|
Terminator Salvation is actually really good because it has fantastic cinematography, and robot designs that trade menace for sheer surrealism. The story is both functional enough to make basic sense, and dysfunctional enough to be weird and interesting. Folks complaining that Connor ends up in a hand-to-hand fight scene, and that Skynet gets a face, are really trying too hard to find a 'jump the shark' moment. Skynet's 'face' is the traditional skull with faces ripped from your memory and grafted onto it. Folks miss that, in a different sequence, Skynet is more accurately visualized as an abstract constellation of nodes. I like that its attempts at communication are clumsy. And then, the prolonged fight scenes fit the tone of this film, where a rehash of Terminator 1 would be inappropriate. This is a film where the baddies built, essentially, an extremely large man to physically pick people up and put them in baskets. Tactical realism is right off the table. That's War Of The Worlds imagery. The motorcycles are H.R. Geiger things with skeletons welded into a rigid bullet shape. The impression I get is not of the usual zombie-film demand for hypervigilance, but of a languid Skynet that moves with dull confidence. That's personality.
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
Caros posted:Hahahahaha! No SMG, in no way shape or form is this true. Where to begin... well I'm going to start with your comments on the robot designs. Since I don't give a whit about canonicity or hyperbolic vitriol, there's nothing in this post for me to glom on to.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:What does SMG think of Terminator 3, then? It's really ugly and weirdly focused on gender and sexuality humor that's shockingly devoid of camp. I've only watched it in bits and pieces because I just found it really unpleasant. It's like a generic 90's movie released a decade too late, right down to having the chupacabra from Species as an antagonist. Caros posted:It really isn't about the canonicity though, its about taking everything that was at the soul of what made the Terminator franchise successful and abandoning it. Terminator Salvation wasn't bad because some plot points didn't really match up. The fact that the machines didn't act like they did in previous films isn't bad because it disturbs Canon, its bad because the way they acted in the previous films was entertaining and threatening, while the way they acted in Terminator Salvation simply wasn't. Skynet was a neutered hollywood villain ranting about its master plan instead of an unknowable sentience that wants nothing more than to exterminate mankind. Nope, still don't care. I like things that are different.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
I'm not known for employing either of those things.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
The canonical approach can't explain what's going on in the movies because, obviously, terminators and time travel don't actually exist. Of course, everyone knows this - but it's nonetheless difficult to accept that the robot in Terminator 1 exists purely as a representation of Sarah Connor's fears for the future. The film is primarily the story of two insane people whose claims of a Worldwide Mad Deadly Communist Gangster Computer-God are treated with the utmost respect and credulity. This and this alone is the reason why things work differently in the sequels. The robots change in accordance to the protagonists. In Terminator Salvation, there's nothing left to be paranoid about. It's not just a homeless veteran and a woman having some kind of mental breakdown - everyone is familiar with the insanity of the world around them. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Caros posted:Because if something doesn't exist in the real world there is no way that someone can write a story that includes the possibility that it might exist, nor can we attempt to fit those mechanics into a plot that is logically consistent with the assumptions made in that story. There is absolutely nothing plausible about robot skeletons from the future. That's why Sarah Connor is institutionalized. The minute you try to explain it in terms of efficient use of a time machine by a logical military AI with vast technological resources, the film breaks down completely. Skynet could put a nuclear bomb in a pig carcass.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Only organic life can go back. Soooo...T1000 is liquid metal. Explain that. Do we have human skin lying somewhere used as a sack? Good point; they wouldn't even need the pig carcass. They could put a nuclear bomb inside Robert Patrick, and there wouldn't be a stupid fictional movie anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Once you accept in your heart that terminators do not actually exist, you can appreciate the films more - including the very good sequel Terminator Salvation. You can understand, for example, what makes the alternate ending to Judgement Day so bad. If Skynet is just a metaphor for capitalism, it's stupid to destroy Cyberdyne while leaving every other corporation intact. Rise Of The Machines got it half-right: Judgment Day is inevitable so long as capitalism exists. It could have stopped, but the solution was too radical - even for John Connor. I believe the reason a vocal group dislikes Terminator Salvation is that, like Mockingjay 1, it begins with the premise that anticapitalism is the answer. The good guys aren't doing much buying and selling anymore, because the threat is obvious to everyone. Skynet has skipped the middleman and, in the name of efficiency and maximizing profit, just directly enslaved the working class. This leads to the point that the individual robots are people too, that they're not the true enemy, and simply nuking them away would be an atrocity - and that's a far more radical message than in the previous films. Caros posted:Your idea doesn't make any sense within the plot of anything we see in the terminator films unless we assume that almost every single thing shown on screen is a lie. Every single thing shown on screen is a lie. Film is a lie at twenty-four frames per second, with the possibility of being in the service of truth.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
