Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Co-written?

How can something be co-written by one person? Fix this. --202.74.194.57 (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If you glance at the infobox, you'll see that there was an additional writer and a number of other producers. Therefore Cameron is credited as a co-writer and co-producer. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Title

Please. The movie was titled Terminator 2: Judgement Day. I believe this article should include that date, August 29th, 1997. I had to search elsewhere to find that info (and it wasn't Terminator, 1984) I needed that date to compare with the lauch of Jupiter 2 in the Lost in Space TV series (which for those of you interested was October 16, 1997) --66.104.124.47 (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how comparing it to Lost in Space is relevant, but I agree that if the exact date is stated in the film then we can plug it into the plot section, as it is significant to the overall plot arc of the series. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No! The title was Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Forteana (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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: [2], 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)

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)

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)

• What happened to this proposal in the end? Was it dropped? If this article is going to a GA review it would be good to send it on its way with a video clip. Betty Logan (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I can still do it, just didnt have the sources at the time to justify it. Gimme 20 minutes and can have that kitchen scene done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that kitchen scene is the one I'd go for. A variety of CGI effects, also shows a morph from one actor to another. GRAPPLE X 14:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

K, I added it to the page, see what you think Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• So are we happy with the video in place? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think it really makes the article. Betty Logan (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Good, good, I like listening to the music personally :P Actually kinda remarkable how well the effects hold up even against stuff from today. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2012 (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)

[3] 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)

It is my understanding that as he and his friend Gale Ann Hurd were the primary financiers, he had final cut. Had he not, it probably would have been shorter. In any case, I don't think it's important; explaining what that is and how it works would take up a great deal of time. It's kind of an "inside the film world" sort of thing anyway. And yes, not every director gets final cut (hence the original concept of the "director's cut"). And just because a film gets cut after focus groups see it doesn't mean that the director doesn't end up agreeing with the focus group (often making a fatal error and wrecking his/her own film), so the whole issue is too complicated to put in here. I say No. The extended version released later on DVD is NOT the "director's cut", but rather an extended cut which includes things that were shot but then deemed extraneous to the main story. Most filmmakers shoot things and then discover they don't work, so the absence of deleted scenes doesn't mean anything. --TEHodson 03:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Complete agreement about the extended version not being a director's cut; the (ample) bonus content provides reasoning for each cut that makes it back into the extended version, and none of it was "because someone other than the director wanted it that way". Most of the time, it was cut for pacing, which is decidedly something the director can dictate. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Step to GA

Expansion of "Production"

I guess with more than 100 watchers of this page, and many thousands more fans of the movie, that there would be at least one person who owns the book Terminator 2: judgment day : the book of the film, an illustrated screenplay. I don't possess own myself; if there's anyone who has the book, please tell me because without it, I don't think this article is going anywhere with the lack of coverage regarding the movie's production. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Did I miss the discussion about this that involved the deletion of the article and merge with history from your userspace where your edits have been done without warning or adequate description and so we can't track what has been changed without looking through each edit? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the histmerge was totally unnecessary. You could've just copy/pasted your revised text over the old text, as it's all your own contributions. I do that all the time when drafting stuff in userspace that I'm going to apply to an existing article. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I was told differently by several editors about merging, that it is preferable if I request a history merge, rather do a copy-paste. According to Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves, "a cut-and-paste move is [...] highly undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons." It never occurred to me to take the copy-paste step since that was what happened to Tupolev Tu-142 -- user Gfoley4 misunderstood a request of mine, and as a result, he merged the sandbox on which I was talking and the Tu-142 article. From then on I thought the right thing to do in any merger situation is to ask an admin to do a history merger. I apologise for the inconvenience caused by yesterday's merger. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. For the record it is perfectly acceptable to copy material into the article provided you provide the source of the material in the edit summary i.e Merged content from UserSp33dyphil/Sandbox to here. History merges are usually reserved for articles that have been copied to new names and have lost their page histories, you certainly don't need to do one just to merge content into an article. Betty Logan (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessary to history merge if you wrote the new content yourself in userspace. The point is that the material has to be attributed to the editor who wrote it. For example, if I start a new article in userspace and work on it for several days until it's ready to launch, I can either (A) use the move function to move it to article space, or (B) copy and paste it to article space. Either way the content is properly attributed to me, the sole author; It's not necessary that every step I took in crafting it be preserved. It's the same principle by which I could type paragraphs of text in my word processor and then copy-paste it into an article. You don't even need to say where you pasted it from as long as you're the sole author. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. But is the history merge still relevant even if I was the sole editor in my userpage? What if, let's say, you've edited the article in your userpage 80 times, and you're in the WikiCup (which I am, although I was editing this article purely because I love the subject, not for the points), a history merge might still be useful to help the Cup's judges to decide whether you had worked on the article or not. It might also be useful for future references, because anybody wanting to improve the article further might need/like to contact you for advice. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 09:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the WikiCup? To answer your question, no, the history does not need to be maintained if you were the sole editor in your userpage. The reason that article histories have to be maintained is to properly attribute the content to its authors. If you write a paragraph in userspace, even if you make 100 edits to it in the process, the entire block of content is still attributable only to you; you can copy-paste it into an article and that attribution is still there as long as you're the one doing the pasting (the edit in which you pasted it in would be there in the article history, so people could still see where the content came from and contact you if they wished). Those 100 individual edits it took you to put the paragraph together behind-the-scenes don't need to be preserved. Like I said above, it'd be just like if I spent a week typing 5 pages' worth of text in Microsoft Word, then copy-pasted it into a Wikipedia article. The content is still properly attributed to me, the author, even if I put it all in in just 1 big edit instead of 100 little edits; All the little edits I made to it in MS Word don't matter for attribution purposes, because no one else contributed to it but me. For example, I spent months working on a rewrite of Alien (film) in my userspace, then I pasted it in in 1 big edit and deleted the user subpage I'd used by placing {{db-user}} on it. If the WikiCup involves edit-counting, I don't think you need to worry: Your userspace edits and even your deleted edits are reflected in your edit count. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The historymerge is kind of important considering you are still apparently editing the entire page every time you make an edit and just using ADD or TWEAK as a description of what you're doing. So its not only not clear what you are editing but what you are doing to it until you follow the about fifteen edits since yesterday. And what is this DIV doing to the music box? Whatever it is you think it is fixing seems to only be affecting you, I can see nothing wrong when the music box is allowed to stretch to a natural width, no other soundtrack table has ever required a DIV as far as I have experienced Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not what Sp33dyphil did, though. It's hard to tell now that the history's been merged, but what he did was work on some stuff in a user subpage, but then instead of just pasting his new text into or over the existing article he merged his subpage, including the history, into the article. Even if he'd copied the entire T2 article into his userspace and worked on it there for several weeks, he'd still just have to paste his finished product over the existing article, not history merge the thing; the changes would still be properly attributed to him. History merges are for fixing cut and paste moves, or merging 2 extant articles together, not for moving userspace drafts into article space (unless the userspace draft had more than 1 contributor, in which case the history of the drafted material needs to be retained for proper attribution). It's kind of a moot point since it's already been done, but basically doing a history merge instead of just pasting in the new text made it confusing for those of us who wanted to see exactly what had been changed. The changes can still be viewed, however, by selecting a revision from before the history merge took place and then clicking "compare selected revisions": [4] --IllaZilla (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about you Illa but I find that many changes really difficult to read through. It's just a wall of red text on a yellow or green background. And at the moment the changes continue without any description or even a hint of what section is being changed, and Wiki doesn't seem to load very fast for me. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It is really difficult to pick out all the changes, but that'd be true even without a histmerge, & there's no requirement that changes be incremental, or that there be time allotted in between edits for other editors to review them. It's not uncommon for an article to undergo a complete overhaul as part of a GA push; Sometimes there are so many changes that we just have to read the new version over from start to finish and see what shape it's in. I've certainly done some total article overhauls in my time, either all at once or in a flurry of edits over a few days' course. Sp33dyphil's clearly doing a good-faith GA push here; We can probably just wait a bit until his editing dies down and then give the "new" article a thorough look-over. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Information about the film's release

