Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Terminator 2: Judgment Day has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conversion to prose[edit]

Can somebody with the ability to do so please convert the "Accolades" table into prose? It's a step that needs to be taken to give the article legitimate FA potential. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of featured articles use tables, those with too many may have them on a different page, but tables are not an antithesis to FAness and for that many awards it would be inappropriate to replace it with pure prose. Is it your intention to add prose or outright replace the table? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Tables can be a good supplment to prose, but simply having a table of "accolades" without any prose to support and contextualize it is poor presentation. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with that, it needs prose, but it also needs the table, especially when there is a large amount of accolades. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I initially wanted outright prose as is the case with Titanic, but after having read the comments above, I think it'll good if some prose is provided, although I don't know for which awards. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I would stick to mentioning the awards it won, and maybe some contextualizing comments about what it lost out to. For example: "Terminator 2 was nominated for six academy awards, winning four: makeup, sound, sound editing, and visual effects, but losing to JFK in the categories of cinematography and editing." You could also have comments from the Academy or from whoever accepted the award, if such comments are available, or maybe something about the award/acceptance if there was anything noteworthy about it (sometimes a director or actor will accept an award on someone else's behalf, or will dedicate it to someone who was associated with the film or died during or after production...that sort of thing). --IllaZilla (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the film's nationality[edit]

According to the British Film Institute, Terminator 2: Judgement Day is an American production and is produced by Pacific Western Productions (American), Lightstorm Entertainment (American), and Carolco Pictures, Inc. (American). So, should we include "American" in the lead section if it is necessary or not? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a hangover from the dispute about the nationality of the first film, but the BFi corrected their entry for it. Both the AFI and BFI agree the first two films and the fourth film are American, and the third film is Germany/US. Personally I don't think nationality is particularly relevant to the Terminator films, but since there is no disagreement by the sources now I guess there is no NPOV reason to keep the countries out. Betty Logan (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why we need to declare a nationality in the lead sentence. It's not exactly an intrinsic characteristic of the film. It's not something I'd include if I were trying to describe the film in 1 sentence to someone who'd never seen it. I'd say something like "It's a science fiction film by James Cameron from 1991, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger as a killer robot from the future who comes back in time to defend a kid from another killer robot." I'd say the same about most films that don't have strong national ties/identities. Sure, nationality is something you want to mention up-front if you're talking about Slumdog Millionaire, The Patriot, or one of the James Bond films, but it's not really that intrinsic of a characteristic for T2. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, we know of at least one person (who shall remain nameless here) who would disagree. :) --Blake Burba (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Haha right on, Blake ;) --IllaZilla (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Cyborg is incorrect.[edit]

A cyborg is a human being with machine or robotic parts to enhance him or her. An android is a humanoid robot with some sort of artificial intelligence (which is what the Terminator is). I think this article should reflect this. Also, I do not think this would be considered original research, seeing as how I am simply using what the film tells us (reliable source) and the English language dictionary (reliable source). LogicalCreator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Android sounds familiar ;) . Anyway, I’m interested to know which part of the film tells you the Term. was an android, given that it introduces itself in the first film as a cyborg during a conversation with Sarah. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This was discussed at length at Talk:Terminator (character) and Talk:The Terminator/Archive 1#The Terminator is not a cyborg. The consensus was to refer to them as cyborgs, since every single piece of media in the entire franchise refers to them as cyborgs or "cybernetic organisms: living tissue over metal endoskeleton". --IllaZilla (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Like Illa says, he flat out calls himself a cybernetic organism, cyborg for short, LIVING tissue over mental endoskeleton. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I think cyborg is technically incorrect because, as OP said, a cyborg is an organism with cybernetic parts, whereas the terminator is a robot with organic parts. By the real-world definition of cyborg to which we have all agreed, he is not one. However, the film does refer to him as one, and he introduces himself as one. I think the debate could go either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The character describes itself as a cyborg. There's no arguing against that. --uKER (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Jesse James described himself as a sweet man who could never hurt anyone. There's no arguing against that. Oh, wait. Self-description doesn't mean jack. (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Three billion human lives ended on August 29th, 1997, and the US State Department described itself as "not able to confirm what took place." But watching John with the machine, it was suddenly so clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:53, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

Marketing source[edit]

I found this source for the variety of marketing methods including kid friendly methods for this R-rated film which I thought would be interesting for the article but I don't know where it would be suitable to add it as there sn't enough info to create its own subsection. Anyone got any ideas? Feel free to add the info yourself if you know how to tackle it.

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 04:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Left arm right arm[edit]

In Terminator 1 and 2, we have an arm off 2 separate terminators. Now we know the first arm winds up in the molten metal. That's a right arm. There is however also a left arm that gets snagged in a big cog during the second film before Arnie finds himself impaled with a steel bar. In fact, he has to rip this arm off himself to get free. This one is a left arm, severed near the elbow. What becomes of the left arm? Shtanto (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Human resistance[edit]

I notice the "r" is being capitalized, human Resistance. This looks awkward to me. Every time I see it, I think I would prefer human resistance. This could just be me.

You could follow the thinking behind "human Resistance" to its logical conclusion, "Human Resistance". That looks better to me, because I think it seems more logical. But I think "human resistance" is ok, and cuts down on Capitals. I was gonna say it's not a huge deal, but it is quite a big deal, actually, if I am right, which is a distinct possibility. zzz (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Changed it. I am right. (Probably.) zzz (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I've done a lot of copyediting, although it was a GA. I hope it was successful. zzz (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)