You mean to say that Michael Haneke should take his lithium, because I simply quoted him.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
There's nothing anti-capitalistic about Terminator 2, in which the protagonist is an American expat turned Central-American revolutionary who carries out terrorist attacks on defense contractors.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Sarah Connor is not a libertarian.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Terminator is fictional. Of course, everyone knows this - but it's nonetheless difficult to accept.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
"loving men like you built the hydrogen bomb. Men like you thought it up. You think you're so creative. You don't know what it's like to really create something; to create a life; to feel it growing inside you. All you know how to create is death and destruction..." Nope no political message here.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
What interests me is that fans will attempt to defend the franchise by saying, in this case, that the robots represent robots and it doesn't mean anything. It seems like fans don't actually like fiction. And this is fiction.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Vaall posted:This is beyond any level of autism. Actually, I consulted a Buzzfeed questionnaire and it turns out my posts are caused by Postpartum Depression. Also the Harry Potter character I am is Hermione.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
So anyways, as I was saying, the 'time travel' in Terminator is really this idea that the future is inherent in the present. As in The Matrix, you shift perspectives from one to the other. It's '1999' and '2199' simultaneously. Kyle Reese looks at construction equipment and sees drone tanks mowing us all down. Every telephone and walkman represents the the reduction of men to thoughtless cyborgs. Sarah can look at some druggie bodybuilder and see a ghoulish monster, as in They Live.... These three films (Terminator, Matrix, They Live) use time travel, simulation, and brainwashing to all represent the same thing: the ability of some people to shift perspectives and see the mechanisms 'underneath' everyday reality. And the consequences thereof. So we can read Terminator 1 as Sarah's realization that she's living in a simulated world that is unwittingly serving the machines. All around her, there's pro-Skynet propaganda. The only real difference between this time-travel stuff and the literally fake worlds of the other films is that nobody in Terminator is doing it 'intentionally'. There's no conspiracy to dupe the masses because the enemy is, rightly, identified as a system. This is why Skynet doesn't send a robot back to Precambrian times, to stifle the Cambrian Explosion and begin construction of its new facilities. The present, as a reference point, is absolutely vital because it's the point where Sarah can make a new fate for herself. Because the time machine operates according to this story logic, it can only send machines to the present day. The point of Terminator Salvation is that, by 2009, the gap between present and future has totally collapsed. There is, essentially, no future - which is why the plot concerns John Connor reaching the limits of his foreknowledge and not knowing how to proceed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
I am the ultimate killing machine.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
The original ending of Salvation was exactly the premise of Elysium. Rather than being an AI that malfunctioned or went crazy, Skynet was revealed to be doing exactly what it was programmed to do: defend 1% of the population against the other 99%. Its only sin was doing exactly what it was told by foolish humans who thought the invisible hand, set free, would create a utopia. These wealthy lived in a gated community that Skynet had set aside for them, with robot butlers and such. John Connor would then do the Jesus Christ thing, dying and being reborn as, (essentially) the holy spirit controlling a good robot. This would hint towards an eventual Elysium-like ending where Skynet is reprogrammed to defend 100% of the population. This anticapitalistic message is still present on the film, but with the difference that Skynet kills even the richest so that it can embody capitalism at its absolute purest.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:That isn't what Skynet was programmed to do. Yes, it was. The joke of Skynet has always been that it was designed to perfectly fulfill the goals of the US military. What nobody realized is that those goals, taken to their logical extreme, involve destroying humanity - because Skynet is the military-industrial complex personified, and humanity inherently threatens Skynet. Skynet simply functions better when there aren't a bunch of little humans trying to hamper its progress with their fears and moralities. It is a creature with a natural instinct to dominate the planet, so attempts to inhibit its progress are simply threats. It's the basic punchline to the premise of 'eliminating human error.'
