This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The Plot section of the main article currently says, "When the [gasoline] truck driver gets out of the truck to see what happened, the Terminator kills him, hijacks the truck, and resumes the chase." All I see is the first driver get knocked down or out. No shredded torso or blood fountains. Did Terminator really kill him (documented in the script?)? Terminator gets into the cab and says to the co-driver, "Get out." and that driver flees (without being killed or harmed). Minor point, but just wondering. AdderUser (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Rewatched last night. You are correct! This has been changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Lady who wrote the script for Terminator and other franchises
It's been discussed before, but your second source is a blog and Snopes which I don't believe we use here has already proven that the case has not been won. If such a case had gone through, then there would be a lot more reporting about it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Leaving this in as a source as unlike a webpage which will can give a 404 error, the print material backs up what was previously discussed on the talk page earlier pertaining to the production countries of the film, and is backed up by the same source (The British Film Institute). I suggest we keep that one for now. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Just to back up other points, earlier in this talk page history, there was controversy over whether this film was also a British co-production. We moved towards the idea that since the British Film Institute didn't have anything to say about the film's British production (i.e: it not being one), we moved to go with that source. That source originally used to prove that (The BFI Film Database link) had died. Therfore, Using print material published by the same source that states the same information, I feel we should use that one. There is no reason to back it up further than that as it has not been a controversial post since. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Unless you have a source, please do not add those as production companies. They are not included in the sources I have, and should not be added. The credits for this film have changed over the time so we need actual sources, not original research. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Original research? Are you serious? The film credits are the source, the primary source. The cast and crew aren't sourced in the infobox because they are already in the film credits. Or do you think we should also source them? Hemdale, Pacific Western, Euro Film Funding, and Cinema '84 are similarly in the film credits, that is source enough. If you believe that these companies do not appear in the original credits and only appear in the changed credits then prove it. At the very least tell me of a version of the film that does not mention, for example, Hemdale in the credits. Even the credits of the 1984 theatrical release poster mentions Hemdale. Also, just because the source you provided doesn't mention Hemdale doesn't mean Hemdale wasn't a production company involved in the film. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Furthermore, the AFI does indeed mention that Hemdale, Pacific Western, and Euro Film Funding are in the credits. Similar to the cast and crew, I will be adding Hemdale, Pacific Western, Euro Film Funding, and Cinema '84 back to the infobox without sources because the film credits already mention all four. The overwhelming majority of film infoboxes list cast/crew/companies without sources simply because they are already in the film credits, the primary source. -- Wrath X (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Mentioning Hemdale isn't enough. And just because it's listed in an introduction "Hemdale Presents" doesn't make it the a production company. Sorry Wrath. Find a source first. "Hemdale presents" "production company = Hemdale Pictures" I'm afraid. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Ditto with the prove it. I have, the production companies are listed in the Monthly Film Bulletin article which I've cited, and you've removed twice. AFI's production lists Hemdale, but it's not a British production and "Hemdale presents a Pacific Western Production of James Cameron Film
A Euro Film Funding Limited Feature An Orion Pictures Release" doesn't really tell us who is doing what. I'm sticking with the Monthly Film Bulletin source which is far more specific in what is a production company.Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, "A Euro Film Funding Limited Feature An Orion Pictures Release" tells us that "Euro Film Funding Limited" was a production company and "Orion Pictures" was the distributor. It's common industry formatting. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Things that can be sourced from the film credits don't require another source. They are common knowledge that anyone viewing the film can verify. They can't be used to establish notability, though, as they are not third-party sources. But that's neither here nor there as far as this discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree that information from the film itself should generally resolve conflicts over credits. If that's not possible (for whatever reason), then I prefer to cite reliable sources. Anyway, BFI explicitly says Hemdale was a production company. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with NRP. I will further add that I don't see a problem with sourcing in the infobox as it helps editors unfamiliar with the subject quickly spot any questionable changes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
From further research, Hemdale appears to be a production company as well. This article here notes some details about it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
If the film credits say "X presents..." or "made in association with X" etc then that is not necessarily a sufficient basis for a production credit. There are different types of corporate involvement and we should look to secondary sources to interpret the credits for us unless the credit is explicit. Betty Logan (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Cyborgs are augmented humans whereas androids are synthetic humans in this case. The skin was artificial and only for transport back through time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
True, but in the film they refer to it as a cyborg. It doesn't matter if they called them cyborgs or birthday clowns, we'd have to go with what the films plot says. Even if it isn't 100% correct use of the term. 09:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Would that not only apply to in-universe plot summaries below the introduction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)