![]() | 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 |
I'm quite surprised the tidbit I added a while back didn't get included in the overhaul of the article. It's only a few sentences and the production section isn't terribly large:
One of the guns seen in the film and on the film's poster was an AMT Hardballer Longslide modified by Ed Reynolds from SureFire to include a laser sight. Both non-functioning and functioning versions of the prop were created. Due to cost considerations, the laser sights used an external power supply that Arnold Schwarzenegger had to activate manually. Reynolds states that his only compensation for the project was promotional material for the film. [1]
- ^ Kuchera, Ben (March 10, 2010). "True story: the making of the Terminator's laser-sighted .45 pistol". Ars Technica. Retrieved March 11, 2010.
I'd add it back, but I get the feeling I'd get reverted, even though it is properly cited. So, whatever. -- Jtalledo (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
How did MGM get the home video rights to this film? I know that Live Home Video/Artisan released on VHS around the mid-90s and that Image released it on DVD in 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.187.195 ( talk) 01:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
"In a post-apocalyptic 2029...". I just watched the movie with this wikipedia article in mind. I didn't see any mention in The Terminator that the apocalyptic future takes place in 2029. This is specified in the sequal(s) or spinofs. So, unless I missed it while re-watching the movie, the year 2029 shouldn't be mentioned in this article. My bad if I'm wrong, but I'd like someone to double check. Munin75 ( talk) 18:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that Skynet has achieved iconic status among many fearful of developments in our world. Wblakesx ( talk) 05:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
IllaZilla reverted me here, giving the reason, "no she doesn't. at least not in the events of this film." This concerns whether Sarah decides to tell John that Kyle Reese is his father. Now, I think I know the events of The Terminator as well as you do, IllaZilla, and I'm pretty sure that in the last few scenes of the film Sarah does, in fact, make up her mind to tell John that Kyle is his father (eg, in the scene where she says, "Will it affect your decision to send him back, knowing that he is your father."). So respectfully, I think your revert was a mistake. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 08:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
after regularly revisiting i noticed that in the infobox the section "country" has been resetted as i filled in United States numerous times now, to straighten things out i decided to comment here accordingly. since the movie was produced by Gale Hurd (American) through her American company, and written by Bill Wisher (American) and James Cameron (Candian/American) and distributed by Orion (American), with Hemdale at the time (when it was still existing) being largely involved in American movie pictures "Hollywood Company" and having it´s operative Headquarters in both London as well as Los Angeles, and the movie cast being all American actors (technically at the time Arnold did not have U.S. citizenship just yet but still) and with the movie shot in Los Angeles (again America) i guess it is legitimiate that section country reads "United States". therefore i am going to fill just that in for the umpteenth time now and i hope it will not be resetted again ! (same goes for Terminator 2 likewise !) kind regards from germany, yours truly Terminator feind :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.87.84.94 ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Hate to bring up something that's been done over and over again, but while browsing the British Film Institute's site, they have The Terminator listed as an American production [1] and list the production companies ( here) as Pacific Western Productions (American) (American), Hemdale (American) [2], and Orion (obviously American [3]. As it's something as strong and notable enough as the BFI who list everything here as American, is that enough to add the American info to the infobox? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 14:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The definition of a cyborg is a "person" enhanced with machine or robotic parts. The Terminator is a machine with an artificial intelligence C.P.U. as its brain; therefore, not a cyborg. The terminator is an android. I truly think the article should reflect this. LogicalCreator ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I've corrected the dates in the article to 1983, since Kyle's arrival into his past is Thu, 12 May 1983 (not 1984). See, for example, scene 14 in the script here, wherein Kyle asks a cop what the date is, who then responds, "Thursday... uh... May twelfth". 12 May 1983 was a Thursday, but 12 May 1984 was a Saturday. — Loadmaster ( talk) 18:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The Terminator (soundtrack) is not independently notable. Therefore, since this article is a Good Article, there must be a way to merge without ruining the Good Article. --
George Ho (
talk)
04:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Notability of The Terminator (soundtrack) is questionable. The article is small currently, so should it be expanded or merged into The Terminator? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Already merged. The whole page needs cleanup after merge.
George Ho (
talk)
20:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
http://jasonskywalker5.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/black-author-wins-matrix/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4TQg-1LWY4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.197.61.87 ( talk) 17:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Just curious about the Reddit interview. I personally have no doubt that's it's actually Arnie in the interview but I'm not sure if it follows WP:SOURCE that says "the information on the site must be 'reliable, third-party, published... with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". As Reddit isn't really that kind of a site like a published magazine or online newspaper, I'm not really sure if we should use it in an article that's already a GA. Should we take this up further or has it been brought up already? Thank you! :) Andrzejbanas ( talk) 12:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
A while back I added a lot of more information to the soundtrack section of the article. Can anyone give their opinion on whether or not it's enough to deserve it's own article again? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 16:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thought this was funny enough to mention. When you ask Siri about the first movie, sometimes she replies: "Oh, just more misunderstood cyborgs getting fried to a crisp. But I heard that the Governor of California was in it." -- Zhane Masaki ( talk) 03:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
A number of reviewers have noted that there's another source that most likely inspired Cameron to the film, which is Saturn 3 (1980) where a homicidal robot goes rampant on people and has a fixation on a woman. Some reviewers have gone so far as to call it "the blueprint to The Terminator" both in story elements and especially the look of the T-800 exoskeleton: [4], [5], [6]. One film geek forum post (unreliable for just being a forum post) even said that some scenes from Saturn 3 are copied shot-by-shot in The Terminator (1984), Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991), and Aliens (1986). -- 80.187.110.67 ( talk) 15:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The Plot section of the main article currently says, "When the [gasoline] truck driver gets out of the truck to see what happened, the Terminator kills him, hijacks the truck, and resumes the chase." All I see is the first driver get knocked down or out. No shredded torso or blood fountains. Did Terminator really kill him (documented in the script?)? Terminator gets into the cab and says to the co-driver, "Get out." and that driver flees (without being killed or harmed). Minor point, but just wondering. AdderUser ( talk) 05:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/matrix.asp
http://racismws.com/2014/02/17/original-writer-of-the-matrix-and-terminator-wins-2-5-billion-dollar-lawsuit/ I don't know how true it is.
