesting aspects of the movie. Each aspect could be improved in the future by anyone. Could you tell me how should i proceed to submit those info. Should i just add it and see what you think about it? Thanks a lot for your advices. -- Jjcolmax ( talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move the page to The Terminator, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 06:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The Terminator (film) → The Terminator — all the links to "The Terminator" intend the film — Ewlyahoocom 05:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.The article only shows the standard soundtrack, there is an updated version. [4] --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 21:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed the inspiration section because, one will note, none of the citations actually speak to the inspirational effect of these films on Terminator. All of the citations speak to the various films that whatever editor added to the section felt him or her self were the inspiration for the film. Without connecting citation, it cannot - as per WP:SYN be included without it:
Inspirations
James Cameron states that the Terminator idea was originally his, and that it came to him in a dream after becoming ill in Rome. However, several works that predate his script bear some similarity. Some aspects of the story were sufficiently similar to two episodes of the TV series The Outer Limits written by Harlan Ellison, " Soldier" and " Demon with a Glass Hand", that Ellison pursued legal action against Cameron. The two settled out of court, and Cameron acknowledged Ellison's work in the film's credits. The concept of Skynet is similar to the evil intelligence featured in Ellison's short story, " I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream". citation needed
The story is also similar to two stories by Philip K. Dick, " Second Variety" and "Jon's World". In these stories, robots, originally designed to fight for humans, design newer models that look like humans in order to infiltrate their bunkers and kill them. The novel Cyborg by Martin Caidin featured a cyborg assassin, a human rebuilt with machine implants, that relied on its human appearance for infiltration. Another film, La Jetée, featured a soldier from the future, sent back to obtain resources needed for humanity to continue. The film Cyborg 2087 had a similar plot of a killer machine sent back in time to change history. [1]
-- Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, Bill Paxton's punk wasn't killed, since he complied by removing his clothes for the Terminator to wear. Also, IIRC, the Terminator doesn't kill anyone unless they interfere with his eventual goal of eliminating the Sarah Conner. -- Mike18xx 06:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
While the following movies seem to fully cement the fact that this movie takes places in 1984, this one doesn't as far as I know. The only indication of when this movie takes place is a card just after the opening credits, which reads "May 12th, 1:52 AM", and a police officer mentioning that May 12th is a Thursday if I'm not mistaken. Now, while May 12th was Saturday in 1984, it was Thursday in 1983, and since noother date specification is made in this movie, wouldn't that render all other date specifications in the following films irrelevant? Wouldn't it be much better to write in this article that the movie takes places in 1983, and NOT in 1984? -- Mulder1982 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Day One | 1984 1:52 a.m. (on-screen text) – Terminator Series 800 Model 101 arrives. Kyle Reese arrives. |
12th May Thursday (dialog) – Police officer to Reese. | |
5/19/84 (on-screen) – Sarah's time card "PAY PERIOD ENDS" | |
Friday night (dialog) – Sarah is stood up, and goes to the bar. | |
Day Two | Saturday (scenes set in daylight) – Motel, etc. John is conceived that night, before the fight at the factory. (This makes Sarah's full term due date February 15th the following year.) |
Day Three | Sunday morning (it is again daylight) – They load Sarah into the ambulance and find the Terminator parts in the factory. |
Six months later | November 10th Scene with Sarah driving Jeep at gas station. |
I wrote all of this down as I re-watched the film today. — MJBurrage( T• C) 01:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Is the name of this film "Terminator" or "The Terminator"? -- Ewlyahoocom 09:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The statement "This paradox can also been seen generally, in that if the machines had not tried to stop John's birth, he never would have been born (as Kyle Reese would never have had cause to go back in time)" is untrue. In the original timeline, John Connor was indeed born, albeit not with Kyle Reese (but another man) as John's father. John would have been born regardless of Kyle's presence. The only thing different are the circumstances of his birth and likely the timing as well. If no one objects, I'd like to modify this statement. -- Mike Beidler 17:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
When Sarah asked Reese "so your from the future?" Reese explicitly replied "one possible future." Why didn't he simply say "yes"? For this reason, I always presumed that viewers were not watching the original timeline but a new one that was created as a result of the events in the movie. -- 74.117.144.153 01:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hardly... Alex Cox way back during the 1980s when introducing films that were being shown on the BBC Two television series "MovieDrome" remarked that The Terminator was based on episodes from The Outer Limits. See also Wikipedia articles for Harlan Ellison and The Outer Limits. -- Wfgh66 ( talk) 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
In the reception section we have:
It currently has a perfect score of 100% on Rotten Tomatoes.[8]
Isn't it probably a bad idea to put something like this in which could change at some point, wouldn't a similar statement with a specific date or date range be more future proof? -- 86.128.50.177 ( talk) 22:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Since some people are apparently too dense to grasp the fundamentals of Wikipedia, the tag at the top of the article has no supporting argument. No CN tags present in the article, and no discussion on the talk page to support it. Therefore, the tag should be removed. I understand this is a difficult concept, but you don't just add tags to the top of the article without a reason. Hopefully this is simple enough for everyone to follow. -- Tool2Die4 ( talk) 01:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
In the UK, The Terminator was originally rated as an 18. When the film was released to DVD, it was re-rated to a 15. Curiously, the U.S. version remains classified as an R.
That last part about the R rating is ridiculous. Just because the film was re-rated in the UK to a 15. Doesn't mean it should be re-rated PG-13 in the USA. Whats so curious about a film with violence, strong language and nudity getting an R rating? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.85.85 ( talk) 12:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
That is COMPLETLY incorrect - especially considering the MPAA "R" is "advisory" while the BBFC "15" is "restricted". -- 61.69.3.197 ( talk) 14:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else there should be a mention of the fact that the 5.1 and DTS mixes found on the DVD releases feature altered sound effects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.41.125 ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Am I missing something here or not. It says: Time travel can only send living tissue back, preventing Reese from bringing any advanced weaponry, and 20th century small arms are not enough to destroy the Terminator's hard metal skeleton. With its disguise of real living tissue over the metal, it is indistinguishable from normal humans, so no one will believe Reese's story.
Now, even though the Terminator is covered with flesh, it is still made of metal and therefore should not be able to time travel. So it makes no sense that you can send a metal "robot" back, but not weapons made of metal. -- Bwd234 09:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Is The Terminator a Cyborg or an Android. The article calls it both, however I believe that The Terminator is an android. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.44.79 ( talk) 05:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the history of discussions about what year the film is supposed to take place, but to me the sentence "the machines send back someone from the future to May 12, 1984 (a cop mentions that the day was Thursday; May 12, 1983 fell on a Thursday)" is just self-contradictory and confusing. I've read the discussion above, but as a casual visitor to the page I still can't work out whether the action takes place in 1983 or in 1984. Maybe it's really simple and I'm just being dense, but can't someone re-word the sentence to make it clearer? Apologies for revisiting a discussion that's probably been done to death in the past -- Dom Kaos ( talk) 01:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
That phrase made me LOL. Surely there's a less, well, creepy way to put this? -- 87.236.134.146 ( talk) 20:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. -- Ikip ( talk) 11:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I just completed the same with the T2 page; I am hoping to fix the lead so this article (and its richly deserving subject) can be restored to proper form and readability. Please feel free to post any suggestions here. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 06:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Please note the actual verbage of linked page: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections"; rather, it recommends translating trivia lists into prose as a stylistic issue. Reverting to a trivia list is thus proper in the face of deletion. Trivia information should be incorporated into the prose or removed by another standard, e.g., lack of citation. -- Strangename ( talk) 08:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I added a good-faith paragraph to the plot summary about how the Terminator goes about "his business". I consider this important for several reasons. For one, the "phonebook" scene is important because it establishes the Terminator as an emotionless killing machine. It makes no attempt to see if the Sarah Connor in the phone book is the right one, he simply murders them all. This is in stark contrast to the rest of the movies, where the Terminators smile, tsk-tsk their victims, give the evil eye, etc., or in the case of the latest installment, are so full of emotion they don't even realize they're robots. The Terminators of the early movies are very different than their portrayals in the later movies, and the entire opening of the movie is used to establish that fact. Given that, and that the portion in question represents something like 1/4 of the running time, a single paragraph on the topic hardly seems egregious.