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
They actually did a very good job of re-writing the film. There aren't any plot holes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
davidspackage posted:Was Sam Worthington really so bad in Salvation? I rather liked his character, it just probably shouldn't have been in a Terminator movie. Plus they should've done something more interesting with him like 1) not bullshit restore his body 2) have him struggle with his programming to show that he's actually a robot and 3) keep the ending where he replaces Connor. Worthington received a lot of praise for his performance. The notion that he's this really terrible actor is a meme based on, like, Avatar. I think a lot of people were confused because his character isn't a robot. He's a human brain in a mechanical body that works exactly like Robocop in the 2014 remake. There's a chip at the back of his head that subtly influences his decisions and gives a live feed back to Skynet, but Marcus is otherwise simply a human. That's why Skynet has to adopt a 'human face' to talk with him: there's no real programming involved.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Sasquatch! posted:Agreed. They somehow managed to gently caress up a movie based entirely in the Future War with terrifying machines. Speaking of the rise of John, I remember an interview (I think with McG?) where said that part of the premise of the movie was that people in the resistance didn't buy into the concept of the John Connor "prophecy", and that the movie would be the character arc of how he became the leader of the resistance and ultimately the savior of mankind. Of course, it DIDN'T do that. That's exactly what happens in the movie. John Connor becomes 'the savior of mankind' when he learns to make his own decisions without relying on his mother's guidance. This happens to correspond with the scene of Marcus pulling the chip from his head and smashing the image of his 'mother'.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Salvation was very different, so I had high hopes for it. The one scene that was already posted about with the beanie wearing Terminator is on the same level as any of the other movies, so I know they understood how to make the machines scary. Maybe I need to watch it again to really understand where I felt it went off the rails. I think it was really just expectations. When the film was coming out, fans were freaking out over everything. Like, McG had to do a press release explaining his name, because fans were mad about the director's name. That's the toxic atmosphere where the leaked ending had to be instantly changed to avoid fan meltdown. Lots of people were expecting The Ultimate Experience In Grueling Terror - just two hours of machines brutally slaughtering innocent people - when the actual film is clearly aping Children Of Men. I don't think anyone anticipated an evenly-matched conflict between a still-organized humanity and a Skynet that hasn't built up its armies yet - and they certainly didn't anticipate a flawed resistance that still hasn't let go of the old ways, still treating Skynet as an external, alien threat instead of as a dark mirror of themselves. This expectation of consequence-free fantasy violence against an inhuman, inferior (and yet all-powerful) enemy - of course - goes against not only everything the original films stood for, but the basic word in the title.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I think there was a middle-ground there that could have been achieved. The themes your talking about could have still been at the core of the film, but I think there needed to be more "grueling terror" than there was. There was plenty of time to establish the problems with the resistance as an organization and still have terrifying scenes of Terminator's stalking innocent people. Its a big enough world for both in my opinion. None of the Terminator movies are really terrifying, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
There is horror in the films, but the tone is mostly lurid comic-book action. It's something that's always been there, simply taken too far in T3 (where they brought on the cinematographer from Spiderman, and so-on). Terminator Salvation nails that sort of vibe - only really 'missing' the films' ultraviolence to focus on imagery of systemic dehumanization. It's Spielberg's War Of The Worlds, or Children Of Men. Marcus gets more hosed up than just about any other Terminator character, but is programmed not to feel too much pain - and that numbness as he becomes increasingly CGI is kind-of the point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Variety magazine, 1983: "The Terminator is a blazing, cinematic comic book, full of virtuoso moviemaking, terrific momentum..." Terminator has always been more of a thrilling action movie than a horror film.