Majinsnake ( talk) 06:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Leaving this in as a source as unlike a webpage which will can give a 404 error, the print material backs up what was previously discussed on the talk page earlier pertaining to the production countries of the film, and is backed up by the same source (The British Film Institute). I suggest we keep that one for now. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 22:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Unless you have a source, please do not add those as production companies. They are not included in the sources I have, and should not be added. The credits for this film have changed over the time so we need actual sources, not original research. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 15:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
A Euro Film Funding Limited Feature An Orion Pictures Release" doesn't really tell us who is doing what. I'm sticking with the Monthly Film Bulletin source which is far more specific in what is a production company. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 17:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Cyborgs are augmented humans whereas androids are synthetic humans in this case. The skin was artificial and only for transport back through time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.154.31 ( talk) 04:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Would that not only apply to in-universe plot summaries below the introduction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.154.31 ( talk) 23:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Please do not remove tags suggesting users to enter a discussion on this page. There is no consensus yet. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 13:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced content to the infobox. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 15:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
So now we have contradicting statements, which doesn't help our case. I've added a tag until more information can arise to what the real production companies for the film are. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 12:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
References
Not sure why we have the executive producers listed in the lead of the article. It seems to break several rules:
"inaccurate" to leave out sounds strange. I'm not against having Daly in the lead (Honestly, I think the lead needs a re-write). I do not think his credit as the executive producer really needs a mention though. As for the tags, I do not like them either, my advice is to re-write content so it a) matches the source and b) makes it better for readers. So, I'm leaning towards we re-write the lead as a whole, but I'd like your input on that too. My personal preference would be to not include citations in the lead, but am open to it if is required to write something really good that follows MOS:FILM and MOS:INTRO. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 18:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Both executive producers are sourced in the prose and, though it should be unnecessary, in the lead. Their role in Hemdale and that company's importance in getting the film made is not in dispute. It is detailed in the article. Yet you want to endlessly challenge their inclusion in the lead. I do not believe one editor who fails to get consensus for his demand of removing sourced information should be able to endlessly tag an article claiming there's an ongoing discussion when it's only that one editor who refuses to relent. I have once again alerted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film to this dispute, which as I said before, should bring more people here than your unnecessary tag on the page. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 01:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not really inaccurate because it's not clear what he has done outside being credited. As there is not references whatsoever to his unique contributions, it seems unimportant. "They arranged the financing and got the film made" is an interesting statement because there is not statement of that in the article, it only mentions Daly. You seem to be putting two separate items together hoping it will connect, and I'm not discrediting Gibson, but so far there's no information outside the credit of what he did or did not do in the film and assuming he did stuff because his partner in the company did would not be accurate. So no, I don't understand why the role crediting them is important, because other than finding out that they did it, it doesn't seem to have a lot of historical relevance to The Terminator's production. Might be a better fit on a page for Gibson. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 05:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Cameron is credited with the screenplay along with executive producer Gale Anne Hurd. John Daly and Derek Gibson of Hemdale Film Corporation, also executive producers, were instrumental in the film's eventual release.
The screenplay is credited to Cameron, along with producer Gale Anne Hurd. Executive producers John Daly and Derek Gibson of Hemdale Film Corporation were instrumental in the film's financing and production.
I don't have it with me, but I've read that the crushed terminator was examined by scientist & the 'future' info retrieved, was used to create Skynet. GoodDay ( talk) 01:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I have re-added the split 1980s chase films cat. Whether or not you think it was necessary to split the category, the category has been here for a long time and not contested. Personally, I do not think it belongs, but it's a relatively minor thing that boils down to opinion on whether the article should exist. Anyhow, the article has been split up. If you think it doesn't belong, I suggest we discuss it. If you think it was Unnecessary to break down this category to decades., then propose the category for a deletion/merging. Looking forward to the comments from @ Gothicfilm:, @ Jim Michael: and @ FreeKnowledgeCreator:. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 12:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
So we have Jim Michael, who has been asked repeatedly at WP:FILM to stop creating these small decade categories that go against WP:SMALLCAT, and we have Andrzejbanas, who doesn't even agree with the category but seems to have nothing better to do than promote debates on this page and elsewhere. As can be seen in the discussions above, he argued for weeks to exclude sourced information from the lead and to keep unnecessary tags on the page even though consensus was against him (repeatedly claiming incorrectly that removing them was vandalism), and now he wants us to spend more time debating something he's not even for. If there's no consensus to keep a cat, we can remove it. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 17:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I know I've brought it up before, but I believe the soundtrack can have its own article at this point. Per WP:NALBUM, which states that if the album "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.", I believe the album has now received signifigant coverage from multiple sources (Pitchfork, Spin, Slate, books, etc.). Should it be moved to its own article now? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 14:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on The Terminator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The Terminator received critical acclaim and many consider it one of the best films of 1984. Positive reviews of The Terminator focused on the action scenes and rapid pacing. is unsourced. Blue sphere 10:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
There is no shortage of citations showing that Cameron wrote Terminator in this article, and he is widely, famously known as the author of the screenplay. To not mention, in the first sentence, that Cameron directed and wrote the Terminator is a major omission. The only contentious part is how much Hurd wrote, which according to Cameron was zero, but that doesn't seem to me to be reason to omit Cameron's well-established authorship from the first sentence; we can mention Hurd's credit later in the lead, or put her in the first sentence too if need be. Popcornduff ( talk) 09:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The Terminator is a 1984 American science-fiction action film directed by James Cameron. The film, written by producer Gale Anne Hurd along with Cameron, stars Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Terminator, a cyborg assassin sent back in time from 2029 to 1984 to kill Sarah Connor ( Linda Hamilton). Her son will one day lead the resistance against machines in a post-apocalyptic future, and he sends soldier Michael Biehn ( Kyle Reese) from the future back in time to protect his mother. Executive producers John Daly and Derek Gibson of Hemdale Film Corporation were instrumental in the film's financing and production.
The Terminator is a 1984 American science-fiction action film directed by James Cameron and written by Cameron and producer Gale Anne Hurd. It stars Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Terminator, a cyborg assassin sent back in time from 2029 to 1984 to kill Sarah Connor ( Linda Hamilton).