Does anybody have any info on the film's premiere and release? After the completion of the section "Release", I plan to take this article to GAN. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed text

I've removed a number of paragraphs due to the lack of reliable references and/or that the text themselves are intricately-detailed and/or that they're unnecessary:

• The shotgun used by Schwarzenegger throughout the film was a Winchester Model 1887, customized for the film to allow it to be "flip-cocked" by the actor in several of the film's scenes.
• Terminator 2 was later followed by two more sequels, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines and Terminator Salvation, as well as an alternate timeline TV series, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.
• Three versions of the film exist: the Theatrical cut, a "Special Edition" of the film for Laserdisc, VHS and DVD and an "Extended Special Edition" available only as an Easter egg on the Ultimate Edition DVD and later on the Skynet Edition Blu-ray disc. The "Special Edition" was titled the director's cut on the European high definition releases.
• The Special Edition has been the same from release to release, with all the scenes that Cameron reinserted intact. There are, however, two scenes that Cameron shot but chose not to reinsert into the film which have been included as an accessible extra on most "Special Edition" releases. The first scene shows the T-1000's tactile approach to acquiring information about the physical world, "scanning" John's room with its fingertips, and eventually finding a hidden shoebox containing pictures and tapes of Sarah, seen at the end of the first film. The second scene is an alternate ending set in 2029 with an aged Sarah Connor reflecting on how Judgment Day was averted. The addition of these scenes is the only difference between the "Special Edition" and the "Extended Special Edition". This version can be accessed by pressing 8, 2, 9, 9, 7 (based on August 29, 1997, the date of Judgment Day) on the main menu of the DVD. The Easter egg is only functional on the Ultimate Edition DVD (no longer produced); however, these scenes can be accessed at a certain point in the film with the interactive mode on the Extreme DVD. In addition, the Extreme Edition contains several Easter eggs, which include access to the theatrical version of the movie and a preview for the Ultimate Edition DVD.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs) 09:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) 03:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Starting review page, full review will be posted shortly. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, review is now on hold pending changes. If anything needs clarification, just ask. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There are some remaining things to be improved, but all in all I think this is good enough. Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

As you know, the requirements for writing and formatting are significantly lower at the GA level than the FA. Thus, I'm being slightly stricter here than I normally would be for GA, but am still well below "brilliant" prose and nitpicky MOS details

• "required an unprecedented budget of more than $94 million (1991 dollars), much of which were" - should be "was", as the object is the budget

• ✔ Fixed.

• "has sent back a reprogrammed T-800 Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger), identical to the one that attacked Sarah" - if it's reprogrammed, how can it be identical?

• ✔ Replaced identical with similar.

• "The Terminator and the T-1000" - I thought the T-1000 is a Terminator?

• See Terminator (character) and Terminator (character concept).

• "The Terminator informs John and Sarah about Skynet" - but didn't you say earlier that Sarah had been preparing John to lead the fight against Skynet? How could she do that if neither of them knew what it was?

• Sarah knew that Skynet would fight the humans, but she didn't know when the machines would become self-aware.

• Which would still imply to me that she knew about Skynet...I'm not trying to be dense, but I've never seen this movie, so the description is a bit confusing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• "to protect the life of John Connor while he is still a child" - can this be worded more directly?

• ✔ Removed "the life of".

• Be consistent in whether or not Resistance and Terminator are capitalized

• ✔ Fixed.

• Check semi-colon use throughout. For example, "Hamilton underwent an extensive thirteen-week training regimen with personal trainer Anthony Cortes; training for three hours each day" - semi-colon should either be a periodcomma, or a colon if "training for" is removed

• ✔ Semi-colon has been replaced with comma.

• "ten-year old son" -> "ten-year-old son"

• ✔ Fixed.

• Dablinks

• ✔ Fixed.

• "Furlong had no prior acting ambitions at the time" - would normally say "no prior acting experience" or "no acting ambitions", but current phrasing seems odd

• ✔ Fixed.

• In general, your manner of introducing direct quotes could be smoother
• "A.D." -> "AD"

• ✔ Fixed.

• "both of whom portray John's foster parents, Janelle and Todd Voight, respectively" - could simplify "both of whom" to just "who" and remove "respectively" altogether

• ✔ Fixed.

• WP:OVERLINK - no need to repeat links multiple times, particularly not in close proximity
• "before starting to assemble the film crew for Terminator 2.." - punctuation error

• ✔ Fixed.

• "Starting with the Mojave Desert, principal photography spanned over 186 days between October 9, 1990, and April 4, 1991, during which the crew visited 20 different sites throughout California and New Mexico" - confusing as written because you're splitting the locations - keep days with dates and move the first location to the end

• ✔ Fixed.

• "These locations were varied" - if they're different sites, this can be assumed; suggest simply "These locations ranged from" (or "ran the gamut from" if you want to be colourful)

• ✔ Fixed.

• "which saw a full-scale helicopter crash, a sliding tanker, along with other elaborate paraphernalia" - should replace either first comma or "along with" with "and"

• ✔ Fixed.

• "The production costs itself...required $51 million in total" - two grammatical errors here

• ✔ Fixed.

• "the film had nearly recovered its budget prior to the its release"

• ✔ Fixed.

• "would integral to the critical success of the film" ?

• ✔ Fixed.

• You repeat a quote, only once it's "mimetic polyalloy" and later "mimetic poly-alloy" - which is right?

• ✔ "mimetic poly-alloy", fixed.

• "could be able to morph" - "could" isn't quite the right word here

• ✔ fixed -- "can morph".

• Journal/newspaper names should be consistently italicized
• "Terminator 2 was a box-office success, earning $204.8 million in the United States alone, and $519 million worldwide and was the highest grossing film of 1991, beating Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and being TriStar Pictures' highest grossing film to date" - awkward, needs rephrasing

• ✔ Fixed -- split into two sentences.

• "presented in a slightly washed-out 1080p transfer and included no special features" - grammar

• ✔ fixed "of the film that is presented in a slightly"

• Don't need caps for Cassette Tape

• ✔ Fixed.

• "a list of films considered the most thrilling contribution to cinema in film history"

• ✔ Replaced with "a list of films considered to be the most thrilling in film history"

• Spell out LAPD

• ✔ Fixed.

• Check dash usage - when using dashes for sentence breaks, pick either spaced en- or unspaced emdashes and stick with your choice for the whole article

• ✔ Fixed.