I also consider it important for other reasons. Without this section the summary still describes some of the main action points, but not others. IllaZilla suggests that the car chance is important to mention specifically, because it leads to their arrest. So, why is that important? Either the action scenes are important or they're not, it seems that one editor's ability to pick and choose is unlikely to be better than anyone else's. Given that it's a single paragraph, erring on the side of completeness certainly doesn't seem unwarranted. Further, the scenes show what Kyle later states, that they come through without any support, or even clothing. This isn't repeated in the later movies, the viewer is expected to understand this plot point. -- Maury Markowitz ( talk) 11:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The great Russian filmmaker Tarkovsky called the film "a work of art". Might be a nice addition to the Reception section. Just a thought. -- 110.32.134.56 ( talk) 13:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
First of all, the Terminator is most probably an adroid covered in living tissue. The skin covering is only used for infiltration purposes, it is not an needed for the terminator to function, This is shown in T2 and T3 with the bare terminators in the future war sequences.
Second of all, the Terminators model and series should be mentioned in wikipedia. Its not illegal to mention extra things that were not included in the film, not to mention that the model 101 was mentioned by kyle reese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.75.129 ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I posted a simple remark The Terminator's "Skynet" future was inspired by Frank Herbert's Dune novel in 1966. However, it keeps getting removed.
This period in Dune, referred to as the Butlerian Jihad, was the conquest and enslavement of humans by thinking machines and, other than Spice, is the basis of all society that followed after it although its less central than this movie. I don't know of any other robot storyline before Dune that went to this depth. The first commandment in the Orange Catholic Bible is Thou Shalt Nnot make a Machine that thinks like a Man. Dune, like Lord of the Rings, was the inspiration for many, many stories after it, including Star Wars, so something like this is too much of a coincidence to ignore.
I kept the reference short, didn't elaborate on the three prequels on the Jihad, and where is the harm in pointing out the obvious parallel? I think fans of the movie believe The Terminator's premise is more original than really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.152.181.251 ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there any support for the idea that the end of the move Westworld was one of the inspirations for The Terminator? -- 206.53.193.5 ( talk) 19:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
what gun was this? It seems interesting enough to merit some identification. -- 67.187.91.103 ( talk) 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I just want to say thanks for this article. Even this sentence alone makes it worth reading: Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that "such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer." ;-) -- 92.192.179.23 ( talk) 20:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Cyborgs by definition have organic parts which are essential for them to fuction. The terminator is not really a cyborg, it would be better described as an android covered in a living tissue disguise layer. Its organic covering is purely a disguise, it is not necessary for it to function and is not part of the terminator itself. Scenes with series 8oo terminators deployed stratight onto the battlfield show them without the tissue covering and in the first movie when the terminators disguise is burned away we see that the robot has no organic parts.
A good example of a cyborg would be Marcus wright from terminator salvation, which actually is part human part machine. The T-800 is a robot and only receives an organic covering for infiltration purposes, its organic elements are in no way necessary for it to function. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.92.111 ( talk) 12:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
←i must bring 2 things to your attention, but first i must say that TSCC is not very accurate in relation to the movies.
In the T2 teaser trailer, it is shown that the skin is grafted onto the terminator which only takes a few seconds. TSCC shoes things which are innacurate in comparison to the movies. Here is a link: [6]
secondly, it is heavily implied in T2 and TSCC that terminators do have feelings beyond what they are programmed to simulate. In the end of T2 sarah say that if a terminator can learn the value of human life, then maybe humanity isnt doomed. Since switching its cpu to read and right mode, they gave it the ability to learn and considering how advanced its AI is, it is possible for it to feel human emotions. Cameron in TSCC is also shown to express genuine emotions, as well as the T-1001 before leaving for the future when it shows genuine concern for savannah by requesting she be picked up. Sure, terminators might not be as emotional as humans, but the really advanced one do become after a certain period. James cameron has also confirmed this in documentaries about T2, see the tinman reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.173.255 ( talk) 20:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Could we use the term Cybernetic Android then? i've checked all the definitions of cyborg and they strongly imply that cyborgs need their organic parts to remain functional, as well as that they are bionic humans. The terminator would really not be a cyborg in the traditional sense, i agree that it needs its tissue covering to carry its mission, but the tissue covering is not necessary for the robot underneath to function. At least lets make this distinction, cyborg is too vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.161.148 ( talk) 22:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
In Roger Ebert's written review for Terminator Salvation he states "The first Terminator movie I regret (I suppose) I did not see." [7]. While it is true that he did not write a review of the original film, He did review it orally on a November 1984 episode of At the Movies. Video on YouTube In the episode both Siskel and Ebert mention that they had overlooked the film, and were now reviewing it for the show because it was No. 1 at the box office. Further, Ebert's written reviews for Terminator 2 and Terminator 3 compare those films to the original.
Most likely, he used his own archive of past written revues, when reviewing Terminator Salvation, and lacking one for The Terminator incorrectly assumed he had not seen it (or he meant to say "... I did not review."). Given how many films he has seen, I am not that surprised he could forget one, especially when he has no written record of seeing it. — MJBurrage( T• C) 21:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I have added the IMDb link again. I don't get why the IMDb external link keeps getting removed from this page. Almost every film on wikipedia with a corresponding IMDb-page has a link to that page, as they are relevant and useful, which is what WP:EL requires external links to be. I don't see what makes this article different. TheFreeloader ( talk) 06:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
←Thanks Mike, but I'm not particularly intersted in a TfD right now. Since this discussion has broadened to a wider scope than just this article, might I ask that further comments continue at the link provided by TheFreeloader? It's Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#IMDb external links.. We can add or remove the link from this article accordingly depending on the outcome of that broader discussion. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 02:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought I would start a discussion here so we can form some kind of consensus on the issue of the action-horror category since there has recently been some controversy over it. Note that I am not saying the Terminator is a horror film, I am merely saying that it does utilize enough elements of one to merit inclusion in the Action-horror film category. That does not make it an out-and-out horror film however, which is why it should not be included in categories such as American Horror films, 1980s Horror films, etc. To me this makes sense. It is comparable to including the category Tech Noir films while not including the Noir films category. In addition to action and horror, The Terminator mixes aspects of both film noir and science fiction, to the extent where it is acceptable to include that category. That does not make it a film noir however, so we leave that category out. Another example is the film Evil Dead 2, which is in the Action-Horror category because it mixes enough elements of the action genre with horror to merit inclusion, yet it remains out of the Action films category because that does not make it an out-and-out action film. Ash Loomis ( talk) 01:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Despite the film being set in the U.S. and made in the US the film takes its nationaility from the nationaility of its production country according to Template:Infobox_film. The relevant section for country states:
Insert the home country or countries of the film's main production companies.
Given that the film is produced by Hemdale Film Corporation, a British company then this makes The Terminator a British production. It is no more strange than say the Harry Potter films being a part US co-production despite being made and set in the UK, simply because a US company is involved in the production.
Accordingly, the Infobox rules state in the case of release dates ( WP:FILMRELEASE):
Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings.