You started by wanting to emphasize Cameron as the writer alone. This does not do that. "The screenplay is credited to Cameron, along with producer Gale Anne Hurd" works best to reflect the situation without misrepresenting the credit, as it's clear it's not the actual credit. But it would look awkward as the second sentence. But it's okay as the 4th sentence. So I still believe the best compromise is to leave it as it is. Don't forget the credit is also in the infobox, above the stars. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 11:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Came across an article Enthiran where the character Chitti (whose a humanoid by default) is denoted as IT as a machine. However, just to clarify that Terminator, whose also a humanoid should be denoted as It or not? SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 18:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Why not put pictures of the main actors as they appeared in the movie? Are we going to keep updating the images as the actors age? Banaticus ( talk) 22:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
What is the point of this? It's not like it's actually at the premiere, and there's already a photo of Schwarzenegger on the page. Nick Cooper ( talk) 11:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
In the plot, doesn't the technology from the crushed Terminator get used to build Skynet? Thus another paradox? GoodDay ( talk) 15:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I saw a very interesting YouTube video that made some very shocking claims about how the movie was filmed, particularly that several scenes were shot without a permit. However, as I've looked into this more, there are actually only two post-production scenes I can find good sources saying they were shot without permit: specifically the scene where Arnold punches through the car window and the ending scene where Linda drives down a highway. The video strongly implies that many night scenes were shot without permit, but I can't find evidence of that.
The video's claim that the scene with fog was actually pesticides is supported by this article, but I wasn't sure how or if to incorporate this info.
The permit issue in the movie's final scene is described by Cameron and Hurd themselves in an interview. This is very notable because it is a seemingly anecdotal story you will find repeated on other sites but the filmmakers indeed confirm this particular incident of a cop confronting them and convincing the cop that they are UCLA students.
Anyway, I wanted to briefly mention this... Ender and Peter 03:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I see that the 1984 film's article The Terminator was moved to The Terminator (1984 film) because Terminator (2019 film) was created. I can't quite tell if the 2019 film is officially and ultimately titled Terminator, but if so, it begs the question about whether or not "The" is sufficient disambiguation. I can't find anything at WP:DISAMBIG or WP:THE about that specifically. The only film-based example I can think of right now is Changeling (film) vs. The Changeling (film). I invite other editors to use this space (unless there is a dispute about the 2019 film truly being titled Terminator, then it would not be necessary to discuss). Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
It has all the tropes of the slasher subgenre such as the monster (being the eponymous Terminator), the female protagonist being targeted by said monster, and the stalking/pursuit of female protagonist by said monster. The scenes are really terrifying, too. The horror of being helpless as a series of serial murders committed towards people with your name are taking place? The thought that the killer is a face in the crowd and can attack you at any minute? That's scary! And then after your protector/lover dies, you become the final girl of the narrative? Horror movie right there. Like the Terminator itself, it is a horror movie wrapped in the flesh of a science fiction setting.
@ Darkwarriorblake: Hey, I need your help. Some editor is constantly removing the action genre and is saying only science fiction should be listed which is not right. I request you to participate in the above consensus debate at /info/en/?search=Talk:The_Terminator#Sci-Fi_Action because the editor is not listening to any of my arguments and is constantly ignoring me since I'm the only one contesting this against him. Since you too support the sci-fi action genre, please join me. Thanks. ( 77Survivor ( talk) 20:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC))
It received critical acclaim for its pacing, action scenes, soundtrack, script, and acting, in particular Schwarzenegger's performance as the Terminator.
You don't need to write "critical acclaim". "Acclaim" is perfectly sufficient. It is clear that the sort of acclaim we are talking about here is critical. Readers will not be confused. Popcornduff ( talk) 21:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Please do not attempt to correct sources. Entertainment Weekly claims "Schwarzenegger speaks only 17 lines in the film", and a comment directly under the article claims they were wrong and there were in fact 18 lines. We have to go with what the source actually says and not make corrections based on original research. I have corrected the article to use what the source actually says. It is unfortunate that Entertainment Weekly did not update or amend the article but unless someone can find a better source (or possibly use WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to override the source, and include a comment in the Wikisource to clearly mark that there was a consensus to do so) we have to go with what the source actually says. (I skimmed the talk page discussion archives, this doesn't seem to have been discussed previously.) -- 109.76.142.35 ( talk) 15:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
This is with reference to what an editor called Popcornduff has been doing. The film was already labelled as a sci-fi action film on the page. Everything was fine. We all know it's a sci-fi action movie. But then...
This editor removed action and made it just science fiction. Like really? And when I reverted his edits, he cross-reverted my edits and told me to read WP:LEAD. I even attached sources, all notably eligible, but this guy is hell-bent on rejecting everything even though he told me to get consensus first.
And when I actually happened to come across WP:FILMLEAD, it said the main genre or subgenre can be there with verified sources. And then, I suddenly realized what all most people are getting wrong.
Don't know how it didn't come to mind earlier, but any sane person who watch SF and action movies or just even reads Wikipedia properly will be knowing science fiction action is a subgenre. Yeah, it does look like two different genres listed as one but facts are facts. Search anywhere. It's a subgenre of action.
Now someone tell that duff guy to stop doing actual vandalism and accept that Wikipedia is not going to work if you just keep reverting other user's edits without complete knowledge and post blocking threats on his talk page.
The genre should be sci-fi action. Had it been something like "action sci-fi thriller" or "action adventure sci-fi" I could've agreed that we must pick up two as a subgenre or just one as a main one.
But here, it's clearly sci-fi action. Remember, it's a subgenre and eligible as per WP:FILMLEAD. 77Survivor ( talk) 04:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. This is Wikipedia policy.
Mr Duff, it IS a subgenre. Go read it anywhere. 77Survivor ( talk) 14:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I know you don't want to read anything because that would mark your defeat. Go on: https://www.allmovie.com/subgenre/sci-fi-action-d564
"Sharing many of the conventions of the science fiction film, sci-fi action emphasizes gunplay, space battles, and invented weaponry. Through the Terminator films, Arnold Schwartznegger became the most visible hero of the genre, and James Cameron it's progenitor. In both The Terminator and Terminator 2, as well as Aliens, Cameron's focus was not on the possibilities for satirical comment or prophecy inherent in science fiction, but rather on the often brutal violence that could be inflicted with futuristic weaponry. Paul Verhoeven managed a more cynical and satiric blend with action in his films RoboCop, Total Recall, and Starship Troopers, but they remained in the world of the actioner. The subgenre was most popular in the late '80s and early '90s, perhaps in response to the more violent but cooler future that seemed imminent during the reign of Ronald Reagan and the Star Wars missile defense system." 77Survivor ( talk) 14:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
And if even that hurts you, read the last line of /info/en/?search=Science_fiction#Film. 77Survivor ( talk) 15:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
And don't worry, I never made it a ""science fiction action adventure chase drama film" . Don't forget that it was all fine until you made the move. Don't think other Wikipedians to be lacking knowledge. I agree, someone had made it sci-fi action horror. You should've deleted only horror because there's minimal evidence about the film as a horror. But for the rest...? Speechless. 77Survivor ( talk) 15:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
The Terminator is horror. [7] It's a slasher movie with a sci-fi premise and action scenes. 2A02:C7F:8EA3:B00:BCC2:367F:52A4:A364 ( talk) 18:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes ! Terminator is a true horror film, not T2, but the first Terminator is pure horror and not action ! -- 77.207.75.83 ( talk) 09:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I've removed "action" from the opening sentence because it strikes me as misleading to use this and not "science fiction", which does not even appear in the lead section at all. Genres are going to overlap, but there is something remiss about simply calling this an "action film" as if it is a contemporary film with action in it. I think the case can be made to at least include "science fiction". Either we can decide on a sub-genre that includes science fiction, or we simply use "science fiction" and use the rest of the lead section to reflect the action in the film. But "action" should not be superseding "science fiction" entirely here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with Betty Logan's (re-)inclusion here of simply "science fiction film". I don't think we need to get into sub-genre territory at all, but if other editors disagree, we can discuss. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
And would anyone mind considering this: https://www.allmovie.com/subgenre/sci-fi-action-d564
As we also have the sci-fi action thing to make it. And no, it's not only two separate genres but a subgenre on its own. ( 77Survivor ( talk) 11:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC))
So are you practically trying to say we must forget that something exists only because it feels a little long to read? Science fiction-action isn't that long to read. If it's displayed this way, at least the viewer can understand that he/she is reading about not just an SF but also an action movie. And why do you think science fiction normally contains action elements? And why does it have to be a only science fiction with action elements and not an action film with a sci-fi background as well?