• I think the table in the box office section is excessive. WP:WHENTABLE states Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table. Clearly the information is not "tabular in nature" because there is only one row in the whole thing. I recommend remvoing the table and leaving it as prose. Betty Logan (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, I think for the purposes of that particular information it allows the information to be clearly access without filtering it from prose and allows for easy comparison of figures between budget and region. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy and verifiability

• Dead link

• FN 49 is actually Box Office Mojo, instead of Bafta.org as stated on Checklinks.

• FN 35: page(s)?

• I'm in the process of ordering the book.

-*✔ Fixed.

• FN 33: normally I wouldn't question this source, but the sheer number of grammatical errors gives me pause - who on earth is this author, and what is the site's editorial policy?

• According to [5], the editor is David Jefferson, who edited articles of the "The Magazine Library section from issue 9, between 1982 and 1995."

• Okay, he would seem to be reliable enough for GA, though I remain astounded. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• FN 45: publisher?

• ✔ Fixed.

• Technically I'm not supposed to say this at GA, but...citation format could be much more consistent
• What makes this a reliable source? This? This? This?

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#External links supports the addition of a film's IMDB page to the article's external links section. As for the other three, their inclusion is a matter of editorial judgments -- if you're not happy with them, I'll see if I can replace them.

• IMDB is fine for external links, but right now it's used as a source. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Looking back at Den of Geeks, I really don't think it's non-RS. I mean, its publisher Dennis Publishing is responsible for The Week, Men's Fitness, Auto Express and ten other magazines.

• Den of Geek solicits contributions from external writers, and writers aho aren't professional journalists. See [6] and [7]. On this basis, while DoG is a profesisonal media outlet since it has a professional staff, the author of the piece has to be taken into account i.e. if it is written "in house" fair enough, if not then it's not reliable. The Terminator piece is written by Ryan Lambie who is the assistant editor, so on that basis I would say DoG is a reliable source in this particular instance. Betty Logan (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Spotchecks of 4 sources found no issues with non-verifiability or copyvio

• There is an incorrect claim in the article sourced to Box Office Mojo in the Box Office section (see [8]): Made for approximately $102 million (after inflation),[3] the movie was, at the time, the most expensive movie ever made. There is no clause in there that corroborates the claim that is the inflated budget; in fact, BOM doesn't inflate budgets, it records the cost at the time (if you were to inflate it, it would be about $140 million). Box Office Mojo is actually saying that the film cost $102 million to make at the time. Now, this figure just about contradicts every other source about the budget that says it cost $94 million, and it wouldn't be the first time BOM has inflated the budget. I suggest the figure is removed, or at the very least the 'inflation' claim itself is removed. Betty Logan (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for shedding light on the fact that BOM does not include the inflation figure in its works. I will clarify the sentence. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• ✔ Fixed.

• The reliability of [9] at [10] is not clear. If these sites officially represent the actors fair enough, but if they are fan sites then they are not reliable. Betty Logan (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• The quote was taken from Arnold Schwarzengger's website Schwarzenegger.com. The previous attribution to this website was dead, so I did a search, and the Robert-Patrick.ws link came up. If it's a major issue, I will remove the quote. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's only an issue if they are fansites. If the site is Robert Patrick's official site it can be used, if we can't establish that then it can't be used. Betty Logan (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• As I said, the quote was taken from Schwarzengger.com, so all the scrutiny would be directed toward that w/s. And no, Robert-Patrick.ws is not a fansite. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There is equal scrutiny on where the information comes from and the site which we take it from. If I take something off the new York Times and put it on my personal web page, it ceases to be reliably sourced, because I could manipulate, fabricate, misrepresent or misinterpret the information. Betty Logan (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise the w/s was a fansite. I'll replace the photo with an image, until I can find a more reliable source. ✔ Replaced quote with an image.--Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Terminatorfiles.com is not a reliable source. It is a self-proclaimed fansite (see [11]) and therefore fails RS as per WP:SPS. Betty Logan (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• I thought about that too, but because I couldn't find any reliable sources, and due to my thought at the time that I was the only person who would be willing to improve the article, I took the plunge by deciding to use the website. I did ask people, mainly through the article's talk page, whether they own the book The Making of Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991), but there were no answers. I wanted to improve the article, but I didn't have to book, so I decided to do the next best thing -- use Terminatorfiles.com's articles. I would've thought it would be editorial judgment regarding the use of such websites, and also due to the circumstances at the time. If you're not happy still, then I will discuss with the reviewer Nikkimaria on the issue. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• [12] at [[13]] is not reliable. Like IMDB it is user generated therefore fails RS. Betty Logan (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• ✔ Removed.

• [14] at [15]. Another user generated site to source the track listings. Technically you don't need to source it because the CD itself serves as a primary source for the tracks. Betty Logan (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• ✔ Removed info.

Broad

• I've generally seen "Release" and "Reception" as two separate sections in this type of article - any particular reason for your organization?

• I've poured over Google Archives I couldn't find anything about the film's release or premiere. I'll search again tomorrow.

• ✔ Added a paragraph about premiere and release.
• I've found an IMDB page which lists the timing of the film's release and the amount of its gross in different countries. In light of your comment below, I assume that it can't be used. I'll hunt for more, but it looks like I cannot satisfy your request.

• Maybe add a sentence or two about editing and post-production?

Neutrality

• "to breath life into the main two Terminators" - try to avoid journalistic/PR phrasings like this

• I'm not sure how to rephrase this, well, phrase.

• Currently we have two figures for the budget: $94 million which seems to be given by most sources and $102 million given by Box Office Mojo. I generally suspect the lower figure is the more accurate one given the weight of sourcing behind it (the 102 million figure sounds like a marketing gimmick of the time so they could market it as the "first 100 million dollar film"), and the sources in the production section even give accounts for how the money was spent. While it is ok to include the BOM figure, the infobox gives too much weighting to it by choosing it over the 94 million figure. I think either the infobox should go with the 94 million figure (since this figure is better accounted for) or we should have a budget range as on some other film articles i.e $94–102 million. Betty Logan (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• There is a slight problem with the cultural references section. The cultural references are each cited to the works themselves i.e. primary sources, rather than secondary sources. As per WP:POPCULTURE, secondary sources are preferable to establish the significance of the reference as being worthy for inclusion in the article: However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. I did a similar section on the Don't Look Now article, and found film reviews or interviews with the director to be the best secondary sources for establishing the importance of these cultural references. The main thing there though, was that I tried as much as possible to avoid citing the referring film itself. For example, for the "Stallone as the Terminator" reference in Last Action Hero, this secondary source would be better, since it establishes the notability of the film reference and thereby places it into a cultural context. I don't think this issue should be a block to a GA though, it's just an area that could be improved IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed: would be nice to fix, but isn't an issue for GA status. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Stability

• Generally best to remove {{underconstruction}} and similar before GA-nomming
• No edit warring or major recent disputes, some vandalism but no serious instability

Images

• Being pedantic, but since File:Terminator.ogg is a temporal media, you actually have to explicitly say it's short in comparison to the original (and preferably give length of the original, if known)

• ✔ Fixed -- I've added "(Short extract)".

• File:T2soundtrackcover.jpg: this isn't used in the main infobox, but in a secondary

• Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.