There is a clear consensus on this issue, and the usage of nationalities and release dates must be consistent across all film articles. This means that some films that seem American aren't and some that don't seem to be are, but the guidelines are precise in this respect. Betty Logan ( talk) 17:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyborg_2087 ? No evidence of plagiarism ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.68.120.249 ( talk) 01:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I passed this article as a GA. I had to do some light copy-editing but nothing too major. There were few typos that were a little problematic try to more thorough looking the article over next tim. Two suggestions however, I added a fact tag about the Sting comment, and the modern critical reception section needs a link to the rotten tomatoes page for this article to put things in perspective. Quadzilla99 ( talk) 01:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I really can't understand the reasoning behind changing "make love" to "have sex" or "have sexual intercourse" - it's perfectly clear that making love means having sex, and nobody is going to be confused about that. We don't need clinical descriptions in an article about a movie because it's a work of ART, for pete's sake. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 05:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
To quote Kyle when Silberman asks him why they didn't kill Connor then, "Their defense grid was smashed. We had won, taking out Connor then would have made no difference. Skynet had to wipe out his entire existence." So, it's pretty clear they had won the war and Skynet could not have won by fighting in the-then present. You don't have to destroy all your enemy's forces to win a war. The snare ( talk) 01:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Should we dump them on Terminator 2 and Terminator 3 too? These parameters are infected by corporate nationality (French/German) on these two articles and it isn't clear in what respect they are French and German. I suggest ditching them backed up by the new guidelines, since they don't have a self-contained nationality. Betty Logan ( talk) 17:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, this is getting out of hand. Does anyone else think that the exact calendar date and day of the week are important to the overall plot or flow of events? I'm of the opinion that merely the year suffices. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 06:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
An edit-war seems to be brewing (or even underway) by Dbrennan3333 ( talk · contribs). The text in question is below (the contested bit is bolded and the source is converted to an external link for talk page purposes) The source—note 44—was already in place, as a citation to the preceding 2 sentences, before the contested text was added:
After writer Harlan Ellison saw the film, he stated that he "loved the movie, was just blown away by it".[43] Ellison believed that the screenplay for the film was based on the episode "Soldier" which he wrote for the television series The Outer Limits. Orion gave Ellison an undisclosed amount of money and gave him an acknowledgement credit in later prints of the film. (It's worth noting that, contrary to virtually all media accounts of the Harlan Ellison settlement, there was no claim that "Demon with a Glass Hand" - the other episode of The Outer Limits scripted by Ellison - was also allegedly plagiarized. Ellison himself stated this explicitly in 2001: "'Terminator' was not stolen from 'Demon with a Glass Hand,' it was a ripoff of my OTHER Outer Limits script, 'Soldier.'")[ 44
I have checked the source and it verifies part of this text, specifically the quote by Ellison. It is a response to an email. The exchange goes as follows (again, relevant text has been bolded):
The email:
Alex Jay Berman <smeghead@erols.com> Philly, - Sunday, August 12 2001 5:48:53 Just thought some of you might be interested in a post I wrote on the misc.writing newsgroup, in response to a solicitation post:
The solicitor sez: "Hi Folks!Here's your chance to submit ONE question for our cover interview with ... Producer GALE ANNE HURD."
(elided material)
I sez: "Yeah--I'd like to ask her ..."
Contiuing what the solicitor said: "Hurd's latest film is the upcoming sci-fi adventure "Clockstoppers" (a young man comes face to face with the greatest challenge of his life. Until now, Zak Gibbs' greatest challenge has been to find a way to buy a car. But when he discovers an odd wristwatch amidst his father's various invention and slips it on -- something very strange happens. The world around him seems to come to a stop, everything and everybody frozen in time. Zak quickly learns how to manipulate the device and he and his quick-witted and beautiful new friend, Francesca, start to have some real fun. But Zak and Francesca soon find out they are not alone in "Hypertime." Someone else is there and he wants the watch. When Zak's father is kidnapped, Zak must risk everything to save him -- and the world."
Again, I sez: "... to ask her if she's crediting John D. MacDonald's novel THE GIRL, THE GOLD WATCH, AND EVERYTHING as the story's interpretation, or whether they'll have to pay off JDM's estate, as they had to pay off Harlan Ellison and Ben Bova for their novella "Brillo" (and Ellison's "Demon With a Glass Hand") 's inspiration of THE TERMINATOR?"
Anyone think I'll get an answer?
And the response from Ellison:
Harlan Ellison - Sunday, August 12 2001 14:45:14 Alex Jay:
You won't get an answer from Gale Anne Hurd, because you've got your facts all wrong. As a wise man once NEVER said: "You couldn't be more wrong."
The "Brillo" lawsuit had nothing to do with Hurd, or Cameron, or Hemdale. It was against ABC-TV and Paramount and a slimebag named Terry Keegan, years before Cameron ever came on the scene. The ripoff was the ABC/Paramount tv series "Future Cop."
And "Terminator" was not stolen from "Demon with a Glass Hand," it was a ripoff of my OTHER Outer Limits script, "Soldier."
And, in truth, Hurd was probably the least culpable of all involved. She was enthralled with Cameron, and if she knew he'd copped my work, well, she thought (briefly, and at that time) he walked on water.
So, I suspect you'll only get a confused stare, if anything at all, because you've bollixed all the different incidents, and neither she nor the people running the website (who probably have no memory beyond a year ago, anyway) will be totally confused by your query.
Sorry, kiddo.
Harlan
The problem here is that the source is being twisted to support a larger claim that Dbrennan333 is making, but that the source itself does not explicitly support. Specifically, that "virtually all media accounts of the Harlan Ellison settlement [claimed] that "Demon with a Glass Hand" - the other episode of The Outer Limits scripted by Ellison - was also allegedly plagiarized." The source does not say anything about "media accounts" at all. The emailer, Alex Jay Berman, mistakenly remarks that Orion had to pay Ellison for "Demon with a Glass Hand" being an inspiration for The Terminator. Ellison replies "you've got your facts all wrong" and corrects him that it was "Soldier", not "Demon with a Glass Hand", that was "ripped off". That's it. There's nothing here that verifies the claim that "virtually all media accounts" made any claim about "Demon with a Glass Hand". You cannot make a claim like this that is not explicitly verified by the source. That is synthesis at best, flat-out falsehood at worst. Ellison correcting one emailer's mistake is not worthy of encyclopedic coverage, and certainly isn't evidence in itself to support a broad claim about "virtuall all media accounts". -- IllaZilla ( talk) 00:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
First off, I'm going to correct this after I'm done typing this, so that Wikipedia readers don't continue to believe abjectly false mainstream media reports. Second off, anybody who could read Harlan Ellison's quote and interpret that as anything less than an unequivocal, facial, and determining proof that DWGH was not a source wouldn't have to go to Oceania's "Room 101" to be forced to say that 2+2=5, because they obviously have no issue with saying wantonly bogus things. Third off, if everybody is so stridently opposed to my wording about the mainstream media....why not just do two minutes of research to verify it? All previous versions of The Terminator page had stated that the movie plagiarized DWGH, and it cites the mainstream media. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots and surmise, "Hey, maybe this was mis-reported. Instead of just deleting it, I'll do a bit of my own work." That would've been a heck of a lot more useful to readers than just clicking "Undo". Fourth off, when I say that the mainstream media claimed that DWGH was plagiarized by Terminator, that's exactly what I mean, and I'll demonstrate it overwhelmingly when I correct the errors. Funnily, you guys got up in arms over that phrasing, but for whatever reason you don't take exception to other claims like, The Terminator opened to mixed reviews. (A) What's "mixed"? Technically, 2 bad reviews out of 100 is "mixed". Anyway, the statement's just flat out wrong because (B) The Terminator got very good reviews, in the aggregate, upon its release.