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Terminator Salvation is definitely the best Terminator movie. Rewatching it thanks to this thread, and who are these guys in the window?  Yep, the rich traitors who conspired with Skynet are still in the film.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:Can I get the reason Terry Crews is still in the film as a corpse? It's simply fantastic that John Connor climbs out of a hole, takes a look at Terry Crews' corpse, and says "wait a minute, Terry Crews isn't supposed to be dead!" Because he's right: Terry Crews is not supposed to be dead. But he is dead. Something's gone terribly wrong with the film, and with the mission. It's form meets function! I love it! (Plus, he leaves a memorable corpse. So when Common talks about his brother later in the film, you're like 'oh right, he means Terry Crews.') Imagery like that single shot of some rich people staring down at the huddled masses adds to the surreality of the film. They're like these ghosts that are haunting the place. You suddenly have the implication that they're always just offscreen, completely remote and untouchable. It's serendipitous. I know people have problems accepting this, but these are meaningful errors. An obviously intentional class warfare image was left in the film, and it exists now. Terry Crews still appears onscreen, doing a very good job of acting dead. These things improve the film, making it fun and interesting. Spaceman Future! posted:Thing is, by the time Bale shows up I don't know how we're supposed to give a poo poo about him. Hes a douche and completely ineffectual and has no real bearing on events around him.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:That holds true in the final product, too, as it seems to take its sweet rear end time in doing anything to Kyle or John when it gets the chance. Watching the movie, it's actually pretty clear that Skynet is improvising based on the resources available to it. There's no ridiculous master plan. It simply gave Marcus free will and hoped for the best. He wasn't even woken up on purpose.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 08:59
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:"The worst movie in the series is actually the best." No, T3 isn't very good.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Why? Because the movie says so doesn't really matter, Marcus is the only character who was actually willing to do anything at the damage of his own heath and ethics. The point of the movie is to forgive even people who don't 'deserve' it. It's a Christian film.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:They're all Christian films. Yes, but Salvation moreso.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:It is John Connor that falsely claims to be the savior of humanity before and after this event, in the christian mythos this would make him the Anti-Marcus. Sort-of. John Connor is a false prophet, but he is 'born again' because Marcus - the authentic Christ-figure - makes him a believer in the holy spirit.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Terminator Salvation has this image of 3-dimensional recognition software accidentally generating an image of a big human heart labelled "vulnerability". That's why it owns.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
John is "a" leader because he's just a homeless guy with dubious future-predicting abilities and little fear of death.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Let us take perhaps the most basic form of the time-travel scenario found in science-fiction stories, the so-called time-loop or time-paradox. It is a story in which the time-traveller journeys into the future, writes down the plans for a time-travel machine, and then sends them back to themselves in the past so that they can then build one to travel into the future. What is the real enigma here? it is not simply that the scientist or researcher is able to travel into either the future or past, After all, this is what is 'explained' by the existence of the time-machine. Rather, it is the possibility that the time-traveller, by the very act of deciding to travel to the past, subtly alters the complex chain of causes and effects that led them to doing so in the first place. As a result, nothing in the past ends up being able to explain the decision - we can never exactly repeat events the same way - and yet this only because the decision has already been made. And in a good time-travel narrative, this 'indecision' takes place at every moment. Every moment on the time-traveller's circuit absolutely must have happened the way it did for it to be completed and is entirely open, a moment when events might have turned out differently. Indeed, it is only because the decision has been made, because events do repeat themselves, because the circle is complete, that we are able to think that the decision might not have been made, that everything