Talk:The Terminator

Censorship

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).

The "R" rating in the US is the equivalent of a "15" in the UK. They are the same level of classification. --HDC7777 12:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

hi70.29.14.134 (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2009 (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)

Is this relevant? VisitorTalk 00:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy (Retrieved from archive)

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:

The paragraph seems like Original Research. Has a 3rd party made this analysis, or is it just what one wikieditor thinks?

• Use of analogies doesn't seem very encyclopedic (it seems more like a textbook)
• The evolution/ID section doesn't explain why E/ID is mentioned. Is it an analogy, or something else?
• The language used is very hard to decipher for someone not versed in philosophy/textual criticism

Regards, 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)

As it's been months since your edit with no rebuttal, I recommend removing this section from the talk page. VisitorTalk 06:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Inspiration

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. ~Lucky Day

You need to provide a source to prove that the writers of the Terminator were inspired by Dune, otherwise it is original research. Ashmoo 05:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Dont remember that...

Guns and Roses song "You Could be mine" is about T1... ! add that to the article. renzocj@yahoo.com

While you might be right about the song, the article is only about the movie, not about other creative works inspired by the movie. The reference would be inappropriate in the Wikipedia article. VisitorTalk 00:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Terminator" or "The Terminator"

Is the name of this film "Terminator" or "The Terminator"? Ewlyahoocom 09:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's "The Terminator"--Name Theft Victim 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's "Terminator, based on the box, poster, and names of the sequelsDurinsBane87 21:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look closely the poster that is/was in the Infobox is actually foreign (Italian I think), the U.S. poster is titled "The Terminator". (See IMP Awards: The Terminator Poster to compare) —MJBurrage^(T•C) 19:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Low Budget?

If the film cost $6.5 million, how could it be considered low budget?--Alexrules43 20:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Most movies have budgets bigger than $6.5 million--Name Theft Victim 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Low budget can be subjective. Look at the difference in cost between T1 and T2. A lot of movies these days are considered low budget if it comes in under $30million.--HDC7777 13:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's compare T1 with some other 1984 movies:

• The Last Starfighter - $15 million
• Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter - $2.6 million
• Ghostbusters - $30 million
• Revenge of the Nerds - $8 million
• The Return of Godzilla - $6.25 million
• Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - $28 million
• The Ice Pirates - $9 million
• 1984 (film) - $8.4 million
• A Nightmare on Elm Street - $1.8 million
• Splash (film) - $8 million
• Star Trek III: The Search for Spock - $17 million

6.5 million really isn't that high. Horror movies generally have small budgets, so those are skewed, but I was shocked to find out that Revenge of the Nerds and Splash had bigger budgets. Just... damn. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Predestination Paradox

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)

What you describe is one theory of how time travel paradoxes may be resolved, but I don't think it is universally accepted, so I'd probably object to its inclusion (depending on exactly what you put in). Having said that, I think the way the section is now also suffers from the same problem (specifically Original Research) and needs to be fixed. Ashmoo 01:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ashmoo; your conclusion is flawed simply because it's conjecture, and has no support whatsoever with the film. The film clearly relies on the Novikov principle of time-travel, and thus your assessment is inaccurate. 66.245.30.238 08:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)kazuo

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. ----Manlady 02:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The paradox can also be applied to Skynet sealing it's own fate. By sending the Terminator(s) back in time, they gave Sarah Connor a "heads-up" which enables John Connor to start preparing for the war a lot sooner than he would have in the original timeline.--HDC7777 14:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the paradox section as written is fine, simply pointing out what is already evident from the story of the movies. Mike Beidler's and HDC7777's speculations are original research, as the movies do not tell us what would have been an original timeline's events. (For comparison, "Back to the Future" clearly shows an original timeline and an alternative timeline as the result of time travel; Terminator merely shows a single loop of causes that are their own effects.) Manlady's note could be included in the article, however, it could be Reese's personal opinion in the story, which doesn't portray Reese as a physics expert who is well versed in the mechanics of time travel. VisitorTalk 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The predestination paradox when taken to its inevitable outcome forbids the destruction of skynet and John Connor. If skynet succeeded in killing John in the past and proceeded to take control after judgment day there would be no John Connor to rebel and no problem in the alternate timeline and so no reason to send a terminator through time to kill him so it wouldn’t have done it right? It works better the other way round theoretically if skynet was destroyed in the past then no terminator good or bad would ever be created in the future, time travel wouldn’t exist either and so no-one would be sent back and no-one would know of terminators so why attempt to destroy them. My point is nothing can be done to change the past or future without the original timeline being in existence and if it could it would correct itself anyway so why bother? Clocksmith 23:29, 20 March 2008