Finally, you guys apparently didn't like the wording when I corrected the bogus paragraph. First off, I qualified my statement about the mainstream media with the adjective "virtually". Secondly, somebody wanted an "encyclopedic tone" - which, apparently, just means to make declarative statements, because that's what The Terminator page is full of (like most other Wikipedia pages). This is wrong because it implies a level of certitude that's totally undeserved. For instance, the Terminator page declares:
First off, this statement is just wrong. Cameron drew a painting of a T-800 endoskeleton with a knife (singular, not plural), and has usually said that he envisioned, in the dream, the T-800 emerging from a fire. But more to the point, the history of The Terminator is more complex than that. For example, Cameron's colleagues at New World have said that he told them about the story when he was working there (which pre-dated Piranha 2). So if the origins of the story are a little bit messy and conflicting (even as told by the writer himself!), then it's totally wrong for Wikipedia to just come out with declarative statements (oh, I mean, "encyclopedic tone") and basically decree, "Hark! This is how it was!" That's a lie of inference - it implies a level of certitude and conviction that's undeserved.
So, if somebody had instead felt free to write, "It appears that the movie critic community was generally split about The Terminator" or, in the other example, "According to at least one account, The Terminator originated with a dream Cameron had in Rome filming Piranha 2"....
....That might not be an "encyclopedic tone" (a.k.a. "declarative statement"), but it would be much more accurate, and readers would then know that this isn't the voice of God, but just a more humble assemblage of reports, usually just from the mainstream media. I'm a big fan of James Cameron - I run a fan blog and podcast about him - and I see so many bogus claims at the pages about his movies that it's really annoying. But you know what? I don't hold it against Wikipedia, because I know that most of the posters are just regurgitating what the mainstream media reports (which kinda defeats the whole purpose of the site, but nevermind). But what I do mind - and I think is wrong - are the constant declarative statements. It's simultaneously funny and annoying when I go to the page for The Abyss and I see that Wikipedia posters have copied nonsense from the mainstream media about non-existent incidents that defy human physiology. I think, "The people in the mainstream media who reported that were obviously just dumb. But couldn't Wikipedia editors, collectively, kinda think dynamically and realize that the report is wrong?"
(By the way, was that arbitrary criteria of an "encyclopedic tone" just invented right here? And who decides what "tone" something is, anyway? Most people can't even determine what the tone of their spouse is in person, how do you determine the tone of total strangers in text?)
Anyway, now I'm going to correct the article and point out to readers that every single mainstream media article falsely claims that DWGH was an inspiration for The Terminator. (Incidentally, all you have to do to see that that's false is, ya know, watch the two shows.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrennan3333 ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Dbrennan3333 ( talk) 00:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)DBrennan3333. 28 January 2011.
This is worse than dealing with DMV bureaucrats. Alright, let's go through the latest round.
So, here, you're claiming that this sampling of just ten reviews out of hundreds constitutes a representation of the whole? Sorry, but no. Basic statistics here. 95% is the minimum threshold for statistical significance in even the most casual of sciences. Assuming just 100 critics reviewed The Terminator, then your feeble sample of ten doesn't even get close to statistical significance. So, I now assume that you're going to go and delete the "mixed reviews" claim, since it's demonstratively "unverified".
It is unproveable, because you would have to either (A) cite every review of The Terminator in existence, or (B) cite a source that specifically says "reviews were mixed...", and you have not demonstrated the ability to do either. Again, the claim that "virtually all dogs are black" is not proveable.
You might've noticed that the above paragraph is a direct paraphrase of your stated standards. Therefore, I expect and assume that, in the interest of consistency, you'll re-edit the section on the reviews for The Terminator....along with every other movie at Wikipedia. Thanks!
Once again, you're wanting to put "some" media accounts of the incident. Considering the fact that you have not shown that there is even one media account which did not cite DWGH, your statement is speculation and unverified. Now, unfortunately, I'm going to have to refer you to MOS:OPED so that you can realize that your speculation of the media reporting does not meet the criteria that we at Wikipedia expect. I'm so sorry about that.
Seriously, just give me a number that you think qualifies as "many" media accounts. I've already cited five, which most people would think is excessive. But you want more? Fine. Give me a number. Thanks! Dbrennan3333 ( talk) 04:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
While this is important information, it is also a description that I think plenty of people would disagree with (I'm not one of them). How could we rephrase this? I don't know, which is why I left the text alone. But I do think it needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry_Sanger ( talk • contribs) 08:33, 23 July 2001 (UTC)
The middle sentence of the entry originally read: "The pretext of the movie is that a cybernetic construct, the eponymous Terminator (played by Schwarzenegger), has been ported back in time from a future where the world is ruled by computers, (who are bent on eliminating the last traces of mankind), to eliminate the mother of a child that the computers perceive may be a threat to their superiority." That sentence seemed a bit too long to me.
Also, why is the Terminator "eponymous"? What people, place, or institution was eventually named after it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoyaanisQatsi ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 18 July 2001 (UTC)
Was it really an Arnie vehicle from the outset?
He has hardly any dialogue, and is only in the action sequences, with Hamilton and Biehn on screen far more, and doing most of the acting. Sure, its since been repackaged as a star vehicle, but prior to that he'd only been in the Conan movies and various projects related to his status as a bodybuilding champ.
I think a better description is it was the film that *made* him a star, since a monosyllabic killing machine is a role he was born to play... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gareth Owen ( talk • contribs) 11:45, 18 July 2001 (UTC)
I would like to revisit the issue of this moving "making him a star". Conan was his first big star vehicle and was also widely successful. Perhaps re-wording this to "was his break-through role". Many millions of people knew who he was outside of body-building because of Conan made several years earlier. -- Lestatdelc 22:30, 8 April 2004 (UTC)
I have removed http://home.kc.rr.com/technoir since it is just a link to the anon contributors own site. -- Tεx τ urε 03:19, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
What was the purpose of the page move? -- Cburnett 06:27, 22 April 2005 (UTC)
Somebody said in the history tab of this article that Terminator 4 was cancelled according to IMDb. But I googled that, and it rendered 200,000+ google hits. That probably means that it could still be in production. Could somebody verify that? -- SuperDude 06:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
A point of detail. While the Terminator may have a "living" skin covering, I would argue that the Terminator is in fact an android rather than a cyborg. The design itself was created artificially from scratch from a factory, not from an existing humanoid organic base like for instance Seven of Nine in Star Trek - it has an alloy endoskeleton, there is no heart or "brain", there is no blood in the innerworkings and it has no organic metabolism throughout its body. Its skin is created artificially. The later T-1000 and T-X series of Terminators were explained as having "liquid metal" skins. What do you people think? I myself believe the Terminator should be called an android. -- Iam 22:58, 31 December 2004 (UTC)
The "skin-less" termintator ( image:Terminator endoskeleton in Terminator 2.jpg) was originally labed as being from T2. This is incorrect because the terminator only gets stripped of his skin in a fire near the end of T1. I have changed the title. -- 2mcm Gespräch 00:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Right now, the article begins: "The Terminator is a 1984 science fiction-action film which became the break-through role for former body-builder Arnold Schwarzenegger." However, in the page for Arnold Schwarzenegger himself, the first Conan movie is said to be his break-through role. -- Dorfl 17:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed this section on the grounds that it didn't contain quotes, but rather the transcript of two seemingly random scenes. I couldn't determine the notably of the scenes, so I removed them. -- Ashmoo 02:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
What kind of assault rifle did the Terminator use in this movie? I thought it might be an FN FNC, but I'm not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.20.221 ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If the film cost $6.5 million, how could it be considered low budget? -- Alexrules43 20:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
To whomever altered the "Opening Text":
I appreciate your contribution, but please understand that the opening text is rendered here exactly as it appears in the film. I've corrected it. If you would like to verify the text, and cannot get a copy of the film, the following Google query should yield a more than satisfactory number of references that quote the text directly. [3] If you have any further questions, please post them here before reverting the article copy. Thanks. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 08:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I see what happened, one user vandalized it and another with good intentions tried to fix it, but did not do so accurately. To the "fixer", you have my thanks, and I hope you will find my reference above useful if it should happen again. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 08:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There are many articles on films that contain plot summaries as long as this one or longer. If you feel the section can be improved, please discuss why and how you think this should be done to improve the article. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 02:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand that someone feels the plot section is too long. I invite that person to state the reasons here, so that we may improve the article.