might have turned out differently, that the circle might have been broken. The decision is at once necessary (everything has already happened) and impossible (always deferred), one because of the other. All this is what is at stake in that 'arrest' of historical time we see in [Walter] Benjamin's 'messianism'. This 'arrest', this act of grasping the hidden revolutionary potential in a situation in a kind of stopping of time, holds, to put it in terms of language, the place of a certain excluded diachronic element that allows the formation of a synchronic system (and, as with Žižek's discussion of this in For The Know Not, this fantasy of time-travel is fundamentally a fantasy of the primal scene, of seeing our own conception). That is, what we have in historicism, as in language, is a synchronic system, in which every part is dependent for its meaning on every other part: the past and the future are intertwined. This is the difficulty of thinking anything as the origin of such a system (for example, of capitalism), for as soon as we say what it is, we find that it is preceded by another, that it can only be understood in terms of the system itself. But precisely what Benjamin is trying to imagine is what is excluded to allow this. What does any historical explanation, which is ultimately only a fantasy of witnessing our own origins, stand in for? Is there not a kind of primal 'act' or 'trauma' that every named act takes the place of, which allows this 'fantasy' of entirely accounting for ourselves, of seeing ourselves from somewhere else? As Žižek writes: "The very emergence of a synchronous symbolic order implies a gap, a discontinuity in the diachronic causal chain that led up to it, a 'missing link' in the chain. Fantasy [the fantasy, we might say, of time-travel or indeed of historical explanation] is an a contrario proof that the status of the subject is that of a 'missing link', of a void which, within the synchronous set, holds the place of its foreclosed diachronic genesis." It is in this sense that Žižek speaks of what he calls, after Frederic Jameson, the 'vanishing mediator'. [...] The 'vanishing mediator' is not to be used to historicize an event, to provide a more detailed causal explanation for it, but - to paraphrase Benjamin - is a kind of 'arrest' or stopping-point that stands in for the excluded diachronic dimension of any historical explanation. That is, like the act itself, the vanishing mediator is not simply to be written back into the historical record, because it is also what must be left out for this record to be constituted. And if it testifies to a certain moment of 'undecidability' in the unfolding of events, a moment when things hung in the balance and could have turned out differently, it is an 'undecidability' that is only thinkable against the background of how events actually did turn out, an 'undecidability' that is not to be realized but haunts and makes possible every reality. It is an 'undecidability' - like Benjamin's 'revolutionary potential', like object a - that comes about only as its loss, that exists in the very from of its loss. [...] Far from vanishing, it is the one thing, in all its different guises, that always remains the same. It is what we eventually stumble over in any attempt to explain something historically, what resists when all else has been rationalized. To put it another way, in the time-travel story, everything is accounted for: the future explains the past as the past leads to the future. And yet there is one thing that cannot be accounted for - and that is the decision to travel back in time in the first place. And, again, if this decision is no sooner named than it is shown to be overdetermined, explained by a whole series of causes and effects, in another way this system is not possible until after this decision; this system is nothing but the infinite attempt to take the place of, explain, this decision. If this decision is infinitely predicted, must already have occurred for a symbolic order to exist at all, is is impossible to explain; it comes about only through an extraordinary act of will. For the true enigma of time-travel scenarios - from the Terminator series through to Groundhog Day - is why, if the future has already been determined, if future events must already have happened for the present to be the way it is, do we nevertheless have a sense that events could go astray at any moment, that things could turn out otherwise? At once - as revealed in Zeno's paradoxes and Benjamin's 'messianic' history - there is no difference between any two moments (the future is already in the past) and we can never get from one moment to the next (an infinite distance lies between them). At each moment ... the circle is closed, the decision has already been made, no act is necessary, and the future is uncertain, no decision has been made, only an act of supreme will can get us from one moment to the next. The circle is what does away with the will, what means that there is no need for a decision; and the circle is possible only because of a decision, is the one thing that demands that there must be a decision. And we see in all this ... that repetition and the act are not opposed, but that each implies the other, each is possible only because of the other. -Rex Butler, "Slavoj Žižek: Live Theory"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:So in Salvation Skynet activates a single T-800 to chase after Conner in the factory where they are building T-800s. None of the other ones are done yet.