• The FUR claims use in main infobox, which is the one at the top of the page; however, the image is actually used in a secondary infobox. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've changed the purpose to "section". --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 22:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Captions should meet similar standards for prose and MOS as article text (with the caveat that only captions that are complete sentences should end in periods)

• Could you point me to the problem? I can't see it.

• "Hamilton returned to her role as Sarah Connor from The Terminator" is a complete sentence, so should end in a period
• "The film's visual effects used for the T-1000 were highly advanced for the time, combining state of the art CGI, prosthetics, and editing to bring the T-1000 to life. (0:20)": "film's" is redundant here, "state-of-the-art" is commonly hyphenated, "bring the T-1000 to life" is a journalistic phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree on "Bring the T-1000 to life" being a journalistic phrasing, it's just a more interesting phrasing.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• ✔ Fixed. While we're talking about the T-1000's abilities, I'm not sure how to rephrase "Terminator 2 made extensive use of computer-generated imagery (CGI) to bring to life the main two Terminators." I cannot apply the similar changes from the caption in this case.

• "vivify"? make realistic? make lifelike? My standard rephrasing for this cliche is "animate", but that's a bit trickier to use in the context of a film. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the phrasing is ok in this context; it gets to the point in a way readers can understand. If it is this tough to come up with an alternative phrasing then we risk losing the point by changing it. Betty Logan (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

John Conner's age as a boy

Sorry if I missed the discussion, the comments on the article said to refer to the Talk page but I see no information here about his age(I'm fairly new to wiki though). Yes, the years add up to 10- but in the very first scene of Terminator 3 as he talks riding the motorcycle through the forest he says that he was 13. What's the deal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.246.20 (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terminator_2:_Judgment_Day/Archive_2#John_Connor.27s_Age_and_Setting Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been archived to Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day/Archive 1#John Connor's Age, and shows up again at Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day/Archive 2#John Connor's Age and Setting. The on-screen police records used by John Doggett a sitting duck Robert Patrick displays Connor's age as ten. What happens in T3 has no bearing on the previous film, it just establishes that T3's version of history is different to T2's. GRAPPLE X 16:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I guess this can be deleted then, or whatever the standards on wiki are. 71.211.246.20 (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Conversion to prose

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 ©^hat_ontributions 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 ©^hat_ontributions 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

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)

Marketing source

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.

• http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,314510,00.html

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

Left arm right arm

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)

Cyborg is incorrect.

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 ©^hat_ontributions 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 50.130.11.182 (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.50.130.11.182 (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Human resistance

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)

difference between theatrical and director's cut

I added the section, but unable to type much. requesting others to expand on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 05:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Genre - epic?

I noticed that an IP editor, who has been blocked a number of times over the last couple of months for genre warring, has reinserted epic into the lead section. He or she has been previously directed to the talk page, so I am just leaving this section here in case anyone wants to discuss this characterization of the movie to avoid edit warring. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

That actually is up to that point. It said it was epic because "The film leads to humanity and deactivates a nuclear bomb." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.65.119 (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Terminator 2: Judgment Day. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131222200551/http://www.totalfilm.com/features/100-greatest-movies-of-all-time to http://www.totalfilm.com/features/100-greatest-movies-of-all-time
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807135603/http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/handv400.pdf?docID=245 to http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/handv400.pdf?docID=245
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1992-hugo-awards/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512032708/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Production

"He and Hamilton reprised their respective roles from the first Terminator film". Wrong. Terminator in 1st film was 'bad'; in 2nd film was 'good'. 66.81.244.70 (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I changed that. Also, Dyson did not specifically intend on developping “the new CPU for the T-800 Terminators”, but a general-purpose CPU for military applications, actually inspired by the CPU found on the destroyed T-800 found at the factory following the events of the first movie, and he was apalled when he learned what it would eventually become.--Abolibibelot (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

"Greatest film ever made"

Resolved

 – Sentence has been deleted. Betty Logan (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Someboody has obviously vandalized this article's lead, thereby also mutilating the grammatical structure of the sentence about the highest gross for a Schwarzenegger film just before the relevant claim. It's pretty ridiculous to claim without a single source that critics would "often call T2 one of the greatest films ever made". At best, it's considered one of the greatest sequels ever made, along with Cameron's Aliens (1986) and Back to the future 2 (1989). Some may also call it particularly influential upon the genre of action films and how CGI is used in films, but there's a reason it's mentioned not even just once in our long, long List of films considered the best. --2003:EF:13C6:DC12:914B:881:CAE6:BFD3 (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

"Have you seen this boy?" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Have you seen this boy?. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. gnu57 16:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Edward Furlong not in the infobox ?

I find it strange that Edward Furlong should be left out of the infobox when he is presented among the other three actors in the intro of the article. «The film stars Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton, Robert Patrick, and Edward Furlong»--Ezzex (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

As per Template:Infobox film (which you keep deleting from the article), the names in the infobox should be based on the billing block of the film when it is available, which does not include Furlong. I would not object to removing his name from the lead as well if you want. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

No, I prefer if he where moved back to the infobox[16][17].--Ezzex (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Just because he is one of the leads does not mean he is one of the stars. He was fairly obscure at then time from what I recall. Unless the official credit order in the film contradicts the billing block then his name should be omitted from the field. He is mentioned in the lead of the article so it is not as though the article is overlooking him. Betty Logan (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

About as obscure as Robert Patrick was at that time.--Ezzex (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

He was already established as an actor. According to the AFI Catalog Furlong got an "Introducing" credit. The AFI lists Schwarzenegger, Hamilton and Patrick as the three main stars. If the actual film credits contradict that then you may have an argument, but if they do not I do not see a valid reason for ignoring the infobox guidelines. The billing order on Wikipedia should be verifiable and not based on personal assessment by editors. I agree he is an important character in the film but this is covered in the lead. Betty Logan (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Undue reversion [2019-01-09]

On 2019-01-09 I made that edit which was reverted with the justification "Thank you, but that is unnecessary editorial commentary. (TW)". I changed this paragraph :

He [Schwarzenegger] and Hamilton reprised their respective roles from the first Terminator film. After an extensive casting search, 13-year-old Edward Furlong was selected from hundreds of candidates to portray John Connor; Robert Patrick was chosen to play the T-1000 Terminator because his agility would emphasize the disparity between the advanced T-1000 and Schwarzenegger's older T-800 (Cameron characterized the two as "a Porsche" and "a human Panzer tank" respectively). Patrick had previously appeared in the action feature Die Hard 2, but Furlong had no formal acting experience. Joe Morton was picked to portray Miles Dyson, a Cyberdyne scientist who helped develop the new CPU for the T-800 Terminators.

...as follows :

He [Schwarzenegger] and Hamilton reprised their respective roles from the first Terminator film – although the Terminator T-800 turned out to be a different cyborg, with opposite intents. After an extensive casting search, 13-year-old Edward Furlong was selected from hundreds of candidates to portray John Connor; Robert Patrick was chosen to play the T-1000 Terminator because his agility would emphasize the disparity between the advanced T-1000 and Schwarzenegger's older and more rugged T-800 (Cameron characterized the two as "a Porsche" and "a human Panzer tank" respectively). Patrick had previously appeared in the action feature Die Hard 2, but Furlong had no formal acting experience. Joe Morton was picked to portray Miles Dyson, a Cyberdyne scientist who develops a new type of CPU for the military, based on the one which was found on the destroyed T-800 Terminator from the first installment.