I fail to see how removing the formatting (which was placed there to improve readability) improves the article. I've reinstated the formatting (subsection titles and line breaks). If you feel the plot section is too cumbersome, removing the paragraph markers, thereby condensing the existing copy into 3 huge paragraphs hardly seems like a move towards improved readability.
However, I am certainly open to your concerns and intended goals, so I invite you to discuss them here.
Thanks, -- ManfrenjenStJohn 02:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there not a parallelism between the ending and Revelation 12? -- Krazykenny 02:30, 7 June 2007
Guns and Roses song "You Could be mine" is about T1... ! add that to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.60.184.116 ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
FTA: "Yet in Terminator 2, John and Sarah Connor and John's new protector, a model of the previous Terminator, managed to prevent Cyberdyne Systems from launching Skynet"
This, IMO, is conjecture. It is never explicit or implied that the trio succeeded in "preventing Cyberdyne Systems from launching Skynet" (whatever "launching" SkyNET means). If anything, the ending monologue by Sarah Connor supports the idea that they have NO IDEA if they were successful, and won't know until Judgement Day comes, assuming it does at all. This is further supported by the crappy "happy ending" Cameron filmed and never used, thankfully.
Additionally, if we accept the idea that they were able to "stop SkyNET from 'launching'," then T3 could have never happened. Let alone T2... or the original! Although I won't directly address the issue of T3 and how it totally shits on the Novikov principle and the story of the previous two films, T3 explicity states in the dialogue that SkyNET was not stopped, it was merely delayed.
Accordingly, I have removed this entire paragraph. Feel free to debate with me, but in the meantime I have removed the paragraph. It's just wrong. -- 66.245.30.238 08:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not interested in getting into a big debate over this, but these are the problems with the pieces I removed and had reverted. In order of importance:
Regard, -- Ashmoo 03:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I have made a number of edits to the page after receiving no comment to the above. I am sure my removal of large sections of text will annoy some editors, but I ask for calm. As it stands, a lot of the article, while good and interesting analysis, is unsourced and as such does not really belong on wikipedia. I'm happy to discuss any issues relating to this before making any more changes. Regards, -- Ashmoo 23:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I am quite new in Wikipedia. I've seen that we need mor contents on The terminator. I know really well this movie as it was one i choose for my thesis many years ago. I would like to add a section (roughly 10 short line). The title would be : Cultural Impact and Social Values. And i could specify 10 interesting aspects of the movie. Each aspect could be improved in the future by anyone. Could you tell me how should i proceed to submit those info. Should i just add it and see what you think about it? Thanks a lot for your advices. -- Jjcolmax ( talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move the page to The Terminator, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 06:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The Terminator (film) → The Terminator — all the links to "The Terminator" intend the film — Ewlyahoocom 05:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.The article only shows the standard soundtrack, there is an updated version. [4] --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 21:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed the inspiration section because, one will note, none of the citations actually speak to the inspirational effect of these films on Terminator. All of the citations speak to the various films that whatever editor added to the section felt him or her self were the inspiration for the film. Without connecting citation, it cannot - as per WP:SYN be included without it:
Inspirations
James Cameron states that the Terminator idea was originally his, and that it came to him in a dream after becoming ill in Rome. However, several works that predate his script bear some similarity. Some aspects of the story were sufficiently similar to two episodes of the TV series The Outer Limits written by Harlan Ellison, " Soldier" and " Demon with a Glass Hand", that Ellison pursued legal action against Cameron. The two settled out of court, and Cameron acknowledged Ellison's work in the film's credits. The concept of Skynet is similar to the evil intelligence featured in Ellison's short story, " I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream". citation needed
The story is also similar to two stories by Philip K. Dick, " Second Variety" and "Jon's World". In these stories, robots, originally designed to fight for humans, design newer models that look like humans in order to infiltrate their bunkers and kill them. The novel Cyborg by Martin Caidin featured a cyborg assassin, a human rebuilt with machine implants, that relied on its human appearance for infiltration. Another film, La Jetée, featured a soldier from the future, sent back to obtain resources needed for humanity to continue. The film Cyborg 2087 had a similar plot of a killer machine sent back in time to change history. [1]
-- Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, Bill Paxton's punk wasn't killed, since he complied by removing his clothes for the Terminator to wear. Also, IIRC, the Terminator doesn't kill anyone unless they interfere with his eventual goal of eliminating the Sarah Conner. -- Mike18xx 06:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
While the following movies seem to fully cement the fact that this movie takes places in 1984, this one doesn't as far as I know. The only indication of when this movie takes place is a card just after the opening credits, which reads "May 12th, 1:52 AM", and a police officer mentioning that May 12th is a Thursday if I'm not mistaken. Now, while May 12th was Saturday in 1984, it was Thursday in 1983, and since noother date specification is made in this movie, wouldn't that render all other date specifications in the following films irrelevant? Wouldn't it be much better to write in this article that the movie takes places in 1983, and NOT in 1984? -- Mulder1982 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Day One | 1984 1:52 a.m. (on-screen text) – Terminator Series 800 Model 101 arrives. Kyle Reese arrives. |
12th May Thursday (dialog) – Police officer to Reese. | |
5/19/84 (on-screen) – Sarah's time card "PAY PERIOD ENDS" | |
Friday night (dialog) – Sarah is stood up, and goes to the bar. | |
Day Two | Saturday (scenes set in daylight) – Motel, etc. John is conceived that night, before the fight at the factory. (This makes Sarah's full term due date February 15th the following year.) |
Day Three | Sunday morning (it is again daylight) – They load Sarah into the ambulance and find the Terminator parts in the factory. |
Six months later | November 10th Scene with Sarah driving Jeep at gas station. |
I wrote all of this down as I re-watched the film today. — MJBurrage( T• C) 01:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Is the name of this film "Terminator" or "The Terminator"? -- Ewlyahoocom 09:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The statement "This paradox can also been seen generally, in that if the machines had not tried to stop John's birth, he never would have been born (as Kyle Reese would never have had cause to go back in time)" is untrue. In the original timeline, John Connor was indeed born, albeit not with Kyle Reese (but another man) as John's father. John would have been born regardless of Kyle's presence. The only thing different are the circumstances of his birth and likely the timing as well. If no one objects, I'd like to modify this statement. -- Mike Beidler 17:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
When Sarah asked Reese "so your from the future?" Reese explicitly replied "one possible future." Why didn't he simply say "yes"? For this reason, I always presumed that viewers were not watching the original timeline but a new one that was created as a result of the events in the movie. -- 74.117.144.153 01:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hardly... Alex Cox way back during the 1980s when introducing films that were being shown on the BBC Two television series "MovieDrome" remarked that The Terminator was based on episodes from The Outer Limits. See also Wikipedia articles for Harlan Ellison and The Outer Limits. -- Wfgh66 ( talk) 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
In the reception section we have:
It currently has a perfect score of 100% on Rotten Tomatoes.[8]
Isn't it probably a bad idea to put something like this in which could change at some point, wouldn't a similar statement with a specific date or date range be more future proof? -- 86.128.50.177 ( talk) 22:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Since some people are apparently too dense to grasp the fundamentals of Wikipedia, the tag at the top of the article has no supporting argument. No CN tags present in the article, and no discussion on the talk page to support it. Therefore, the tag should be removed. I understand this is a difficult concept, but you don't just add tags to the top of the article without a reason. Hopefully this is simple enough for everyone to follow. -- Tool2Die4 ( talk) 01:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
In the UK, The Terminator was originally rated as an 18. When the film was released to DVD, it was re-rated to a 15. Curiously, the U.S. version remains classified as an R.