Listen, everything was find until a user added horror to it although not too many sources confirm it, and this guy called Popcorn edited it as per his own. I guess everything was fine till then. But this guy is hellbent on turning down an established fact that sci-fi action is a subgenre. And I'm pretty sure he won't raise such questions when a film is written as a sci-fi drama/thriller because to such people, action becomes all too easy to dismiss as merely an element, while it actually might be a major element. 77Survivor ( talk) 19:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The series isn't known merely for its tech or sci-fi story but also the action. It's thus necessary we highlight it because action is a major component. And I'm saying this only because we have a subgenre option. Had it never existed, I won't have argued in the first place. And this subgenre's very existence itself proves a sci-fi film on its own doesn't have action. 77Survivor ( talk) 20:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
And yes Erik, if you're really adamant on the major sources thing, better not fake the fact that major sources describe it as sci-fi action and not just sci-fi. And only because action is written after sci-fi doesn't make it secondary. Despite of its high-tech background, the film remains nevertheless in the zone of action. Still I'm shocked YOU people still don't know there's something like sci-fi action. 77Survivor ( talk) 20:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
And Betty, really?
Don't you know action is not a subgenre? Oh come on! It's an independent genre on its own! 77Survivor ( talk) 20:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Some time later, 77Survivor has tried to sneak their genre preference back into the article despite the local consensus here. Pinging editors involved in this discussion. Betty Logan, PC78, Andrzejbanas. I've watchlisted this article. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Erik: Hey sci-fi buff, can you please stop imposing your so called "consensus" everywhere? If you see the above consensus, not just you but anyone can see how everyone tried to avoid me or just tell me to shut up (in an indirect manner). Today, I'm not gonna buy this. You guys really seem to be ignoring the fact that sci-fi action is a subgenre. Yes it is, while the genres exist separately as well. Don't believe me? Read Science fiction action film portion and it'll become clear what I tried to say even months ago. All you editors did was pay absolutely no heed to the data I presented along with the definition of sci-fi action genre among which this film is a primary example. It's action first, sci-fi second and that's not just me but many critics saying. This case was closed before even a strong resolution was reached. No one listened to my reasoning. I can claim I was right because I can still guarantee you that search the internet and every site will show you these genres: sci-fi and action.
This consensus has to be revived. Because last time the editors who I suspect are sci-fi enthusiasts were hellbent on making this actioner "just a sci-fi". This time we need to ping editors more than the ones last time because they'll continue to stick to their opinions only. No, not this time everyone. With all due respect, this case isn't closed and won't be closed unless action is included.( 77Survivor ( talk) 20:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)) @ Erik: You again undid my revision claiming I don't care about the consensus. I'm gonna ask you this:
DID YOU EVEN READ WHAT I SHARED HERE?
The answer is a big no because Mr Erik, one genre decision was made even below this incomplete consensus. Read that first and accuse me later. ( 77Survivor ( talk) 20:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC))
@ Popcornduff: Haha, it's easy to say give it a rest because you are the one who started this entire mess and is getting to control the page as per their will. And that stop linking... How can you say that? Read the above arguments I gave you months ago and that would easily suffice. You're not agreeing because you believe there should be just one genre for a film. No mister, that's not the case. You're not letting an editor follow WP:FILMLEAD to edit a film's genre and you expect him to be silent? Yes, because that lets you keep it sci-fi, your favorite genre I guess. Have a good day ahead. ( 77Survivor ( talk) 20:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC))
@ Darkwarriorblake: Do anything, but get this "consensus" created by a group of sci-fi fans, who believe true facts to be "original research/", changed. Even if that involves a straightforward voting. Because not a single person who has seen this film will deny that it's action as well. ( 77Survivor ( talk) 13:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC))
Freeknowledgecreator, have there been any edits to the plot summary that meet your approval? I saw that you reverted Woodshed's efforts to remove details. In the past, you've reverted other editors' attempts to add details. You have a very, very long history of reverting any changes to the plot summary. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The policy page WP:OWNBEHAVIOR says, "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it 'unnecessary' without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version." Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Erik, I have no apology at all for reverting the really crappy edits that keep constantly getting made to the plot summary of the article. It makes sense that the plot summary should be short and stable; there should be no need for ongoing changes to it. On a different level, if you ever ping me again to make rude or hostile comments about me personally, or to ask bad faith questions that you surely don't seriously expect an answer to, I will treat it as a form of harassment and respond accordingly. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 02:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC
While the film is more sci-fi and action, the "horror" templates should also be added. MrWii000 ( talk) 01:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
A cyborg is an essentially organic lifeform enhanced by robotic parts. Whereas Arny is a robot shaped like a man (an android). Is the description in the article therefore incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.167.13 ( talk) 09:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
The Terminator has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2405:201:1C:710D:B158:E511:FCC0:8763 ( talk) 07:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm writing a request to get the permission to edit this site. This site uses sexual words which makes it inappropriate for kids to read. I want a permission to just remove those words.