It was not "unnecessary editorial content", it was an attempt to correct wrong information.
1) Arnold Schwarzenegger does not play the same character in The Terminator and in Terminator 2, they're distinct characters with the same appearance, and that is a very significant plot point (let's just say that the T-800 from the first movie could hardly have been deemed as a potential father figure...).
2) The significant difference between a Porsche and a Panzer tank is not age.
3) Miles Dyson does not help to develop the new CPU for the T-800 Terminators, he doesn't even know what a Terminator is up until it is shown to him in gruesome detail; his goal is to conceive a CPU with self-learning ability for the military, and his work is largely based on the design of the CPU found on the first T-800 Terminator — so it's the just other way around...
"That's not opinion, that's science; and science is one cold-hearted bitch with a 14-inch strap-on." — Vince Masuka
--Abolibibelot (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Another, smaller edit on that same problematic paragraph was once again reverted with this explanation: “Reverted good faith edits by Abolibibelot: Thanks, but Schwarzenegger's role in the second film is essentially the same as in the first film; it is irrelevant that the two Terminators are technically differnet entities” Well, that would mean that, for instance, an actor playing in a movie sequel the twin brother of a character in the first installment can be considered as "reprising his role" from that movie, because they are "essentially the same"... (Example: Efren Ramirez playing Kaylo in Crank and Kaylo's brother (or sister) Venus in Crank: High Voltage.) The only thing those two characters have in common is that they are androids of the same model, which have the same appearance (well, except for the suspiciously different hairdo...) only because they are constructed in some kind of assembly line (as yet another "essentially the same" one says in the third movie). The Terminator character was actually terminated at the end of the first movie. (As in: "You're terminated, fucker!") Is there any other instance in the history of cinema where two "different entities" are considered as "essentially the same character" ? Perhaps Ellen Ripley in Alien 4... Indeed, in the corresponding article there's the same kind of B.S. — although it is clearly stated that Sigourney Weaver was cast as "Ripley 8" (8th clone of the actual Ellen Ripley), she is still said to be "reprising her role from the previous three Alien films", which makes no sense.

Also, it is wrong to state that that Terminator becomes John Connor's "surrogate father" (a statement which isn't backed by a reliable source) — although Sarah's voice-over reflects about "it" being "the sanest choice in an insane world" for that job, the whole action of the movie takes place over a couple days, hardly enough to be remotely considered as a surrogate anything in my book.

And I maintain what I stated above, Miles Dyson never "helped develop the new CPU for the T-800 Terminators".

--Abolibibelot (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree regarding Miles Dyson. He created the microprocessor that would eventually lead to Skynet's creation, but I don't believe he had any involvement with the T-800s, which apparently would not be created for another three decades. I've reworded it according to the film.  AJFU  (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Uziel Gal is not Uzi Gal

Uzi Gal who's worked on Terminator 2 as a consultant was a former commando in the Israeli defense forces. Uziel (Uzi) Gal was a gun designer for the IDF. He designed The famous Uzi gun as a young man and continued to work as a firearms designer throughout his life. Two different people with the same name. Gal is a pretty common last name in Israel. This is an article (in Hebrew) about the making-of of The Terminator 2: https://multiversesite.com/2016/07/03/blast-from-the-past-terminator-2-turns-25/ The article refers to Uzi Gal who's worked on the set: "Another Israeli who was on set is a graduate of an Israeli commando unit named Uzi Gal (not the Uzi inventor, Uzi Gal), who has been pinned as a regular trainer to Linda Hamilton for 13 weeks. Gal introduced her to a grueling training regimen to build the muscular body she portrays in the movie, teaching her how to use all kinds of weapons possible and even the expertise needed to break a lock with a pin." רועה טוב (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I think you should probably add the source and remove the wikilink. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Release date

Despite the article claiming more than once that the movie was released on July 3rd, Terminator 2 was actually released on July 2nd. I have the ticket stub to prove it!

That's probably because you saw an advance screening of the film. As long as the film ends after midnight, that's legal. MightyArms (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Not A Cyborg Film

Based on another discussions from Talk:The Terminator page I don't believe this film belongs in the "Cyborg films" category. Neither the T-800 or the T-1000 are cyborgs, based on sourced definitions and not the citied critics review of this film. Mborchardt1977 (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources about both films use the term "cyborg" pretty frequently that we would be remiss to exclude it entirely. We can certainly include coverage from sources challenging the application of that term, but not to expunge it. For examples of use, see this and this. In essence, the term "cyborg" is used pretty liberally. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

This actually mentions that there is "a great range of different grades of cyborg", including "total interdependence of organic and non-organic components" like Robocop or Terminator. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. For the life of me I couldn't get the "Cyber Films" category link to show up as a link in my original post above even though I copy & pasted it in from another page. So I wasn't sure if it made sense. But I see what you mean by the sources you posted that the definition has changed since it's origin and that a T-800 could be considered a cyborg, though I would say that Robocop is more a cyborg then a T-800 since having actual original human parts. Mborchardt1977 (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

To link to a category and show the text, you can write [[:Category:Cyborg films]] with the colon before "Category" so it shows up like Category:Cyborg films. As for the term, I get what you're saying, but the term's use in sources has been broader than that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! As for the topic at hand, I would then propose that the same would be true for the first film as well. So it too would be considered a type of Cyborg Film. Mborchardt1977 (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. And you are right that the articles should be consistent. I added the category to the first film's article. Happy holidays! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Thumbs-Up

Someone needs to insert a paragraph in the Cultural References section that explains how pop culture often references to this film when people disappear into lava (or lava-like substances) and give a thumbs-up on the way down. Some references include Rayman Legends, Among Us, and Ready Player One, among other things. Stick-Destiny (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Athens State Hospital

Terminator 2 asylum is Athens State Hospital. Look at the pictures

http://www.kirkbridebuildings.com/buildings/athens/ http://www.kirkbridebuildings.com/buildings/athens/ash_15.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegadeviking (talk • contribs) 09:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

VFX magazine article on T2 effects from 2019

The VFX magazine Befores & Afters had an interview with a bunch of ILM people who worked on T2 and wrote about all the effects they used in the film. You can see that here. I thought it would be useful for the effects section to add more detail and perhaps replace some of the less quality level references used. Silverseren^C 19:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning Schwarzenegger as the good guy in the lead

I'm aware that Schwarzenegger in this film has become synonymous in pop culture as a good guy and one of the best heroes seen on film. But I think it's still an integral twist to the film that does not need to be spoiled in the lead of the article. Imagine The Empire Strikes Back's article lead saying:

"Set three years after the events of Star Wars, it follows the battle between the malevolent Galactic Empire, led by the Emperor, and the Rebel Alliance led by Princess Leia. Meanwhile, Luke Skywalker trains to master the Force so he can confront the his powerful Sith lord father, Darth Vader."