That last part about the R rating is ridiculous. Just because the film was re-rated in the UK to a 15. Doesn't mean it should be re-rated PG-13 in the USA. Whats so curious about a film with violence, strong language and nudity getting an R rating? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.85.85 ( talk) 12:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
That is COMPLETLY incorrect - especially considering the MPAA "R" is "advisory" while the BBFC "15" is "restricted". -- 61.69.3.197 ( talk) 14:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else there should be a mention of the fact that the 5.1 and DTS mixes found on the DVD releases feature altered sound effects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.41.125 ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Am I missing something here or not. It says: Time travel can only send living tissue back, preventing Reese from bringing any advanced weaponry, and 20th century small arms are not enough to destroy the Terminator's hard metal skeleton. With its disguise of real living tissue over the metal, it is indistinguishable from normal humans, so no one will believe Reese's story.
Now, even though the Terminator is covered with flesh, it is still made of metal and therefore should not be able to time travel. So it makes no sense that you can send a metal "robot" back, but not weapons made of metal. -- Bwd234 09:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Is The Terminator a Cyborg or an Android. The article calls it both, however I believe that The Terminator is an android. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.44.79 ( talk) 05:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the history of discussions about what year the film is supposed to take place, but to me the sentence "the machines send back someone from the future to May 12, 1984 (a cop mentions that the day was Thursday; May 12, 1983 fell on a Thursday)" is just self-contradictory and confusing. I've read the discussion above, but as a casual visitor to the page I still can't work out whether the action takes place in 1983 or in 1984. Maybe it's really simple and I'm just being dense, but can't someone re-word the sentence to make it clearer? Apologies for revisiting a discussion that's probably been done to death in the past -- Dom Kaos ( talk) 01:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
That phrase made me LOL. Surely there's a less, well, creepy way to put this? -- 87.236.134.146 ( talk) 20:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. -- Ikip ( talk) 11:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I just completed the same with the T2 page; I am hoping to fix the lead so this article (and its richly deserving subject) can be restored to proper form and readability. Please feel free to post any suggestions here. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 06:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Please note the actual verbage of linked page: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections"; rather, it recommends translating trivia lists into prose as a stylistic issue. Reverting to a trivia list is thus proper in the face of deletion. Trivia information should be incorporated into the prose or removed by another standard, e.g., lack of citation. -- Strangename ( talk) 08:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I added a good-faith paragraph to the plot summary about how the Terminator goes about "his business". I consider this important for several reasons. For one, the "phonebook" scene is important because it establishes the Terminator as an emotionless killing machine. It makes no attempt to see if the Sarah Connor in the phone book is the right one, he simply murders them all. This is in stark contrast to the rest of the movies, where the Terminators smile, tsk-tsk their victims, give the evil eye, etc., or in the case of the latest installment, are so full of emotion they don't even realize they're robots. The Terminators of the early movies are very different than their portrayals in the later movies, and the entire opening of the movie is used to establish that fact. Given that, and that the portion in question represents something like 1/4 of the running time, a single paragraph on the topic hardly seems egregious.
I also consider it important for other reasons. Without this section the summary still describes some of the main action points, but not others. IllaZilla suggests that the car chance is important to mention specifically, because it leads to their arrest. So, why is that important? Either the action scenes are important or they're not, it seems that one editor's ability to pick and choose is unlikely to be better than anyone else's. Given that it's a single paragraph, erring on the side of completeness certainly doesn't seem unwarranted. Further, the scenes show what Kyle later states, that they come through without any support, or even clothing. This isn't repeated in the later movies, the viewer is expected to understand this plot point. -- Maury Markowitz ( talk) 11:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The great Russian filmmaker Tarkovsky called the film "a work of art". Might be a nice addition to the Reception section. Just a thought. -- 110.32.134.56 ( talk) 13:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
First of all, the Terminator is most probably an adroid covered in living tissue. The skin covering is only used for infiltration purposes, it is not an needed for the terminator to function, This is shown in T2 and T3 with the bare terminators in the future war sequences.
Second of all, the Terminators model and series should be mentioned in wikipedia. Its not illegal to mention extra things that were not included in the film, not to mention that the model 101 was mentioned by kyle reese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.75.129 ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I posted a simple remark The Terminator's "Skynet" future was inspired by Frank Herbert's Dune novel in 1966. However, it keeps getting removed.
This period in Dune, referred to as the Butlerian Jihad, was the conquest and enslavement of humans by thinking machines and, other than Spice, is the basis of all society that followed after it although its less central than this movie. I don't know of any other robot storyline before Dune that went to this depth. The first commandment in the Orange Catholic Bible is Thou Shalt Nnot make a Machine that thinks like a Man. Dune, like Lord of the Rings, was the inspiration for many, many stories after it, including Star Wars, so something like this is too much of a coincidence to ignore.
I kept the reference short, didn't elaborate on the three prequels on the Jihad, and where is the harm in pointing out the obvious parallel? I think fans of the movie believe The Terminator's premise is more original than really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.152.181.251 ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there any support for the idea that the end of the move Westworld was one of the inspirations for The Terminator? -- 206.53.193.5 ( talk) 19:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
what gun was this? It seems interesting enough to merit some identification. -- 67.187.91.103 ( talk) 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I just want to say thanks for this article. Even this sentence alone makes it worth reading: Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that "such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer." ;-) -- 92.192.179.23 ( talk) 20:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Cyborgs by definition have organic parts which are essential for them to fuction. The terminator is not really a cyborg, it would be better described as an android covered in a living tissue disguise layer. Its organic covering is purely a disguise, it is not necessary for it to function and is not part of the terminator itself. Scenes with series 8oo terminators deployed stratight onto the battlfield show them without the tissue covering and in the first movie when the terminators disguise is burned away we see that the robot has no organic parts.
A good example of a cyborg would be Marcus wright from terminator salvation, which actually is part human part machine. The T-800 is a robot and only receives an organic covering for infiltration purposes, its organic elements are in no way necessary for it to function. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.92.111 ( talk) 12:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
←i must bring 2 things to your attention, but first i must say that TSCC is not very accurate in relation to the movies.