![]() | This
edit request to
The Terminator has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2405:201:1C:710D:B158:E511:FCC0:8763 ( talk) 07:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm just want the permission to edit this site. Just one important change. Please
![]() | 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 |
I'm quite surprised the tidbit I added a while back didn't get included in the overhaul of the article. It's only a few sentences and the production section isn't terribly large:
One of the guns seen in the film and on the film's poster was an AMT Hardballer Longslide modified by Ed Reynolds from SureFire to include a laser sight. Both non-functioning and functioning versions of the prop were created. Due to cost considerations, the laser sights used an external power supply that Arnold Schwarzenegger had to activate manually. Reynolds states that his only compensation for the project was promotional material for the film. [1]
- ^ Kuchera, Ben (March 10, 2010). "True story: the making of the Terminator's laser-sighted .45 pistol". Ars Technica. Retrieved March 11, 2010.
I'd add it back, but I get the feeling I'd get reverted, even though it is properly cited. So, whatever. -- Jtalledo (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
How did MGM get the home video rights to this film? I know that Live Home Video/Artisan released on VHS around the mid-90s and that Image released it on DVD in 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.187.195 ( talk) 01:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
"In a post-apocalyptic 2029...". I just watched the movie with this wikipedia article in mind. I didn't see any mention in The Terminator that the apocalyptic future takes place in 2029. This is specified in the sequal(s) or spinofs. So, unless I missed it while re-watching the movie, the year 2029 shouldn't be mentioned in this article. My bad if I'm wrong, but I'd like someone to double check. Munin75 ( talk) 18:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that Skynet has achieved iconic status among many fearful of developments in our world. Wblakesx ( talk) 05:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
IllaZilla reverted me here, giving the reason, "no she doesn't. at least not in the events of this film." This concerns whether Sarah decides to tell John that Kyle Reese is his father. Now, I think I know the events of The Terminator as well as you do, IllaZilla, and I'm pretty sure that in the last few scenes of the film Sarah does, in fact, make up her mind to tell John that Kyle is his father (eg, in the scene where she says, "Will it affect your decision to send him back, knowing that he is your father."). So respectfully, I think your revert was a mistake. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 08:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
after regularly revisiting i noticed that in the infobox the section "country" has been resetted as i filled in United States numerous times now, to straighten things out i decided to comment here accordingly. since the movie was produced by Gale Hurd (American) through her American company, and written by Bill Wisher (American) and James Cameron (Candian/American) and distributed by Orion (American), with Hemdale at the time (when it was still existing) being largely involved in American movie pictures "Hollywood Company" and having it´s operative Headquarters in both London as well as Los Angeles, and the movie cast being all American actors (technically at the time Arnold did not have U.S. citizenship just yet but still) and with the movie shot in Los Angeles (again America) i guess it is legitimiate that section country reads "United States". therefore i am going to fill just that in for the umpteenth time now and i hope it will not be resetted again ! (same goes for Terminator 2 likewise !) kind regards from germany, yours truly Terminator feind :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.87.84.94 ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Hate to bring up something that's been done over and over again, but while browsing the British Film Institute's site, they have The Terminator listed as an American production [1] and list the production companies ( here) as Pacific Western Productions (American) (American), Hemdale (American) [2], and Orion (obviously American [3]. As it's something as strong and notable enough as the BFI who list everything here as American, is that enough to add the American info to the infobox? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 14:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The definition of a cyborg is a "person" enhanced with machine or robotic parts. The Terminator is a machine with an artificial intelligence C.P.U. as its brain; therefore, not a cyborg. The terminator is an android. I truly think the article should reflect this. LogicalCreator ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I've corrected the dates in the article to 1983, since Kyle's arrival into his past is Thu, 12 May 1983 (not 1984). See, for example, scene 14 in the script here, wherein Kyle asks a cop what the date is, who then responds, "Thursday... uh... May twelfth". 12 May 1983 was a Thursday, but 12 May 1984 was a Saturday. — Loadmaster ( talk) 18:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The Terminator (soundtrack) is not independently notable. Therefore, since this article is a Good Article, there must be a way to merge without ruining the Good Article. --
George Ho (
talk)
04:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Notability of The Terminator (soundtrack) is questionable. The article is small currently, so should it be expanded or merged into The Terminator? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Already merged. The whole page needs cleanup after merge.
George Ho (
talk)
20:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
http://jasonskywalker5.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/black-author-wins-matrix/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4TQg-1LWY4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.197.61.87 ( talk) 17:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Just curious about the Reddit interview. I personally have no doubt that's it's actually Arnie in the interview but I'm not sure if it follows WP:SOURCE that says "the information on the site must be 'reliable, third-party, published... with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". As Reddit isn't really that kind of a site like a published magazine or online newspaper, I'm not really sure if we should use it in an article that's already a GA. Should we take this up further or has it been brought up already? Thank you! :) Andrzejbanas ( talk) 12:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
A while back I added a lot of more information to the soundtrack section of the article. Can anyone give their opinion on whether or not it's enough to deserve it's own article again? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 16:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thought this was funny enough to mention. When you ask Siri about the first movie, sometimes she replies: "Oh, just more misunderstood cyborgs getting fried to a crisp. But I heard that the Governor of California was in it." -- Zhane Masaki ( talk) 03:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
A number of reviewers have noted that there's another source that most likely inspired Cameron to the film, which is Saturn 3 (1980) where a homicidal robot goes rampant on people and has a fixation on a woman. Some reviewers have gone so far as to call it "the blueprint to The Terminator" both in story elements and especially the look of the T-800 exoskeleton: [4], [5], [6]. One film geek forum post (unreliable for just being a forum post) even said that some scenes from Saturn 3 are copied shot-by-shot in The Terminator (1984), Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991), and Aliens (1986). -- 80.187.110.67 ( talk) 15:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The Plot section of the main article currently says, "When the [gasoline] truck driver gets out of the truck to see what happened, the Terminator kills him, hijacks the truck, and resumes the chase." All I see is the first driver get knocked down or out. No shredded torso or blood fountains. Did Terminator really kill him (documented in the script?)? Terminator gets into the cab and says to the co-driver, "Get out." and that driver flees (without being killed or harmed). Minor point, but just wondering. AdderUser ( talk) 05:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/matrix.asp
http://racismws.com/2014/02/17/original-writer-of-the-matrix-and-terminator-wins-2-5-billion-dollar-lawsuit/ I don't know how true it is.