Looking at the first film, by itself, Skynet is not aware that there is a predestination paradox. I.E. Skynet does not know who John's father is, and that in trying to kill John Connor, it ensures that everything happens the way it already has. This is not the interpretation as of the second film. but it is pretty clear in the first film by itself. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could take a moment to point out how this is vital tot he article. Maybe you could point out anything that even resembles a reliable source. Until then, let's leave off the theoretical musings. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what your talking about, all I added to the article was a note that there is a predestination paradox, with a source connected to the production of the film. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 02:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency

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)

Good catch. I've changed it to "The Terminator is a 1984 science fiction-action film featuring body-builder Arnold Schwarzenegger in what would become his best-known role" and rolled the next paragraph up so that it flows a bit cleaner. It could probably be worded better, but in a pinch, I feel that this will do. The "best-known role" concept (which, to be honest, has no real source) is culled from his article, should anyone be curious. EVula 17:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia errors

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)

Yeah. Just ask the gunstorekeeper.  ;-) 80.201.106.37 11:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Bill Paxton was the Blue-Haired punk. He did not comply.

The above post is correct. Bill Paxton was the first one of the three to be attacked, as he pulled a knife then was thrown/smashed against the gate in the background.--HDC7777 14:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The punk on Paxton's right was the first one of the three to be attacked.

All three punks pull out switchblades. The punk(with dark hair)on Paxton's right is thrown against the fence. Paxton(the blue-haired punk)is then thrown against the gate. The blond-haired punk then stabs the Terminator, and the Terminator kills him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.164.36.223 (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Firearm question

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.

The Terminator uses an Armalite AR-18 assault rifle for the assault on the police station. This rifle is relatively uncommon but I think its semi-auto derivative, the AR-180, is still in production.

~Vin

Quotes section

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)

Inspiration

"Despite settling out of court, Cameron still maintains to this day that the Terminator was his original concept." -- source on this? As I recall the basis of the original case and what caused Hemdale to insist on settling was an interview in Starlog where Cameron as much as admitted to have taken it from "a couple of old Outer Limits episodes" I think the phrase was. LamontCranston 15:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that Cameron is telling the truth about waking up from the dream, and expanding on the story with his conscious creativity, without awareness that he was applying influences from Ellison and, perhaps, Dune. If I recall correctly, either George Harrison or Brian Wilson was involved with a copyright lawsuit about a previous song that was determined by the court to be an influence, but an unconscious one. VisitorTalk 06:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea of war machines disguised as humans to infiltrate and destroy was developed previously by Philip K. Dick in his story "Second Variety", published in 1953. I have no information if Cameron was aware of this story. Ironically, there's a movie adaptation of that story, "Screamers", released in 1995 [reference] (11 years after "The Terminator"). TheWiggin (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy

Hey guys:

You know that the Terminator represents our dependence on machines. I'm wondering if this has been spelled out appropriately already in the current article, or whether someone needs to make it clearer. I believe that James Cameron may have been quoted somewhere discussing his reasons for creating the movie, but I can't find it now.

The article that I'm referring to discusses how Cameron was pointing out how much we depend on machines in this era of technology. I think that he was saying that we need to avoid letting the machines run, and therefore ruin, our lives.

If anyone else here has the text in question, please post it. (I may have invented this article in my mind, after having discussed the concept with my dad. I will speak to him, and figure out whether he himself came up with this concept, based on something else that he may have read.)

Thank you.