In the T2 teaser trailer, it is shown that the skin is grafted onto the terminator which only takes a few seconds. TSCC shoes things which are innacurate in comparison to the movies. Here is a link: [6]
secondly, it is heavily implied in T2 and TSCC that terminators do have feelings beyond what they are programmed to simulate. In the end of T2 sarah say that if a terminator can learn the value of human life, then maybe humanity isnt doomed. Since switching its cpu to read and right mode, they gave it the ability to learn and considering how advanced its AI is, it is possible for it to feel human emotions. Cameron in TSCC is also shown to express genuine emotions, as well as the T-1001 before leaving for the future when it shows genuine concern for savannah by requesting she be picked up. Sure, terminators might not be as emotional as humans, but the really advanced one do become after a certain period. James cameron has also confirmed this in documentaries about T2, see the tinman reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.173.255 ( talk) 20:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Could we use the term Cybernetic Android then? i've checked all the definitions of cyborg and they strongly imply that cyborgs need their organic parts to remain functional, as well as that they are bionic humans. The terminator would really not be a cyborg in the traditional sense, i agree that it needs its tissue covering to carry its mission, but the tissue covering is not necessary for the robot underneath to function. At least lets make this distinction, cyborg is too vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.161.148 ( talk) 22:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
In Roger Ebert's written review for Terminator Salvation he states "The first Terminator movie I regret (I suppose) I did not see." [7]. While it is true that he did not write a review of the original film, He did review it orally on a November 1984 episode of At the Movies. Video on YouTube In the episode both Siskel and Ebert mention that they had overlooked the film, and were now reviewing it for the show because it was No. 1 at the box office. Further, Ebert's written reviews for Terminator 2 and Terminator 3 compare those films to the original.
Most likely, he used his own archive of past written revues, when reviewing Terminator Salvation, and lacking one for The Terminator incorrectly assumed he had not seen it (or he meant to say "... I did not review."). Given how many films he has seen, I am not that surprised he could forget one, especially when he has no written record of seeing it. — MJBurrage( T• C) 21:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I have added the IMDb link again. I don't get why the IMDb external link keeps getting removed from this page. Almost every film on wikipedia with a corresponding IMDb-page has a link to that page, as they are relevant and useful, which is what WP:EL requires external links to be. I don't see what makes this article different. TheFreeloader ( talk) 06:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
←Thanks Mike, but I'm not particularly intersted in a TfD right now. Since this discussion has broadened to a wider scope than just this article, might I ask that further comments continue at the link provided by TheFreeloader? It's Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#IMDb external links.. We can add or remove the link from this article accordingly depending on the outcome of that broader discussion. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 02:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought I would start a discussion here so we can form some kind of consensus on the issue of the action-horror category since there has recently been some controversy over it. Note that I am not saying the Terminator is a horror film, I am merely saying that it does utilize enough elements of one to merit inclusion in the Action-horror film category. That does not make it an out-and-out horror film however, which is why it should not be included in categories such as American Horror films, 1980s Horror films, etc. To me this makes sense. It is comparable to including the category Tech Noir films while not including the Noir films category. In addition to action and horror, The Terminator mixes aspects of both film noir and science fiction, to the extent where it is acceptable to include that category. That does not make it a film noir however, so we leave that category out. Another example is the film Evil Dead 2, which is in the Action-Horror category because it mixes enough elements of the action genre with horror to merit inclusion, yet it remains out of the Action films category because that does not make it an out-and-out action film. Ash Loomis ( talk) 01:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Despite the film being set in the U.S. and made in the US the film takes its nationaility from the nationaility of its production country according to Template:Infobox_film. The relevant section for country states:
Insert the home country or countries of the film's main production companies.
Given that the film is produced by Hemdale Film Corporation, a British company then this makes The Terminator a British production. It is no more strange than say the Harry Potter films being a part US co-production despite being made and set in the UK, simply because a US company is involved in the production.
Accordingly, the Infobox rules state in the case of release dates ( WP:FILMRELEASE):
Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings.
There is a clear consensus on this issue, and the usage of nationalities and release dates must be consistent across all film articles. This means that some films that seem American aren't and some that don't seem to be are, but the guidelines are precise in this respect. Betty Logan ( talk) 17:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyborg_2087 ? No evidence of plagiarism ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.68.120.249 ( talk) 01:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I passed this article as a GA. I had to do some light copy-editing but nothing too major. There were few typos that were a little problematic try to more thorough looking the article over next tim. Two suggestions however, I added a fact tag about the Sting comment, and the modern critical reception section needs a link to the rotten tomatoes page for this article to put things in perspective. Quadzilla99 ( talk) 01:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I really can't understand the reasoning behind changing "make love" to "have sex" or "have sexual intercourse" - it's perfectly clear that making love means having sex, and nobody is going to be confused about that. We don't need clinical descriptions in an article about a movie because it's a work of ART, for pete's sake. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 05:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
To quote Kyle when Silberman asks him why they didn't kill Connor then, "Their defense grid was smashed. We had won, taking out Connor then would have made no difference. Skynet had to wipe out his entire existence." So, it's pretty clear they had won the war and Skynet could not have won by fighting in the-then present. You don't have to destroy all your enemy's forces to win a war. The snare ( talk) 01:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Should we dump them on Terminator 2 and Terminator 3 too? These parameters are infected by corporate nationality (French/German) on these two articles and it isn't clear in what respect they are French and German. I suggest ditching them backed up by the new guidelines, since they don't have a self-contained nationality. Betty Logan ( talk) 17:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, this is getting out of hand. Does anyone else think that the exact calendar date and day of the week are important to the overall plot or flow of events? I'm of the opinion that merely the year suffices. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 06:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
An edit-war seems to be brewing (or even underway) by Dbrennan3333 ( talk · contribs). The text in question is below (the contested bit is bolded and the source is converted to an external link for talk page purposes) The source—note 44—was already in place, as a citation to the preceding 2 sentences, before the contested text was added:
After writer Harlan Ellison saw the film, he stated that he "loved the movie, was just blown away by it".[43] Ellison believed that the screenplay for the film was based on the episode "Soldier" which he wrote for the television series The Outer Limits. Orion gave Ellison an undisclosed amount of money and gave him an acknowledgement credit in later prints of the film. (It's worth noting that, contrary to virtually all media accounts of the Harlan Ellison settlement, there was no claim that "Demon with a Glass Hand" - the other episode of The Outer Limits scripted by Ellison - was also allegedly plagiarized. Ellison himself stated this explicitly in 2001: "'Terminator' was not stolen from 'Demon with a Glass Hand,' it was a ripoff of my OTHER Outer Limits script, 'Soldier.'")[ 44
I have checked the source and it verifies part of this text, specifically the quote by Ellison. It is a response to an email. The exchange goes as follows (again, relevant text has been bolded):
The email:
Alex Jay Berman <smeghead@erols.com> Philly, - Sunday, August 12 2001 5:48:53 Just thought some of you might be interested in a post I wrote on the misc.writing newsgroup, in response to a solicitation post:
The solicitor sez: "Hi Folks!Here's your chance to submit ONE question for our cover interview with ... Producer GALE ANNE HURD."
(elided material)
I sez: "Yeah--I'd like to ask her ..."
Contiuing what the solicitor said: "Hurd's latest film is the upcoming sci-fi adventure "Clockstoppers" (a young man comes face to face with the greatest challenge of his life. Until now, Zak Gibbs' greatest challenge has been to find a way to buy a car. But when he discovers an odd wristwatch amidst his father's various invention and slips it on -- something very strange happens. The world around him seems to come to a stop, everything and everybody frozen in time. Zak quickly learns how to manipulate the device and he and his quick-witted and beautiful new friend, Francesca, start to have some real fun. But Zak and Francesca soon find out they are not alone in "Hypertime." Someone else is there and he wants the watch. When Zak's father is kidnapped, Zak must risk everything to save him -- and the world."
Again, I sez: "... to ask her if she's crediting John D. MacDonald's novel THE GIRL, THE GOLD WATCH, AND EVERYTHING as the story's interpretation, or whether they'll have to pay off JDM's estate, as they had to pay off Harlan Ellison and Ben Bova for their novella "Brillo" (and Ellison's "Demon With a Glass Hand") 's inspiration of THE TERMINATOR?"
Anyone think I'll get an answer?