Majinsnake ( talk) 06:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Leaving this in as a source as unlike a webpage which will can give a 404 error, the print material backs up what was previously discussed on the talk page earlier pertaining to the production countries of the film, and is backed up by the same source (The British Film Institute). I suggest we keep that one for now. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 22:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Unless you have a source, please do not add those as production companies. They are not included in the sources I have, and should not be added. The credits for this film have changed over the time so we need actual sources, not original research. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 15:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
A Euro Film Funding Limited Feature An Orion Pictures Release" doesn't really tell us who is doing what. I'm sticking with the Monthly Film Bulletin source which is far more specific in what is a production company. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 17:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Cyborgs are augmented humans whereas androids are synthetic humans in this case. The skin was artificial and only for transport back through time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.154.31 ( talk) 04:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Would that not only apply to in-universe plot summaries below the introduction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.154.31 ( talk) 23:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Please do not remove tags suggesting users to enter a discussion on this page. There is no consensus yet. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 13:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced content to the infobox. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 15:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
So now we have contradicting statements, which doesn't help our case. I've added a tag until more information can arise to what the real production companies for the film are. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 12:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
References
Not sure why we have the executive producers listed in the lead of the article. It seems to break several rules:
"inaccurate" to leave out sounds strange. I'm not against having Daly in the lead (Honestly, I think the lead needs a re-write). I do not think his credit as the executive producer really needs a mention though. As for the tags, I do not like them either, my advice is to re-write content so it a) matches the source and b) makes it better for readers. So, I'm leaning towards we re-write the lead as a whole, but I'd like your input on that too. My personal preference would be to not include citations in the lead, but am open to it if is required to write something really good that follows MOS:FILM and MOS:INTRO. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 18:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Both executive producers are sourced in the prose and, though it should be unnecessary, in the lead. Their role in Hemdale and that company's importance in getting the film made is not in dispute. It is detailed in the article. Yet you want to endlessly challenge their inclusion in the lead. I do not believe one editor who fails to get consensus for his demand of removing sourced information should be able to endlessly tag an article claiming there's an ongoing discussion when it's only that one editor who refuses to relent. I have once again alerted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film to this dispute, which as I said before, should bring more people here than your unnecessary tag on the page. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 01:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not really inaccurate because it's not clear what he has done outside being credited. As there is not references whatsoever to his unique contributions, it seems unimportant. "They arranged the financing and got the film made" is an interesting statement because there is not statement of that in the article, it only mentions Daly. You seem to be putting two separate items together hoping it will connect, and I'm not discrediting Gibson, but so far there's no information outside the credit of what he did or did not do in the film and assuming he did stuff because his partner in the company did would not be accurate. So no, I don't understand why the role crediting them is important, because other than finding out that they did it, it doesn't seem to have a lot of historical relevance to The Terminator's production. Might be a better fit on a page for Gibson. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 05:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Cameron is credited with the screenplay along with executive producer Gale Anne Hurd. John Daly and Derek Gibson of Hemdale Film Corporation, also executive producers, were instrumental in the film's eventual release.
The screenplay is credited to Cameron, along with producer Gale Anne Hurd. Executive producers John Daly and Derek Gibson of Hemdale Film Corporation were instrumental in the film's financing and production.
I don't have it with me, but I've read that the crushed terminator was examined by scientist & the 'future' info retrieved, was used to create Skynet. GoodDay ( talk) 01:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I have re-added the split 1980s chase films cat. Whether or not you think it was necessary to split the category, the category has been here for a long time and not contested. Personally, I do not think it belongs, but it's a relatively minor thing that boils down to opinion on whether the article should exist. Anyhow, the article has been split up. If you think it doesn't belong, I suggest we discuss it. If you think it was Unnecessary to break down this category to decades., then propose the category for a deletion/merging. Looking forward to the comments from @ Gothicfilm:, @ Jim Michael: and @ FreeKnowledgeCreator:. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 12:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
So we have Jim Michael, who has been asked repeatedly at WP:FILM to stop creating these small decade categories that go against WP:SMALLCAT, and we have Andrzejbanas, who doesn't even agree with the category but seems to have nothing better to do than promote debates on this page and elsewhere. As can be seen in the discussions above, he argued for weeks to exclude sourced information from the lead and to keep unnecessary tags on the page even though consensus was against him (repeatedly claiming incorrectly that removing them was vandalism), and now he wants us to spend more time debating something he's not even for. If there's no consensus to keep a cat, we can remove it. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 17:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I know I've brought it up before, but I believe the soundtrack can have its own article at this point. Per WP:NALBUM, which states that if the album "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.", I believe the album has now received signifigant coverage from multiple sources (Pitchfork, Spin, Slate, books, etc.). Should it be moved to its own article now? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 14:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on The Terminator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The Terminator received critical acclaim and many consider it one of the best films of 1984. Positive reviews of The Terminator focused on the action scenes and rapid pacing. is unsourced. Blue sphere 10:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
There is no shortage of citations showing that Cameron wrote Terminator in this article, and he is widely, famously known as the author of the screenplay. To not mention, in the first sentence, that Cameron directed and wrote the Terminator is a major omission. The only contentious part is how much Hurd wrote, which according to Cameron was zero, but that doesn't seem to me to be reason to omit Cameron's well-established authorship from the first sentence; we can mention Hurd's credit later in the lead, or put her in the first sentence too if need be. Popcornduff ( talk) 09:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The Terminator is a 1984 American science-fiction action film directed by James Cameron. The film, written by producer Gale Anne Hurd along with Cameron, stars Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Terminator, a cyborg assassin sent back in time from 2029 to 1984 to kill Sarah Connor ( Linda Hamilton). Her son will one day lead the resistance against machines in a post-apocalyptic future, and he sends soldier Michael Biehn ( Kyle Reese) from the future back in time to protect his mother. Executive producers John Daly and Derek Gibson of Hemdale Film Corporation were instrumental in the film's financing and production.
The Terminator is a 1984 American science-fiction action film directed by James Cameron and written by Cameron and producer Gale Anne Hurd. It stars Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Terminator, a cyborg assassin sent back in time from 2029 to 1984 to kill Sarah Connor ( Linda Hamilton).