It's just unnecessary, right? Therefore, I propose rewording the synopsis in this lead to say something like:

"It follows Sarah Connor (Hamilton) and her ten-year-old son John (Furlong) as a liquidic metal, shapeshifting Terminator (Patrick) and a second, less-advanced Terminator (Schwarzenegger) are sent back in time to track them down."

There's probably a better way to reword it, but thoughts so far? - Enter Movie (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Smuckola: @Facu-el Millo: @Betty Logan: As recent editors of the article, I wanted to know your thoughts. Thanks - Enter Movie (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know if this is a twist comparable to the Darth Vader twist, which happens near the end of the film. This twist happens way before the first half of the film, I'd say it's part of the premise. —El Millo (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I only brought up the Darth Vader one because it's also a twist that has become ingrained in pop culture. Regardless, a twist is a twist, and it doesn't have to happen at the end to be surprising. T2 is set up in such a way that it's never really revealed that Arnold is the good guy until that mall hallway scene. I find it unnecessary to reveal that spoiler to new viewers in the article lead. - Enter Movie (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:SPOILER we do not keep details from viewers even if they're spoilers, and this is part of the basic premise of the film: one Terminator to kill John Connor, one to protect him. The film has a runtime of 137 minutes and this is revealed at minute 28, within the first 20% of the film. Saying the T-800 is sent back in time "to track them down" is deliberately keeping relevant and basic premise information from the reader, which directly contradicts WP:SPOILER. The same link you provide shows that even the film's marketing campaign considered this information basic enough to spoil it in the trailers. Many films have early twists that are part of the premise. —El Millo (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

So here's the premise as it's currently stated in the lead:

It follows Sarah Connor (Hamilton) and her ten-year-old son John (Furlong) as they are pursued by a new, more advanced Terminator: the liquidic metal, shapeshifting T-1000 (Patrick), sent back in time to kill John and prevent him from becoming the leader of the human resistance. A second, less-advanced Terminator (Schwarzenegger) is also sent by the Resistance to protect John.

Of course, according to the spoiler guideline, we shouldn't restrict where spoilers are placed when they serve an encyclopedic purpose. With that said, I do think it's possible to steer around the use of a spoiler in this situation as the OP suggests, while still getting the basic premise across. All the reader needs to know before digging into the plot summary is that John, Sarah's son and future leader of the human resistance, is being targeted by an advanced terminator sent back in time, while the human resistance sent back one of their own to protect him. That's the premise from a high-level overview.

If there's a short, concise way of getting that across, then I think it should be considered as a viable alternative. The OP's proposal is close, but we would still need to mention, in some capacity, that John's life is in danger. That element is crucial to understanding the premise. Which terminator is bad and which is good is a secondary element that doesn't necessarily need to be revealed here, IMO. You would also have to get rid of the names in parenthesis for that to work of course, but those are optional anyway and not required. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that this falls squarely into the WP:SPOILER category - if he's a good guy, we say he's a good guy, it's impossible to summarise or even talk about the plot without this coming up - and that includes the lede section. You could convolute and work round it, but that doesn't mean we should. In fact, we shouldn't - which is exactly what WP:SPOILER is for. I firmly disagree on which terminator is good and which is bad being a secondary concern - it's not only integral to the plot, it's one of the most important aspects of the plot. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree that we shouldn't be avoiding spoilers simply because they're spoilers. This situation is on the cusp of whether or not it's required in the lead. The description that Skynet and the human resistance send terminators back – one to harm and the other to protect – is all that really needs to be clarified for a reader to know what the film is about. Digging into who plays what terminator, while important, is secondary and not absolutely crucial in that understanding. I'm not strongly opposed to it, just saying I don't think the premise is lost without it. Since the lead section is typically thought of as a general overview, I understand where the OP is coming from. Adding some additional clarification to my previous comments in case it wasn't clear before, and I do respect the opposing view. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I think I agree with Chaheel Riens on this point. Generally I prefer to see spoilers kept out of the lead (yes, I am aware of WP:SPOILER but we can be tactful about where in the article we include the spoilers) but Arnie being the good guy is a fundamental part of the premise. I am not sure it was ever intended to be a big reveal anyway; I am old enough to remember the trailers at the time and Arnie being the good guy was the main selling point. I have to say, it has never occurred to me that this could be perceived as a twist for a new generation that didn't live through the "sell". Betty Logan (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Very true. The way the film was marketed is a valid point that supports including it. Guess I'm just thinking of it from within a vacuum: What does the reader miss by not getting this reveal in the lead? They'll still know John is being hunted and that there are two opposing terminators. There are other significant aspects of the plot, like the bond between human and machine and the terminator learning to become more human, both of which are not mentioned in the lead. I suppose I'll be in the minority on this one! --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

"In its plot, the malevolent artificial intelligence Skynet sents a Terminator—a highly advanced killing machine—back in time to 1995 to kill the future leader of the human resistance, John Connor, when he is a child. The resistance sends back its own reprogrammed Terminator to protect Connor and ensure the future of humanity."? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, was thinking something exactly along those lines. Nice effort! Even if we stick with the identification in the lead, a lot of this suggestion could still be used. I see it as an improvement for sure. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Something like that would probably work. The fact that Arnold's character is protecting John Connor is revealed in the trailer. It's not a spoiler in the normal sense of the word. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not a spoiler because its a 30 year old film, but it is from a time where spoilers and trailers weren't readily available on youtube and tv all the time. I think it's one of those situations like opening the article for the Sixth Sense by saying it's about Bruce Willis, portraying a dead guy, helping a kid who can see ghosts. I don't think it's essential to omit it, but in the film at least its very much portrayed up to that point that Arnie could be the bad terminator again. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, not comparable in the spoiler terrain, because that's the third act twist around which the whole film revolves. The Sixth Sense goes on for almost its entire runtime without this being revealed, our plot summary reveals this in the middle of the last paragraph. In comparison, the Arnie twist is revealed in the last sentence of the first paragraph in its plot summary here, and it happens within the first 20% of the film. —El Millo (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, previously, there was the concern that there wasn't an effective way to communicate the premise without identifying which terminator was which. It appears Darkwarriorblake has brought an acceptable solution to the table. Do you believe it still falls short? Putting aside concerns about dodging spoilers, this looks like an obvious improvement over the current version. I welcome the addition of "Skynet" and the fact that resistance terminator is reprogrammed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Without specifying which Terminator is which? It seems that works, a reader that wanted to figure it out with only the lead could do it but it doesn't make it super obvious. I support it. —El Millo (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

We can go a bit further with "In its plot, the malevolent artificial intelligence Skynet sends a Terminator—a highly advanced killing machine—back in time to 1995 to kill the leader of the human resistance, John Connor, when he is a child and win the war between itself and humanity. The resistance sends back its own reprogrammed Terminator to protect Connor and ensure the future of humanity."Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Good thought, but personally, I think your first version is more concise. We can surmise that a war is going on by the term resistance, and the fact that Skynet is trying to defeat humanity is already described by "ensure the future of humanity" in the next sentence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I honestly didn't expect such substantial discussion within 24 hours! Thank you, @Darkwarriorblake: and @GoneIn60: you people elaborated on my original case better than I ever could! At any rate, I'll leave this up for discussion for another week or two for others to add their input if they wish. Cheers! - Enter Movie (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

To a certain extent it doesn't matter whether it's a spoiler or not - the question that defines whether the info is included should be "Is it an major plot point that Schwarzenegger is a good guy in this film, not a bad guy as he was in the previous film?" Yes, it is, so should be included. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

From a high level, that plot point does not need to be described in order to understand the basic premise of the film, and this is evidenced by the excellent, concise overview provided by Darkwarriorblake. Perfectly sums up the film's premise without digging into who plays what terminator. We should all be able to agree that Darkwarriorblake's suggestion is superior to what we have in the article now. So let's use that suggestion as a starting point. If you still believe that the Schwarzenegger reveal is needed in the lead, show us how you'd rewrite Darkwarriorblake's proposal to include it, because honestly, I don't see how we abandon his proposed rewrite at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. It is a vital plot point that this time round Arnie is a good guy, because this is a sequel and he was the bad guy first time round. All the imagery is around Arnold, the trailer makes it clear that he's a good guy. I have no bones with the proposed rewrite (apart from not considering it necessary, as the existing lede summary is perfectly adequate) but all that's needed to perfect it is to include (Schwarzenegger) and (Patrick) after the respective Terminator mentions.