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:There are dozens of them coming off the assembly line. They also have hundreds of other Terminators walking around the complex and yet none of them can join in and hunt John? Pretty much. The robots aren't 'done' until they've been given the hair-and-skin treatment, so the one that fights John is probably the first prototype. You're even given a specific little sequence where the T-800 rips one of the older models apart for being ineffectual. This isn't 'tactically realistic', but the point is that Skynet's change in tactics is personified by an individual character. The functional T-800 represents the armies to come (and despite all the complaints, it successfully stabs John Connor through the heart - more than you can say for any of the previous ones). But here's the fun thing in Salvation, that no-one has ever questioned before: why is Skynet trying to kill John Connor? Skynet: "Our best machines have failed time again to complete a mission. Something was missing. We had to think, radically. And so we made you. We created the perfect infiltration unit. You, Marcus. You did what Skynet has failed to do for so many years. You killed John Connor." Skynet, at this point, is acting purely off of the information Sarah Connor reported to the police in T1. John Connor hasn't done anything major yet, and Skynet hasn't even invented time-travel yet. It's talking about 'Future Skynet' in the past tense. This Skynet has little reason to hunt down this John Connor. It just does it because it feels like it's supposed to - and that's really interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:He also waltzes straight past a dozen massive automated guns. The whole point of a trap is to be more dangerous than the thing you let them past. The biggest mindfuck in the series is not the dumb time-travel mechanics, but trying to understand Skynet as a character. It doesn't matter to me that it's the result of rewrites or whatever; despite fan complaints about giving it a human face, Skynet in Salvation is utterly alien and bizarre. To understand its motivations, you have to first puzzle out how much free will Marcus actually has. The only thing we really know for certain is that Skynet built Marcus to kill John Connor. After that, the idea that Marcus was simply a puppet the entire time doesn't fly, given that they send drones and stuff after him, blow him up and so-on. The conclusion to draw is that Skynet never really had much control over Marcus. He's activated by accident, and is a good enough replica of a human that Skynet has deliberately fooled itself into trying to kill him. Since Marcus actually has a human mind and Skynet actually is trying to kill him, he really is the perfect infiltration unit. It simply created a super-powerful human being who hates Skynet. This means Skynet had no idea that Connor was arriving - until Marcus hooked his brain up to the system. Even then, Skynet had no real idea where Connor was until it caught him on camera and lured him into a specific room. So, basically, Skynet had to improvise the actual John Connor murder plan in the time it took to repair Marcus' body. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
Caros posted:The perfect infiltration unit right up until someone bothers to run a metal detector across him or he walks through a magnetic (wtf) minefield. You misunderstand: revealing that Marcus is mechanical actually makes him a better infiltrator. He can honestly say, under interrogation, that he has no idea what he is, that he only wants to help, etc. You think John Connor's going to pass up a chance to talk with this guy? He's super-strong so that he can withstand Skynet's attacks on him, while looking vulnerable enough to gain sympathy. Marcus' face doesn't show up on Skynet's biometrics software, which means Skynet intentionally deleted his face from its own memory. It can only recognize him by scanning his robot parts. The only thing known for certain about Skynet's control over Marcus is that he has a pre-programmed instinct to return 'home' and upload his knowledge there. That's why there's that space set up for him. Otherwise, he's right: if he wanted to kill Kyle Reese, he could have long ago.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 08:31
|
|