SammyJames 16:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)SammyJames

In the special features he states the initial concept for the film came from a dream containing a terminator rising from a fire, as shown in the part just before the three characters enter the factory in the end of the film. It is unlikely therefore that the film's purpose was to warn us about reliance on computers. It is a theme of the film but not the reason for its creation. More central to the film's success is the near indestructability of the terminator and the fear it instills, which is of course what cameron dreamed about. It must be clear that this is more of a thriller/action film than a social commentary. Howboutpete 16:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The current article already captures the relentlessness of the Terminator and the fearful drive it gives to this action movie. I suspect that the comments about reliance on machines may have been from a scene in T2 or T3. I don't recall anything within the original movie that emphasizes the theme of over-reliance on machines; it wasn't until T3 that Skynet's takeover was shown to be from naive human trust in the system. T1 and T2 left open the interpretation that Skynet launched the unprovoked attack without human naivete being a factor. VisitorTalk 06:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue with a statement in "Philosophy"

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)kazuo.

As it's been months since your edit with no rebuttal, I recommend removing this section from the talk page. VisitorTalk 06:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ending

Is there not a parallelism between the ending and Revelation 12? Krazykenny 02:30, 7 June 2007

If there was, it would only be appropriate to report it in the Wikipedia article if there was a valid source for the comparison - not original research or speculation. VisitorTalk 00:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

DVD Info

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?

Yes, nice catch. The original sound mix in theatres was completly mono, and new sounds were introduced in the "DVD" 5.1 mix which does alter the original sound of the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.3.197 (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting lead to fix & remove "TRIVIA" template

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)

Why did you remove the trivia section?? Stuff like that is what makes the movie interesting to read about. Crakkpot 21:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections are outlawed. ColdFusion650 21:46, 19 August 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)

why, exactly? To make Wikipedia BORING TO READ? This is NOT an encyclopedia, I don't care what anyone says! Encyclopedias are not user-edited on the fly. But I've seen editors remove valid info constantly, so I'm guessing you want the info on each page to be vapid and uninteresting. If this was an encyclopedia, then fictional characters would not have multiple-page-length bios. Fictional character histories are never in an encyclopedia. Therefore, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.162.204.6 (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting an encyclopedia wouldn't have an article about Robin Hood? I find that hard to believe. DurinsBane87 04:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed opening text

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.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+machines+rose+from+the+ashes+of+the+nuclear+fire%22&btnG=Search

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)

Concerns about Plot section

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 02:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Reinstated Plot subsections and article breaks

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)

Sending Metal Back in Time

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)

Wrapping it in flesh allows it to travel back. One of the police officers asks Reese the same question that you're asking. ColdFusion650 23:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As this was a plot point, it could be mentioned in the article. VisitorTalk 00:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a plot point. It's only about two sentences in the whole movie. It probably should be worked into Terminator (character). ColdFusion650 00:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that in the original film script it is explained that the Terminator isn't simply "wrapped" in flesh; but also has the internal organs to sustain his organic component - which is therefore very much living. It is also a plot point that the machines built the time travel device - not the humans - and therefore it would have been useless to them if they had not made it work correctly with their own units. 61.69.3.197 (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I added a sentence to the end of the second paragraph of the plot section ("the main problem...") to explain this point. VisitorTalk 06:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WRONG WRONG WRONG! It was never stated that organic or non organic material can/not travel.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

From IMDB, here are the significant parts of the conversation:

Dr. Silberman: Why didn't you bring any weapons, something more advanced? Don't you have, uh, ray guns? Show me a piece of future technology.

Kyle Reese: You go naked. Something about the field generated by a living organism. Nothing dead will go.

...

Dr. Silberman: Okay, okay. But this cyborg, if it's metal...

Kyle Reese: Surrounded by living tissue.

Any further misstatements you care to make? — Val42 (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''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.

• Support - Skimming the DAB page, this appears to be the only article that uses the definite article. Reginmund 06:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Per Reginmund. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - as above. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 17:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• support - nothing to disambiguate, hence the suffix in parentheses is superfluous. --Juiced lemon 13:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Adding contents?

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 Terminator: The Definitive Edition

The article only shows the standard soundtrack, there is an updated version. [1] --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed Section

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".

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.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The date

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)

It actually says "Los Angeles 1984 1:52 a.m." ColdFusion650 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it does? Well, I don't remember seeing that when I watched the movie last time. Then again it was on DVD, so they might have removed it in order to make room for the subtitles or something. However, in any case, if you ignore whatever is shown on the screen and only focus on what the characters say, you get 1983. But oh well... Mulder1982 (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"if you ignore whatever is shown on the screen... you get 1983". And you if spin a giant number wheel... ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:08, 13 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.