I'd also like to raise the point that the only reason the lede rewrite has been requested is to remove mention of Schwarzenegger - there is nothing wrong with it as it stands, and the only criticism has been name mentions as per SPOILER. I still put it forward that this is a perversion of WP:SPOILER - and using a rewrite as an excuse to remove the names. Nobody has yet come up with an effective argument as to why SPOILER should be ignored and a deliberate attempt to rewrite the plot made to avoid naming the Terminator. The only argument that's been brought to the table is "it's not necessary to name him", whereas it seems that the association of the Terminator with Arnold Schwarzenegger would contradict that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, there are multiple editors here who believe the proposed rewrite is an improvement, and it may have little to do with the fact that the Schwarzenegger reveal was omitted. It has the appeal of being better written, whether you agree with the omission or not.

Realize that a premise and plot are two different things. A premise is the main idea of the story. Details like the Schwarzenegger reveal are plot twists or plot elements, and there might be dozens of those throughout the telling of the story. The premise, on the other hand, is a very quick and basic description of what drives the plot. It should be written without assuming the reader has seen prequels, sequels, trailers, or any other form of marketing. Someone without any prior knowledge should be able to stumble into the article, read only the premise in the lead, and come away feeling, "Yep, I get what that film's about". I think DWB's proposal accomplishes that for reasons already stated.

Your persistence that Arnie's identity is vital to that understanding is missing the how and why. I'm not seeing it. When you say that Arnie's identity matters because of the change from the previous film, not only does this grate harshly against what I just said about reader assumptions, but it also has nothing to do with understanding the film's premise. DWB's suggestion tells me everything I need to know in order to have a basic understanding. On a side note, you also mention that the Terminator is commonly associated with Schwarzenegger, but that's irrelevant and outside the scope of this conversation. This is about one film's premise, not some broad overview of the franchise or Schwarzenegger's career.

"I still put it forward that this is a perversion of WP:SPOILER - and using a rewrite as an excuse to remove the names."

A good faith assumption would be that the editors who have vested time here want what's best for the article. This isn't about finding a loophole or workaround, which appears to be an attempt on your part to discredit others' intentions. We arrived here naturally by questioning the status quo, which is down to one editor left defending it.

"Nobody has yet come up with an effective argument as to why SPOILER should be ignored...deliberate attempt to rewrite the plot...to avoid naming the Terminator."

Remember, WP:SPOILER cuts both ways: don't avoid spoilers simply because they're spoilers, but also don't force their inclusion just because you can. I wouldn't say the guideline is being "ignored" per se; its relevance is being evaluated. DWB's suggestion gives us a visual representation of why name dropping in the lead is more optional than it is necessary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The rewrite was proposed solely as an opportunity to remove the actors names and roles from the lede in a clear example of WP:SPOILER - it's as simple as that. There was no other reason for the rewrite to be done, and editors admit that the rewrite is explicit in excluding their names - again that's SPOILER all over. You are also showing a remarkable lack of good faith in your accusation of my intent. Irony, no?

"This is about one film's premise" - that would be the premise that Schwarzenegger is the good guy, and Patrick the bad guy? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

First, the point of my "good faith" statement was to clarify that we shouldn't be assuming hidden or malicious intent on the behalf of other editors, which began with your comment "using a rewrite as an excuse to remove the names". I participated here with the desire of improving the lead, even if it meant retaining the reveal, so comments like that can easily be perceived as bad faith.

As for the discussion itself, it began with questioning the reveal in the lead and whether or not it was really required to understand the film's premise. This "questioning" is in accordance with WP:SPOILER, which expects that editors will verify that an encyclopedic purpose is being served by its placement. It wasn't until the rewrite proposal that it became abundantly clear to the majority that the reveal was more unnecessary than it was required. That doesn't mean the reveal was wrong or inappropriate, nor does it mean there's any real harm in leaving it. If a concise rewrite doesn't require it, then we should definitely take that into consideration. I think that's where we're at in a nutshell. We're probably not going to have a unanimous decision here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly not going to be unanimous, because I disagree with it and I've seen nothing here to persuade me otherwise. As you imply the change seems likely to happen, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with the interpretation that led to it happening or being proposed in the first place. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Point taken. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Are we doing anything with this? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to circle back! Yes, I think this has sat long enough. Feel free to implement your proposed change with only 1 opposed at this point. Thanks again for your contribution. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Respectfully, why isn’t Edward Furlong listed under “starring” in the Infobox?Juneau Mike (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Because he wasn't in the billing block. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly, the lead lists Edward Furlong, however. Found this discussion from 2019 that explains why. I restored the "starring" statement in the lead to this version dropping Joe Morton. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Awesome. Note sure why someone decided to put Morton in there. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Earl Boen's Character Described as a Psychologist

The article lists Earl Boen's character as a "psychologist" and provides two sources which do not verify that claim. The movie Terminator 2 itself verifies that Boen's character is a psychiatrist in the scene where Sarah Conner attacks Dr. Silberman, as Dr. Silberman verbally orders "10cc's sodium amytal STAT". There is also the scene where Dr. Silberman tells the nurse to ensure Sarah continues to take her Thorazine. If Dr. Silberman is ordering the use of medications, he can only be a psychiatrist.

