TRex vision

ChrisReid said:
I thought Terminator 3 was great.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I'd say it was better than T2 or not, but it certainly did what it needed to for a sequel and I enjoyed it as such. But I did think it was wierd how it kind of backpedals on the themes of the first two, namely that the future isn't written yet. And then all the sudden its like John Connor has this unavoidable destiny and although they delayed judgement day (am I remembering this right) its like fate is still making sure it plays out similarly and that the machines take over. So much for the open road stuff at the end of T2.
 
T3 was not bad. T2 was better. I don't know, maybe it was the running joke about cumebrsome vehicles, or the fatalist approach to the doomsday, but something on T3 was not that good. The Terminatrix was interesting, but a less impressive enemy than previous one. I mean, the other guy was a cybernetic shapeshifter, and she was a female robot with inflatable boobs.
 
It actually made sence to me. the T-X. the differences between the terminators
is explained in the bonus feature of the DVD. and the DVD release was, very, very short after the original film hit the theaters.

T-1: " #5" from short circuit, but on steroids.

T-800: Robot with a shape based on the human skeleton, covered in living tissue,
appears human, even bad breath.

t-1000: System based on liquid metal, capable of morphing itself into whatever,
exept complex mechanical structure, and the individual cells will try to restructure
themselves to form the main unit again. unfortunately this unit had a lot less
physical strength then the t-800.

T-X: A combination of before technologiees, the exo-skeleton covered in liquid metal,
they used a female skeleton, since it is easier to have the liquid metal
add shapes to that, (imagine a girl with arnies shoulder with). the fact that she
could control other machines was just plain dumbest thing since KITT's micro-jam.
(the reprogramming of older terminators was okay though.) what did not make
sense, is that it had only one brain(if the liquid part and the skeleton part are
seperate why not have two terminators?) she also had internal offensive
weaponry, the flamethrower being the odd one though(where did this weapon
get it's fuel from?)

big movies are always aimed at the main audience, and they keep making
thesame references, because people expect this. I believe basic instinct 2
to become worse then terminator 3, that she will kill with an ice pick again, and
spread her legs while being questioned, etc.
 
Mace said:
she also had internal offensive
weaponry, the flamethrower being the odd one though(where did this weapon
get it's fuel from?)
Click to expand...
Perhaps she had an internal take in the arm or shoulder.
 
I liked Terminator 3. It was both a fun action movie (hot girl robot, giant truck chase, etc.) and managed to have a fairly clever ending (for a movie about killer robots from the future).
 
I never saw T3, but T1 and 2 ranks pretty highly on my Action Movie top list. They are both very good. I also hate all Jurassic movies. Oh, a dinossaur. Run. rinse. Repeat.

Meh.

And it doesn't matter if bats have good vision, it's too dark for them to see. They are a hell lot smarter than birds.
 
Bats have excellent vision which is particularly adapted for low level lighting. Which is why if you get a bat in the house and switch the lights on they start making noises across the whole spectrum of their sonar, some of which you can hear. They switch to almost total sonar while their eyes adjust to the lighting change.

T1 is excellent, T2 has the annoying kid, but a much fitter Linda Hamilton. :p. Overall I thought T2 was a better action film than T1, but T1 was fresh and new, T2 was more for the effects that could be done then. T3 was pretty lame all round. Entertaining beer and pizza film, but not one to rewatch.

JP1 at the cinema was fantastic. Nothing CGI had been done at that scale yet, plus the sound effects were spot on. JP2 was kinda cool although the whole end sequence was rubbish. JP3 is a bit like T3, entertaining viewing but I wouldn't pay to watch it. Definitely a watch when on TV film. :)
 
T2 had intelligent limitations, like no moving parts. T3 is more like a superfighter. Controlling cars? Flamethrower? It's less interesting.
 
Every Super Bowl my friends and I rent an Arnold movie. This year it was Commando. That movie is hilarious because everything that's supposed to be very serious turns out to be funny.
 
Mace said:
big movies are always aimed at the main audience, and they keep making
thesame references, because people expect this. I believe basic instinct 2
to become worse then terminator 3, that she will kill with an ice pick again, and
spread her legs while being questioned, etc.
Click to expand...

I think if you're looking around trying to pick out the references designed to please the majority of the audience, you're almost always going to be disappointed and unhappy. You have to kind of know what to expect before you sit down to watch a film. I just wouldn't even bother if I was going to get hung up over stuff like that.
 
The thing I hate about T3 is that the writers couldn't even take the time to learn John Connor's age during T2. I still can't get over that. :(
 
The thing that appealed about the T-1000 as a villian was its sheer unstoppability--it may not have had the most powerful attacks, but it was unstoppable--nothing could prevent it from reforming and coming back. It had near-perfect stealth, being able to blend in with the walls or impersonate any adult human, and it was virtually indestructible by any means. In fact, the means used to destroy it in T2 (dissolve it in some other substance) is pretty much the only way to completely and permanantly destroy such a device. It was truly the monster that would not die.
 
Shaggy said:
. I say detriment because I like using big words:p but also because it seems that any animal that had vision like this would die out pretty quick wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

I think somtimes people misunderstand what survival of the fittest means. Survival of the fittest simply means the organisms ability to pass on its genes and doesnt necessarily mean toughest or strongest. Example; a group of more crafty males of a species might be more successful in mating than the dumb strong males that may just go and fight other dumb strong males. But a trait like this doesnt even need to lead directly to more successful mating. Confused? Yea, blame me.

The Trex' crappy vision might not have been as detrimental to the point where it made any difference. But lets imagine some Raptors in the population slowly evolved to be faster and smarter. Now those Trex' born with a mutation that gave them better eye sight might be able to survive better than the ones with the crappy eyes. Eventually there may be no Trex' left which are born with crappy eyes. But if there is no significant enviromental pressure then basically nothing happens. Thats why you get some species unchanged for millions of years, like the crocodile or coelacanth.

I hope that terrible explantion made some kind of sence.

Ed
 
Edx said:
I think somtimes people misunderstand what survival of the fittest means. Survival of the fittest simply means the organisms ability to pass on its genes and doesnt necessarily mean toughest or strongest. Example; a group of more crafty males of a species might be more successful in mating than the dumb strong males that may just go and fight other dumb strong males. But a trait like this doesnt even need to lead directly to more successful mating. Confused? Yea, blame me.

The Trex' crappy vision might not have been as detrimental to the point where it made any difference. But lets imagine some Raptors in the population slowly evolved to be faster and smarter. Now those Trex' born with a mutation that gave them better eye sight might be able to survive better than the ones with the crappy eyes. Eventually there may be no Trex' left which are born with crappy eyes. But if there is no significant enviromental pressure then basically nothing happens. Thats why you get some species unchanged for millions of years, like the crocodile or coelacanth.

I hope that terrible explantion made some kind of sence.

Ed
Click to expand...


Basically the ones that mate (and pass on their genes thereby surviving in some form) are the strong ones and organisms only evolve if there is a need to.
 
Yes. "Fitness" does not mean length of lifespan; it means number of offspring. It is not "kill or be killed" so much as "whoever dies with the most kids wins".
 
Iceman16 said:
Basically the ones that mate (and pass on their genes thereby surviving in some form) are the strong ones and organisms only evolve if there is a need to.
Click to expand...

Yes, now why didnt I just say it nice and simply like that? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top