Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day

John Connor's Age and Setting

The original Terminator took place in 1984. It's established that John was born in 1985, however this article states that he is 10 years old, which would place the movie at 1995. However, in Terminator 3, it is stated by John Connor himself that when he was thirteen, the Terminators attacked a second time (the T-1000). This would place the events in Terminator 2 at 1998, after the events of Judgement Day in the Terminator 2 timeline (stated to be August 1997). To be honest, Connor being 13 in Terminator 2 does sound plausible, for one he doesn't even look 10 years old, but if Terminator 3's account is taken to be canon and not a mistake, it would mean Terminator 2 somehow took place after Judgement Day. I'm guessing this was just a mistake on part of the writers for Terminator 3? (82.28.237.200 (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC))

It was likely a mistake on the part of the T3 writers, and would hardly be the first plot hole/inconsistency in the series. That said, for the purposes of this article's plot summary we should go by whatever dates/ages are actually given in the film; I'd have to watch it again to see where the date is mentioned. But yeah, it'd be impossible for him to be 13 if he was born in 1985: we know for certain that T1 is set in 1984—that's explicitly stated in the film—and that's when Sarah becomes pregnant, so John has to be born in either '84 or '85, so he can't possibly be older than 10 or 11 if T2 takes place in '95. Like you said, for him to be 13 T2 would have to be set in '98, and it's clearly not, since the Terminator talks about how Judgment Day is going to happen on August 29, 1997. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I recognize this probably counts as original research, but at 12:18 in the film, Robert Patrick's character looks up John Connor in the police car's onboard computer. His date of birth is given as 2/28/95, and his age is listed as 10. So, yeah. 1995. Charliepark (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean 2/28/85, but yeah...there you go: birth date & age given on-screen in the film. Case closed. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, John Connor was referring to his special short film he did for the Terminator attraction in Universal Orlando. He appeared to be about 13 in that and for those who have seen that particular production (Which did actually come before the third Terminator), not to have mentioned something about it in the following film would have been confusing. If you don not know of the Terminator production in Orlando, Florida, you may see it on You Tube titled T2 3-D: Battle Across Time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.150.62 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

T2 3-D: Battle Across Time was not only in Orlando, it was also at Universal Studios Hollywood in California (which was where I saw it). You can't make the assumption based on "he appeared to be about 13"...he appears to be about 13 in T2 yet his age is given on-screen as 10. Also, Battle Across Time is non-canon; the theme park attraction isn't considered part of the films' plotline (it couldn't possibly be, as in Battle Across Time they destroy Skynet's core, and in T3 not only is Skynet still kickin' in the future but it's established that it has no core). In T3 John refers to 2 previous attempts on his life by Skynet: 1 before he was born and 1 when he was young. It's blatantly obvious that he's referring to the events of the previous 2 films, it's just that the writers got his age wrong. It's a plot hole, and certainly not the only one in the series (let's not get into the physical paradox of Kyle Reese being John's father, when John's the one who sends him back in time to begin with...). Universal Studios Hollywood also had Jurassic Park and Back to the Future attractions that clearly aren't part of those film series' stories. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dead links

I haven't checked all of the links given in the footnotes but at least two of them are dead: link given in footnote 3 and 13. How often are the links checked anyway? I think it's really important to keep them up to date but unfortunately I don't have much time at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.196.176 (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Run time & producers

Hi. I see you reverted my 137 minutes runtime. Here's the deal, though. When I looked at my DVD case with a magnifying glass (yes, the print is that small!) it does say 139 minutes (the 9 looked like a 7 with my naked eye). But I just ran the film to the end, and it really is just under 137 minutes, so IMDB is correct. Farther down in your Production section, it says it runs 137 minutes (probably because of IMDB, or because the editor actually checked the film). Whatever number we go with (and I'd vote for the actual running time, no matter what the NYTimes or my DVD case says), shouldn't the running time for the film be consistent within the article? How would people suggest we deal with this? (I do not have any of the other versions of the film, so I'm not discussing those other edits--I hope that's clear.) You also reverted the producers, and Carolco's logo is the opening one on the film, with "Mario Kassar presents" coming up next, then Pacific, with Lightstorm coming last (they are arranged in order of importance, by strict regulation) so I'm going to put that back in, and Canal+, who are the first credited producers in the end titles. Thanks.--TEHodson 06:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Where are you from because the UK version is 137 minutes because it had to be cut for censorship. As for the production companies, I'm willing to agree to Carolco as they appear in the opening crawl alongside Pacific and Lightstorm, though Lightstorm gets an "Association" which normally means the company didn't do much directly involved with the production of the film but that someone who owns it produced the film. Looking up the company it appears it is owned by James Cameron who produced this, so that is where that has come from. As for the Canal+, it only appears with an "association" with at the end of the film, which is a minor credit and should not be mentioned in the infobox like executive producers should not be mentioned unless they were of extreme importance and given the credit as a result. I can't find any information for why Canal+ has that credit but it seems to be made clear that it wasn't a significant contributor unlike Pacific, Carolco or even Lightstorm and it also receives no credit on the poster (which is normally how we populate the infobox) so I don't think Canal+ should be there. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The running time used should be the most "complete" version at the time of the original theatrical release. It's possible that the film has been re-edited. The BBFC indicates that the running time of the submitted version was 136 minutes: [1], which is probably the running time of the American theatrical release. As for Canal+, it bought out Carolco some years later, so whenever Studio Canal are credited on old Carolco films it is basically just an acknowlegdment that they are the current owners of Carolco (in much the same way that sometimes modern day publishers are credited on books that were published in the 19th century before the publisher even existed). In other words, Canal never were involved in the production of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