And the response from Ellison:
Harlan Ellison - Sunday, August 12 2001 14:45:14 Alex Jay:
You won't get an answer from Gale Anne Hurd, because you've got your facts all wrong. As a wise man once NEVER said: "You couldn't be more wrong."
The "Brillo" lawsuit had nothing to do with Hurd, or Cameron, or Hemdale. It was against ABC-TV and Paramount and a slimebag named Terry Keegan, years before Cameron ever came on the scene. The ripoff was the ABC/Paramount tv series "Future Cop."
And "Terminator" was not stolen from "Demon with a Glass Hand," it was a ripoff of my OTHER Outer Limits script, "Soldier."
And, in truth, Hurd was probably the least culpable of all involved. She was enthralled with Cameron, and if she knew he'd copped my work, well, she thought (briefly, and at that time) he walked on water.
So, I suspect you'll only get a confused stare, if anything at all, because you've bollixed all the different incidents, and neither she nor the people running the website (who probably have no memory beyond a year ago, anyway) will be totally confused by your query.
Sorry, kiddo.
Harlan
The problem here is that the source is being twisted to support a larger claim that Dbrennan333 is making, but that the source itself does not explicitly support. Specifically, that "virtually all media accounts of the Harlan Ellison settlement [claimed] that "Demon with a Glass Hand" - the other episode of The Outer Limits scripted by Ellison - was also allegedly plagiarized." The source does not say anything about "media accounts" at all. The emailer, Alex Jay Berman, mistakenly remarks that Orion had to pay Ellison for "Demon with a Glass Hand" being an inspiration for The Terminator. Ellison replies "you've got your facts all wrong" and corrects him that it was "Soldier", not "Demon with a Glass Hand", that was "ripped off". That's it. There's nothing here that verifies the claim that "virtually all media accounts" made any claim about "Demon with a Glass Hand". You cannot make a claim like this that is not explicitly verified by the source. That is synthesis at best, flat-out falsehood at worst. Ellison correcting one emailer's mistake is not worthy of encyclopedic coverage, and certainly isn't evidence in itself to support a broad claim about "virtuall all media accounts". -- IllaZilla ( talk) 00:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
First off, I'm going to correct this after I'm done typing this, so that Wikipedia readers don't continue to believe abjectly false mainstream media reports. Second off, anybody who could read Harlan Ellison's quote and interpret that as anything less than an unequivocal, facial, and determining proof that DWGH was not a source wouldn't have to go to Oceania's "Room 101" to be forced to say that 2+2=5, because they obviously have no issue with saying wantonly bogus things. Third off, if everybody is so stridently opposed to my wording about the mainstream media....why not just do two minutes of research to verify it? All previous versions of The Terminator page had stated that the movie plagiarized DWGH, and it cites the mainstream media. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots and surmise, "Hey, maybe this was mis-reported. Instead of just deleting it, I'll do a bit of my own work." That would've been a heck of a lot more useful to readers than just clicking "Undo". Fourth off, when I say that the mainstream media claimed that DWGH was plagiarized by Terminator, that's exactly what I mean, and I'll demonstrate it overwhelmingly when I correct the errors. Funnily, you guys got up in arms over that phrasing, but for whatever reason you don't take exception to other claims like, The Terminator opened to mixed reviews. (A) What's "mixed"? Technically, 2 bad reviews out of 100 is "mixed". Anyway, the statement's just flat out wrong because (B) The Terminator got very good reviews, in the aggregate, upon its release.
Finally, you guys apparently didn't like the wording when I corrected the bogus paragraph. First off, I qualified my statement about the mainstream media with the adjective "virtually". Secondly, somebody wanted an "encyclopedic tone" - which, apparently, just means to make declarative statements, because that's what The Terminator page is full of (like most other Wikipedia pages). This is wrong because it implies a level of certitude that's totally undeserved. For instance, the Terminator page declares:
First off, this statement is just wrong. Cameron drew a painting of a T-800 endoskeleton with a knife (singular, not plural), and has usually said that he envisioned, in the dream, the T-800 emerging from a fire. But more to the point, the history of The Terminator is more complex than that. For example, Cameron's colleagues at New World have said that he told them about the story when he was working there (which pre-dated Piranha 2). So if the origins of the story are a little bit messy and conflicting (even as told by the writer himself!), then it's totally wrong for Wikipedia to just come out with declarative statements (oh, I mean, "encyclopedic tone") and basically decree, "Hark! This is how it was!" That's a lie of inference - it implies a level of certitude and conviction that's undeserved.
So, if somebody had instead felt free to write, "It appears that the movie critic community was generally split about The Terminator" or, in the other example, "According to at least one account, The Terminator originated with a dream Cameron had in Rome filming Piranha 2"....
....That might not be an "encyclopedic tone" (a.k.a. "declarative statement"), but it would be much more accurate, and readers would then know that this isn't the voice of God, but just a more humble assemblage of reports, usually just from the mainstream media. I'm a big fan of James Cameron - I run a fan blog and podcast about him - and I see so many bogus claims at the pages about his movies that it's really annoying. But you know what? I don't hold it against Wikipedia, because I know that most of the posters are just regurgitating what the mainstream media reports (which kinda defeats the whole purpose of the site, but nevermind). But what I do mind - and I think is wrong - are the constant declarative statements. It's simultaneously funny and annoying when I go to the page for The Abyss and I see that Wikipedia posters have copied nonsense from the mainstream media about non-existent incidents that defy human physiology. I think, "The people in the mainstream media who reported that were obviously just dumb. But couldn't Wikipedia editors, collectively, kinda think dynamically and realize that the report is wrong?"
(By the way, was that arbitrary criteria of an "encyclopedic tone" just invented right here? And who decides what "tone" something is, anyway? Most people can't even determine what the tone of their spouse is in person, how do you determine the tone of total strangers in text?)
Anyway, now I'm going to correct the article and point out to readers that every single mainstream media article falsely claims that DWGH was an inspiration for The Terminator. (Incidentally, all you have to do to see that that's false is, ya know, watch the two shows.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrennan3333 ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Dbrennan3333 ( talk) 00:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)DBrennan3333. 28 January 2011.
This is worse than dealing with DMV bureaucrats. Alright, let's go through the latest round.
So, here, you're claiming that this sampling of just ten reviews out of hundreds constitutes a representation of the whole? Sorry, but no. Basic statistics here. 95% is the minimum threshold for statistical significance in even the most casual of sciences. Assuming just 100 critics reviewed The Terminator, then your feeble sample of ten doesn't even get close to statistical significance. So, I now assume that you're going to go and delete the "mixed reviews" claim, since it's demonstratively "unverified".
It is unproveable, because you would have to either (A) cite every review of The Terminator in existence, or (B) cite a source that specifically says "reviews were mixed...", and you have not demonstrated the ability to do either. Again, the claim that "virtually all dogs are black" is not proveable.
You might've noticed that the above paragraph is a direct paraphrase of your stated standards. Therefore, I expect and assume that, in the interest of consistency, you'll re-edit the section on the reviews for The Terminator....along with every other movie at Wikipedia. Thanks!
Once again, you're wanting to put "some" media accounts of the incident. Considering the fact that you have not shown that there is even one media account which did not cite DWGH, your statement is speculation and unverified. Now, unfortunately, I'm going to have to refer you to MOS:OPED so that you can realize that your speculation of the media reporting does not meet the criteria that we at Wikipedia expect. I'm so sorry about that.
Seriously, just give me a number that you think qualifies as "many" media accounts. I've already cited five, which most people would think is excessive. But you want more? Fine. Give me a number. Thanks! Dbrennan3333 ( talk) 04:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)