You started by wanting to emphasize Cameron as the writer alone. This does not do that. "The screenplay is credited to Cameron, along with producer Gale Anne Hurd" works best to reflect the situation without misrepresenting the credit, as it's clear it's not the actual credit. But it would look awkward as the second sentence. But it's okay as the 4th sentence. So I still believe the best compromise is to leave it as it is. Don't forget the credit is also in the infobox, above the stars. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 11:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Came across an article Enthiran where the character Chitti (whose a humanoid by default) is denoted as IT as a machine. However, just to clarify that Terminator, whose also a humanoid should be denoted as It or not? SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 18:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Why not put pictures of the main actors as they appeared in the movie? Are we going to keep updating the images as the actors age? Banaticus ( talk) 22:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
What is the point of this? It's not like it's actually at the premiere, and there's already a photo of Schwarzenegger on the page. Nick Cooper ( talk) 11:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
In the plot, doesn't the technology from the crushed Terminator get used to build Skynet? Thus another paradox? GoodDay ( talk) 15:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I saw a very interesting YouTube video that made some very shocking claims about how the movie was filmed, particularly that several scenes were shot without a permit. However, as I've looked into this more, there are actually only two post-production scenes I can find good sources saying they were shot without permit: specifically the scene where Arnold punches through the car window and the ending scene where Linda drives down a highway. The video strongly implies that many night scenes were shot without permit, but I can't find evidence of that.
The video's claim that the scene with fog was actually pesticides is supported by this article, but I wasn't sure how or if to incorporate this info.
The permit issue in the movie's final scene is described by Cameron and Hurd themselves in an interview. This is very notable because it is a seemingly anecdotal story you will find repeated on other sites but the filmmakers indeed confirm this particular incident of a cop confronting them and convincing the cop that they are UCLA students.
Anyway, I wanted to briefly mention this... Ender and Peter 03:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I see that the 1984 film's article The Terminator was moved to The Terminator (1984 film) because Terminator (2019 film) was created. I can't quite tell if the 2019 film is officially and ultimately titled Terminator, but if so, it begs the question about whether or not "The" is sufficient disambiguation. I can't find anything at WP:DISAMBIG or WP:THE about that specifically. The only film-based example I can think of right now is Changeling (film) vs. The Changeling (film). I invite other editors to use this space (unless there is a dispute about the 2019 film truly being titled Terminator, then it would not be necessary to discuss). Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
It has all the tropes of the slasher subgenre such as the monster (being the eponymous Terminator), the female protagonist being targeted by said monster, and the stalking/pursuit of female protagonist by said monster. The scenes are really terrifying, too. The horror of being helpless as a series of serial murders committed towards people with your name are taking place? The thought that the killer is a face in the crowd and can attack you at any minute? That's scary! And then after your protector/lover dies, you become the final girl of the narrative? Horror movie right there. Like the Terminator itself, it is a horror movie wrapped in the flesh of a science fiction setting.
@ Darkwarriorblake: Hey, I need your help. Some editor is constantly removing the action genre and is saying only science fiction should be listed which is not right. I request you to participate in the above consensus debate at /info/en/?search=Talk:The_Terminator#Sci-Fi_Action because the editor is not listening to any of my arguments and is constantly ignoring me since I'm the only one contesting this against him. Since you too support the sci-fi action genre, please join me. Thanks. ( 77Survivor ( talk) 20:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC))
It received critical acclaim for its pacing, action scenes, soundtrack, script, and acting, in particular Schwarzenegger's performance as the Terminator.
You don't need to write "critical acclaim". "Acclaim" is perfectly sufficient. It is clear that the sort of acclaim we are talking about here is critical. Readers will not be confused. Popcornduff ( talk) 21:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Please do not attempt to correct sources. Entertainment Weekly claims "Schwarzenegger speaks only 17 lines in the film", and a comment directly under the article claims they were wrong and there were in fact 18 lines. We have to go with what the source actually says and not make corrections based on original research. I have corrected the article to use what the source actually says. It is unfortunate that Entertainment Weekly did not update or amend the article but unless someone can find a better source (or possibly use WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to override the source, and include a comment in the Wikisource to clearly mark that there was a consensus to do so) we have to go with what the source actually says. (I skimmed the talk page discussion archives, this doesn't seem to have been discussed previously.) -- 109.76.142.35 ( talk) 15:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
This is with reference to what an editor called Popcornduff has been doing. The film was already labelled as a sci-fi action film on the page. Everything was fine. We all know it's a sci-fi action movie. But then...
This editor removed action and made it just science fiction. Like really? And when I reverted his edits, he cross-reverted my edits and told me to read WP:LEAD. I even attached sources, all notably eligible, but this guy is hell-bent on rejecting everything even though he told me to get consensus first.
And when I actually happened to come across WP:FILMLEAD, it said the main genre or subgenre can be there with verified sources. And then, I suddenly realized what all most people are getting wrong.
Don't know how it didn't come to mind earlier, but any sane person who watch SF and action movies or just even reads Wikipedia properly will be knowing science fiction action is a subgenre. Yeah, it does look like two different genres listed as one but facts are facts. Search anywhere. It's a subgenre of action.
Now someone tell that duff guy to stop doing actual vandalism and accept that Wikipedia is not going to work if you just keep reverting other user's edits without complete knowledge and post blocking threats on his talk page.
The genre should be sci-fi action. Had it been something like "action sci-fi thriller" or "action adventure sci-fi" I could've agreed that we must pick up two as a subgenre or just one as a main one.
But here, it's clearly sci-fi action. Remember, it's a subgenre and eligible as per WP:FILMLEAD. 77Survivor ( talk) 04:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. This is Wikipedia policy.
Mr Duff, it IS a subgenre. Go read it anywhere. 77Survivor ( talk) 14:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I know you don't want to read anything because that would mark your defeat. Go on: https://www.allmovie.com/subgenre/sci-fi-action-d564
"Sharing many of the conventions of the science fiction film, sci-fi action emphasizes gunplay, space battles, and invented weaponry. Through the Terminator films, Arnold Schwartznegger became the most visible hero of the genre, and James Cameron it's progenitor. In both The Terminator and Terminator 2, as well as Aliens, Cameron's focus was not on the possibilities for satirical comment or prophecy inherent in science fiction, but rather on the often brutal violence that could be inflicted with futuristic weaponry. Paul Verhoeven managed a more cynical and satiric blend with action in his films RoboCop, Total Recall, and Starship Troopers, but they remained in the world of the actioner. The subgenre was most popular in the late '80s and early '90s, perhaps in response to the more violent but cooler future that seemed imminent during the reign of Ronald Reagan and the Star Wars missile defense system." 77Survivor ( talk) 14:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
And if even that hurts you, read the last line of /info/en/?search=Science_fiction#Film. 77Survivor ( talk) 15:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
And don't worry, I never made it a ""science fiction action adventure chase drama film" . Don't forget that it was all fine until you made the move. Don't think other Wikipedians to be lacking knowledge. I agree, someone had made it sci-fi action horror. You should've deleted only horror because there's minimal evidence about the film as a horror. But for the rest...? Speechless. 77Survivor ( talk) 15:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
The Terminator is horror. [7] It's a slasher movie with a sci-fi premise and action scenes. 2A02:C7F:8EA3:B00:BCC2:367F:52A4:A364 ( talk) 18:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes ! Terminator is a true horror film, not T2, but the first Terminator is pure horror and not action ! -- 77.207.75.83 ( talk) 09:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I've removed "action" from the opening sentence because it strikes me as misleading to use this and not "science fiction", which does not even appear in the lead section at all. Genres are going to overlap, but there is something remiss about simply calling this an "action film" as if it is a contemporary film with action in it. I think the case can be made to at least include "science fiction". Either we can decide on a sub-genre that includes science fiction, or we simply use "science fiction" and use the rest of the lead section to reflect the action in the film. But "action" should not be superseding "science fiction" entirely here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with Betty Logan's (re-)inclusion here of simply "science fiction film". I don't think we need to get into sub-genre territory at all, but if other editors disagree, we can discuss. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
And would anyone mind considering this: https://www.allmovie.com/subgenre/sci-fi-action-d564
As we also have the sci-fi action thing to make it. And no, it's not only two separate genres but a subgenre on its own. ( 77Survivor ( talk) 11:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC))
So are you practically trying to say we must forget that something exists only because it feels a little long to read? Science fiction-action isn't that long to read. If it's displayed this way, at least the viewer can understand that he/she is reading about not just an SF but also an action movie. And why do you think science fiction normally contains action elements? And why does it have to be a only science fiction with action elements and not an action film with a sci-fi background as well?