My DVD is the American release, seen in theatres. It's exact runtime is 136 minutes, 27 seconds, per my DVD player. I had a VHS video, too (from the production, which was given out to those who worked on it, the theatrical cut, which was the only one in existence at that point) and it was also just under 137 minutes, as was the commercially produced VHS (which you can still buy on Amazon--137 mins). My understanding of Studio Canal's involvement had to do with a huge contribution to the production in order to secure overseas rights in advance. Lightstorm is Cameron's company, formed a year or so before T2, so he could work as independently as possible (T2 was its first film), just as Pacific Western was Gale Ann Hurd's co., and had been around a long time by then and had produced The Terminator. --TEHodson 19:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Well according to Betty, even if Canal+ was directly involved, it has no credit. It isn't credited on the poster nor is it credited in the opening of the film alongside the other studios, so whatever its involvement, it doesn't really belong in the infobox. Momentum Pictures has a credit on the back of my DVD box but I wouldn't say they belong in the infobox either. I know the rights to the film were sold overseas in advance but I don't think that means it was involved in production as much as recouping production costs and considering it only receives a minor credit during the actual credits, it isn't a major enough contributor in any form to warrant inclusion. As for the runtime I can't say, I don't think I can find my VHScopy and my DVD is the extended version, listed as 147 minutes. I'll try to see if there is a runtime on the MPAA site or something but I won't oppose the runtime being changed to 137 minutes if it isn't already.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Times only need to be approximate though, the point of including a running time is to give a reader of how long the film is. Your best bet is probably looking at reviews from the time of theatrical release, which will best reflect the measurements of the time. As for production companies the actual film credits are the best indicator of who is involved. Subsequent corporate buy-outs and advance distribution sales can extend the corporate ownership of the film to many companies, but usually only one are two are actually involved in making the film which is essentially what the infobox is trying to get across. Betty Logan (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I know. My original point was simply that whatever number we go with, it be the same throughout the article. Somebody choose a time and make it consistent.--TEHodson 21:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody else did it, I made the original theatrical release time consistent to 139 minutes because that's what the sources say, even though the correct running time is 137, as noted above. It makes us ridiculous, though, to have an article say 139 in one place and 137 in another, so whatever the time says, it should be consistent.--TEHodson 06:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Video clips?

Does anyone know the policy on including video clips from films? I was considering replacing Patrickterminator2.JPG from the production section with a 3-5 second clip that shows something with the T-1000 morphing, perhaps arm->weapon or more likely silver T-1000 morphing into Robert Patrick to better demonstrate the visual technology that the film pioneered. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the policy with respect to fair use, but it can be done. Some featured articles do such a thing, like American Beauty (film) and Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, the latter being a good parallel to what we're trying to convey here. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That's quite a long clip as well, thanks for finding that example. Seems like if its justifiable, which I think it would be in this case, it should be OK. If anyone has any recommendations for a good scene let me know. Off the top of my head I would've probably gone with him walking out of the truck collision as liquid metal or perhaps something from the steel factory that really shows off the tech, like when he gets slammed into the wall face first and completely reverses his body. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a few moments where one of the actors portraying the T-1000 look at their forearm with a sort of detached gaze as it changes form (Patrick and Goldstein definitely do this, though it's been a while since I've seen the film). That would provide a good short instance of the effect, whilst also keeping away from any "key" moments of the film (so as to strengthen to rationale that the non-free file does not infringe upon the owner's ability to market the source). And since the T-1000 is portrayed through a complex mix of physical and digital effects (obviously the mercury puddles are physical, but so is, for instance, most of the final grenade volley scene in the steelworks), this would be a clear example of specifically digital effects being used, as the physical effects are no more groundbreaking on their own than the first film's use of them. GRAPPLE X 16:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5gGV1WB-xg How about the scene about 3:10 here? Or is that too iconic a scene? Or 5:12 here. The arm thing is very specific, you'd have to give me a time frame. (I've figured out what you meant by Goldstein so that is a possibility too) NOTE: I can cut out anything not involving the T-1000 in the first scene.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Right after Goldstein's T-1000 has stabbed John's foster dad in the face, she withdraws the blade arm and watches it become a hand again. I can't remember a time for it but it's not too long after that big ol' lorry chase scene, which is hard to miss. Can't immediately recall a specific moment Patrick does it though. GRAPPLE X 16:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That scene isn't too bad (watching it now) as it shows minor blade transformation and then full body from Goldstein to patrick in under 20 seconds, displaying the CGI model. But we'd need to know the policy on blood as there's some in that scene with the guy on the ground. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR. A tiny spattering of blood in a clip used to illustrate the article for an action film with a certificate rating can't be seen as unreasonable to the article's audience, as they should expect the treatment of the topic to be as frank as the topic itself. (tl;dr - blood in film, blood in article) GRAPPLE X 16:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will give it a go later, and try to upload it (My upload is terrible but I'm sure I will make it). Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, you have a flavour of three to choose from at the moment, further suggestions not withstanding.