Dr. Silberman stated in the first Terminator that he was a criminal psychologist. That would seem to indicate that for Terminator 2, the character was retconned by James Cameron in order to fit his new narrative for Dr. Silberman at Pescadero. I'd like local editors to comment on this so that we can establish a consensus on how to label the character. Thank you!  Spintendo  15:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

So, there are two sources there, one that confirms he is in the film and the other that he is a criminal psychologist, as he states in The Terminator very clearly. The more likely explanation is that Cameron just doesn't know the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist, as 90% of people would not, and so just re-used the character thinking he could prescribe medicine. What we cannot do however, is include WP: OR, and nowhere in the film is his profession stated. Possibly this was on purpose if Cameron DID know the difference and just didn't want people to question it, but we can't assign roles based on what we infer. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

First off, thank you for your response, it's much appreciated! I agree with you that Cameron may not have known the difference, which would be pretty strange for someone who seems to be so detail-oriented with his films - though I have seen some coverage stating that Cameron was on Ecstacy while writing the script, that may explain a bit. (Indeed, Dr. Silberman not only orders the use of meds, he also prepares to administer the medication himself in the scene where Sarah tries to escape, meaning the occupations of nurse, psychologist and psychiatrist are all the same, in Cameron's mind.) However, your assertion that we cannot infer a character's occupation doesn't seem to jive with the many examples in other movie descriptions here on Wikipedia where we do just that. But it might be in this case that we have to go with the older description, since youre right, that is the only one stated with certainty in any of the films. But if the benchmark for labeling a character is that it has to be stated in a film, then what we're doing here is inferring as well. The inference is that Dr. Silberman is still a criminal psychologist, because while it doesn't state that he is a psychiatrist, it also doesn't state that he is still a criminal psychologist. For all we know, he could have gone to medical school in the intervening time period between Terminator 1 and 2, in fact, evidence of his on-screen actions indicate that. I'm just saying if your argument is that we don't infer, we're already making inferences about this character that are not explicitly mentioned on-screen in the sequel.  Spintendo  16:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The issue here is the requirement that fiction be described in articles using a real-world perspective, where "attempting to reconcile contradictions in the narrative instead of simply reporting them as such" is not the course of action to take. Stating that the character is described in the original as a psychologist and that in the sequel, the character performs actions which fall under the rubric of a psychiatrist, is not WP:OR. It's simply describing the character from a real world perspective, which is required of articles about fiction. I'm very much interested in seeing your feedback on this point. Thx!  Spintendo  21:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I think Cameron created two of the greatest sequels of all time in Aliens and T2. I think he also created a film centered around a resource called Unobtanium, that was really hard to obtain. He either wanted to reuse the character and didn't care or didn't know, but there aren't any reliable sources that state Boen was playing anything other than his original character, and I couldn't even find a reliable source that even debated the issue. The journals that were there are not reliable because they're making an assumption and journals about films are often unreliable, I've seen plenty of them use the wrong names for characters or get plot elements wrong. I really don't think it's an issue, let alone one that should be bothering you like 7 weeks later about a film with a closed time loop that erases itself. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Given that he was present at the massacre in the first film it is entirely feasible he wanted to change his occupation! However, I would agree that he appears to have acquired a medical licence by virtue of the fact he could prescribe medication. He could even be multi-disciplinary—he may have been a medical doctor who moved into psychology, or maybe he is a psychologist who transitioned to psychiatry. There is a 10-year gap in the films' fictional chronology so it can be easily explained away in some plausible fashion. I suspect Cameron knows the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist and just thought it would be fun to bring back the character, and didn't think any more deeply than that. I suppose if Marvel were making Terminator films we'd get an origin movie about Dr Silberman, but as it is we have little to go on. I think it is relatively easy to come up with a compromise here: "Earl Boen as Dr. Silberman; a doctor at Pescadero State Hospital, where Sarah is a psychiatric patient", or anything along those lines. Betty Logan (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

There are sources on this, an article in the British Journal of Psychiatry, one academic work, an article in ScreenCrush, the Lancet Journal of Psychiatry. What hasn't been explained is how describing the character as performing psychiatric acts is "making an assumption"? This is describing the character in MOS:REALWORLD terms, which is required of fiction articles. I agree with Betty Logan that describing Silberman as "Dr." is preferable to calling him a psychologist, because calling him a psychologist in the article is to assume that he is still a psychologist, which according to Darkwarriorblake, is something we can't assume (or can we?) Its not really clear.

In Terminator 3, Boen's character describes himself onscreen as a "post-trauma counselor for the sheriff's department", yet he isn't described that way in the Wikipedia article on that film.

So in the first film's article, were calling him by what he calls himself in that film. In the second film's article, were calling him by what he terms himself as in another film. And in the third film's article, were calling him something when he explicitly calls himself something else. There's no consistency here at all. My suggestion is that a footnote be placed stating the following

The Dr Silberman character has been described onscreen as a "criminal psychologist" (The Terminator) and a "post-trauma counselor" (Terminator 3). While the character's profession is not explicitly stated in Terminator 2, the character is shown onscreen performing functions analogous to that of a psychiatrist.

That note, which describes what is shown in the films and contains no original research or assumptions, aligns perfectly with the requirements of MOS:REALWORLD, which demands that "contradictions in the narrative be reported as such."  Spintendo  00:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I would support Betty's suggestion over a note, I don't think a note is warranted for such a minor issue and if it were noteworthy it'd be discussed in the article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a note is overkill. It's a very minor thing and not even relevant to the plot. It is easier to just skirt over it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Though it may not have contained the same level of great importance as issues of budget ranges versus single figures has, I still think this revision is an improvement, and I thank you both for your help acknowledging this change in the character's description.  Spintendo  04:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Budget

Can someone explain why the budget range of $94–102 million has been replaced by a single figure? There is some very compelling evidence for the lower figure, including a full budget breakdown here. Unless the higher figure has been emphatically proven to be correct then Template:Infobox film states both figures should be given. Betty Logan (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It appears it was changed during a major expansion by Darkwarriorblake in this edit. I have no opinion on the matter, just thought I'd share the diff. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Betty Logan, my research is in the last paragraph of the post-production section. I know that the Newsday figure for rights to make the film is different to what the head Carolco guy said, which was $15 mill instead of $10 mill for a start, and I think the Gulf Stream was estimated to be $12-$15 million as well. Anecdotal as well I know but when I was in London like... 25 years ago as a much more optimistic child, I remember going in Guiness World Records and seeing it listed as the most expensive movie ever at $102 million. Weird I remember that right? But I was already a huge fan of the film by that point. Feel free to check out the sourcing and let me know what you think. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The jet does appear to be factored in to the budget. Guinness World Records now documents True Lies as the first $100 million movie. It appears to me the film cost around $100 million, either just over or just under, but it seems a bit presumptuous to cherry-pick an actual figure based on our own analysis, when there are different figures floating around but no official or audited confirmation. Betty Logan (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I have sourced the figure thoroughly, I'm not cherry-picking it. What range are you suggesting, as Schwarzenegger and Cameron said it was like 75 million, but with marketing and incidentals it's clear it's at least 90 million.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Marketing shouldn't be factored in. This is for the production budget. —El Millo (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Marketing isn't factored into either estimate as far as I can see. I am not disputing that the current figure is reliably sourced, I am pointing out that it is omitting another figure that was also reliably sourced i.e. the $94 million figure, on three grounds:

• Newsweek providees the most comprehensive breakdown of the budget.
• Guinness World Records awards the record for the "first $100 million film" to True Lies, the implication being that Terminator 2 cost under $100 million.
• Arnold Schwarzenegger states that the film was originally budgeted at $70 million but by the time production concluded it had become the most expensive film in history at $94 million.

So all I am proposing is that we restore the original $94–102 million range, since I see no reason for discounting the lower figure. Betty Logan (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I was just answering the comment before me, that if we had to pick between a figure with and a figure without marketing included, we'd have to pick the latter. —El Millo (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

My response isn't aimed at you specifically, Facu-el Millo, (so I apologise if it came across as "curt") it should just be taken as the next comment in the discussion. I just took the opportunity to address the marketing as it was an issue that came up. Betty Logan (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)