Listen, everything was find until a user added horror to it although not too many sources confirm it, and this guy called Popcorn edited it as per his own. I guess everything was fine till then. But this guy is hellbent on turning down an established fact that sci-fi action is a subgenre. And I'm pretty sure he won't raise such questions when a film is written as a sci-fi drama/thriller because to such people, action becomes all too easy to dismiss as merely an element, while it actually might be a major element. 77Survivor ( talk) 19:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The series isn't known merely for its tech or sci-fi story but also the action. It's thus necessary we highlight it because action is a major component. And I'm saying this only because we have a subgenre option. Had it never existed, I won't have argued in the first place. And this subgenre's very existence itself proves a sci-fi film on its own doesn't have action. 77Survivor ( talk) 20:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
And yes Erik, if you're really adamant on the major sources thing, better not fake the fact that major sources describe it as sci-fi action and not just sci-fi. And only because action is written after sci-fi doesn't make it secondary. Despite of its high-tech background, the film remains nevertheless in the zone of action. Still I'm shocked YOU people still don't know there's something like sci-fi action. 77Survivor ( talk) 20:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
And Betty, really?
Don't you know action is not a subgenre? Oh come on! It's an independent genre on its own! 77Survivor ( talk) 20:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Some time later, 77Survivor has tried to sneak their genre preference back into the article despite the local consensus here. Pinging editors involved in this discussion. Betty Logan, PC78, Andrzejbanas. I've watchlisted this article. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Erik: Hey sci-fi buff, can you please stop imposing your so called "consensus" everywhere? If you see the above consensus, not just you but anyone can see how everyone tried to avoid me or just tell me to shut up (in an indirect manner). Today, I'm not gonna buy this. You guys really seem to be ignoring the fact that sci-fi action is a subgenre. Yes it is, while the genres exist separately as well. Don't believe me? Read Science fiction action film portion and it'll become clear what I tried to say even months ago. All you editors did was pay absolutely no heed to the data I presented along with the definition of sci-fi action genre among which this film is a primary example. It's action first, sci-fi second and that's not just me but many critics saying. This case was closed before even a strong resolution was reached. No one listened to my reasoning. I can claim I was right because I can still guarantee you that search the internet and every site will show you these genres: sci-fi and action.
This consensus has to be revived. Because last time the editors who I suspect are sci-fi enthusiasts were hellbent on making this actioner "just a sci-fi". This time we need to ping editors more than the ones last time because they'll continue to stick to their opinions only. No, not this time everyone. With all due respect, this case isn't closed and won't be closed unless action is included.( 77Survivor ( talk) 20:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)) @ Erik: You again undid my revision claiming I don't care about the consensus. I'm gonna ask you this:
DID YOU EVEN READ WHAT I SHARED HERE?
The answer is a big no because Mr Erik, one genre decision was made even below this incomplete consensus. Read that first and accuse me later. ( 77Survivor ( talk) 20:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC))
@ Popcornduff: Haha, it's easy to say give it a rest because you are the one who started this entire mess and is getting to control the page as per their will. And that stop linking... How can you say that? Read the above arguments I gave you months ago and that would easily suffice. You're not agreeing because you believe there should be just one genre for a film. No mister, that's not the case. You're not letting an editor follow WP:FILMLEAD to edit a film's genre and you expect him to be silent? Yes, because that lets you keep it sci-fi, your favorite genre I guess. Have a good day ahead. ( 77Survivor ( talk) 20:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC))
@ Darkwarriorblake: Do anything, but get this "consensus" created by a group of sci-fi fans, who believe true facts to be "original research/", changed. Even if that involves a straightforward voting. Because not a single person who has seen this film will deny that it's action as well. ( 77Survivor ( talk) 13:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC))
Freeknowledgecreator, have there been any edits to the plot summary that meet your approval? I saw that you reverted Woodshed's efforts to remove details. In the past, you've reverted other editors' attempts to add details. You have a very, very long history of reverting any changes to the plot summary. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The policy page WP:OWNBEHAVIOR says, "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it 'unnecessary' without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version." Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Erik, I have no apology at all for reverting the really crappy edits that keep constantly getting made to the plot summary of the article. It makes sense that the plot summary should be short and stable; there should be no need for ongoing changes to it. On a different level, if you ever ping me again to make rude or hostile comments about me personally, or to ask bad faith questions that you surely don't seriously expect an answer to, I will treat it as a form of harassment and respond accordingly. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 02:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC
While the film is more sci-fi and action, the "horror" templates should also be added. MrWii000 ( talk) 01:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
A cyborg is an essentially organic lifeform enhanced by robotic parts. Whereas Arny is a robot shaped like a man (an android). Is the description in the article therefore incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.167.13 ( talk) 09:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
The Terminator has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2405:201:1C:710D:B158:E511:FCC0:8763 ( talk) 07:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm writing a request to get the permission to edit this site. This site uses sexual words which makes it inappropriate for kids to read. I want a permission to just remove those words.
![]() | This
edit request to
The Terminator has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2405:201:1C:710D:B158:E511:FCC0:8763 ( talk) 07:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm just want the permission to edit this site. Just one important change. Please