1. Mill scene (This is my personal preference as it shows morphing, practical, reflections(refractions?) and movement.
2. Goldstein Kitchen scene - The scene mentioned by Grapple, shows morphing
3. Bridge scene - Shows movement and minor morphing
4. Copter Scene - ANother option, movement, morphing, animation
5. Hospital Floor scene - Morphing, some movement

All under 20 seconds long.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No input?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My preference is for the kitchen scene, as it shows the transition back & forth between real actors & CGI. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think any of them will be ok; the main thing is they have to demonstrate a technique/effect that is described in the prose, rather than just used for illustration. Betty Logan (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Toys

Does anyone have any sources for the action figures from the film? I remember having the T-800 skin mould, T-1000 with explodey action and a Terminator car with a rocket launcher. Would be good for the marketing section Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

What would you want to add? That they made these specific toys? Would it not be better to just find the biggest brand that produced them and mention that? Seems less complicated.Beefcake6412 (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That'd probably be fine, it's just another example of merchandising. If a source could be find would also allow for discussion about the type of marketing for the film considering it was an 18 (maybe an R) and yet was merchandised towards kids heavily. I did find images of the particular toys I remembered but no real information. I fear it may have been lost to time.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning toy lines can be good material for a marketing section, but of course sourcing is the key thing. For the Alien franchise I found David A. McIntee's book Beautiful Monsters: The Unofficial and Unauthorized Guide to the Alien and Predator Films to be helpful in this regard, as he mentions most of the merchandising tie-ins that were associated with each film. I don't know if there's anything similar to this devoted to the Terminator franchise, but it sure would be helpful. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well a book may be a good option as I couldn't really find much of anything except images on line. this (I used to love that car) and this one isn't so bad. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You know I think I had the bike as well, and the exploding T-1000 and the Endoskeleton. And the flesh creation thingy. The EW reference seems good as it lists some marketing tie ins and stuff like ties that I hadn't even heard of so if more of that could be found it would be useful.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Final Cut

I want to add that Cameron had Final Cut Privilege!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.112.178 (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source saying Cameron had final cut privileges? If so then it should be added.Beefcake6412 (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

[2] There it sais he had final cut!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.112.178 (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Could someone tell me on which films did Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarrantino, and Ridley Scott have Final Cut Privilege??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.112.178 (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This whole business is confusing and unnecessary. What is "final cut privilege"? Is it unusual for a director to have it? One would normally assume that the director, as the one creating the film, has the final say or at least makes approval of changes made to it in post-production. Rather, it would be unusual (and noteworthy) if a director didn't have final say, especially if the studio made changes to the film that the director didn't agree with (as sometimes happens, resulting in "director's cut"s that are significantly different). However, if all we're going to note is that the director had final say, which is pretty much what one would expect to happen anyway, and there wasn't any significant conflict between the director and studio which resulted in this "privilege" being exercised over some key decision, then there's really no reason to note it. Also, you can't cite youtube, especially if it's copyvio (which that link appears to be). --IllaZilla (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that unless you are a big time director, generaly the studio can force changes based on test screenings. Still don't know how notable it is though Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not unusual for a director to get locked out of the editing suite by producers. It happened to Orson Welles on pretty much every film he made after Citizen Kane. Some are too big to touch, like Stanley Kubrick (but I hear even he received a bit of editing "help" on 2001). In other cases there can be a transition of power. Tim Burton dislikes the first Batman film because the "producers took over", but had total creative freedom on the sequel, whereas Francis Ford Coppola reckoned only 60% of the first Godfather film was his work, so demanded final cut in his contract for the sequel. In that sense "final cut" isn't straightforward, so stating who has final control over the creative decisions is a legitimate inclusion in an article about the film. That said we obviously need a source, but even then that leads me to question the authenticity of the claim considering there are other versions floating around. Are we to assume he didn't exercise final cut? Was he obliged to contracted to bring the film in at a certain running time? If the claim can be substantiated, I think it would be best to cover it in regards to his motivation for releasing the other versions. Betty Logan (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, if there were some context to it (why he was granted this authority, did he exercise it in regard to some significant change that the producers wanted to make, did it affect the theatrical version of the film or later editions, etc.) then there'd be something to write about. But if all we're going to have is a 1-sentence blurb thrown in at the end of the "filming" section then it's not worth mentioning. We've got to explain to the reader what it means and why it's significant. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK it means he is the guy who got to decided what scenes and how much of the scenes that are included made it into the final version of the film.--Marhawkman (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)