• In the script the movie was set in 1983. This was changed to 1984 during production, but the days of the week were unchanged. (So correct for 1983, wrong for 1984)
• The cop saying Thursday on what is technically Friday morning makes perfect sense, since his shift would have started sometime Thursday night so it is not subjectively the next day for him. (He also had his own gun aimed at him.)

I wrote all of this down as I re-watched the film today. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you are on my team when we play any movie trivia game. Wow. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Harlan Ellison - Original Research?

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)

I didn't say it was OR. I said it was removed as OR, meaning the person who removed it said it was, which is true. ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the editor is accusing the edits as OR, but without notable citations it looked that way. The Production section looks better now, but the inspiration should probably lead the section? -- Nreive (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Perfect score but...

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)

This is common procedure on almost all film articles. If it changes, we can always update it. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Stale tag

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)

Hmm. Perhaps I should have simply removed this post as a personal attack, but perhaps some good can come of it. I don't need to tell you that I have ten times the edits you have, Tool; you can see that for yourself; I'll give you that blunder for free. Everybody's new once.

We do not remove citation needed tags from an article unless we are replacing them with citations - the lack of sufficient citations is kinda the reason the tag was put there in the first place. It doesn't matter that some users have drifted away from the article. Just because there is no current interest in seeking out citations doesn't magically eliminate the need for sources. That's just common sense.

Now, your choices are somewhat simple: you can either roll up your sleeves and find some of these citations, or work on some other aspect of the article. One of the choices not available to you is removal of a valid tag because its older than your account. That is simple enough to follow. I would suggest you seek out an administrator to mentor you through this apparent rough patch. A list of admins can be found here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Tool2Die4, please read WP:NPA. Arcayne, while I agree in principle, the article-level tag has no indication as to what exactly the problem is. As it is, the article has no in-line tags, which would indicate what needs to be worked on. Ashmoo (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you actually pulled out the "well I have ten times the edits you do!" Pathetic. Tool2Die4 (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Be civil Tool2Die4 or you can be blocked. WorkingBeaver (talk) 10:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Tool was blocked. Anyway, the point of the mentioning of the edit count is not to have the feller with 20k edits trout-slap the feller with 2k, but for the first feller to let the second know that, in matters with policy, there is a strong chance that the problem has come up before, and the feller with more experience might know from whence he speaks. Like, for example, that being unpleasant will get you blocked. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Cyborg or Android?

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)

The script refers to a cyborg but not an android. Rd232 ^talk 08:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

But based on the wikipedia articles for cyborg and android, it appears to be both. Rd232 ^talk 08:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The date (again)

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)

Moved the Thursday issue to footnote. Possibly it should just be dropped, but it will probably crop up again so perhaps best leave it. Rd232 ^talk 10:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - that now makes perfect sense :-) Dom Kaos (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

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)

"Provoking their coitus"

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)

Repeated deletions

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)

Tarkovsky

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)

The laser sighted pistol

what gun was this? It seems interesting enough to merit some identification. 67.187.91.103 (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think tis an AMT Hardballer Longslide, .45 ACP.

Reverts

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)

First of all, the Terminator is not "most probably an android", it is a cyborg. If you've watched the films at all, numerous characters (Kyle Reese, The Terminator, Cameron in the TV series) specifically correct other characters who refer to them as robots or androids, emphasizing that they are "cybernetic organisms. Living tissue over a metal endoskeleton." The purpose of the living tissue is entirely irrelevant: a cyborg is defined as "an organism that has both artificial and natural systems". It could be a toaster with fur, and it would still be a cyborg.

Second of all, the model and series numbers are mentioned in Wikipedia, in the articles Terminator (character concept) and Terminator (character). Of course it is not "illegal to mention extra things that were not included in the film", however it is not pertinent to mention these extraneous details, which are not explained in this film, in the plot summary of this film. There is inconsistency and confusion about the series and model number of Arnold's Terminator because different numbers and nomenclatures are used between the different films and TV series. That is why we have a section in the Terminator (character) article explaining this. In fact, it's the very first section: see Terminator (character)#Character nomenclature. The "800" designation is never mentioned in this film at all, and Arnold's character is credited in the first 3 films simply as "The Terminator". If readers want to know more about the model number of the character, that's why we link it to the article on that character. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)