TF Views

JediTricks wrote:"Those sources" as in I cited Wikipedia for 2 separate definitions, "Sentience" and "Free will". No need to get in a huff over that.

It wasn't and still isn't sage advice to me, I don't agree with you on the blanket statement that it's automatically undermining a point to use wikipedia. Had I not stated the source for those sentences, they'd still be solid work and you'd have not known the difference. That's what I said was only sage advice to you, the part about wikipedia. I'm not trying to drag you back into anything, you keep needling smaller and smaller points. And distortion? You just applied my "sage advice" comment, which the sentence clearly shows is a comment on "whether or not you find those sources to be of question", to an entirely different issue -- talk about distortion.

By saying "those sources", you made it sound like I was talking about more than Wikipedia, not that you'd simply cited it twice. And once again, you are distorting what I've said. My "blanket statement" wasn't that it's automatically undermining to use Wikipedia, ONCE AGAIN, I'd simply said you shouldn't cite Wikipedia as it is not a reliable source to be citing information from in general, I WAS NOT commenting on the information itself in one way or another. Would I of said anything if you hadn't said it came from Wiki? Probably not honestly, as I almost didn't in the first place. Although if I had continued that argument, I may have inquired where you'd gotten those definitions from, to which we'd end up here anyway, but I would have still argued that information regardless. And you have totally tried to drag me back into that argument, or did you forget when you'd told me to "argue the substance"? And when you'd said "sage advice", you made it sound like you were talking about continuing that conversation, seeing as you had followed that "sage advice" comment up with: "since you're not in the market of continuing that conversation", and then you'd said: "why should I care whether or not you find those sources to be of question?" The implication you're making there is that the "sage advice" is about continuing that conversation, not to the sources being in question --talk about distortion indeed.

I saw T3 last night,I really got disgusted by all the potty humor & woman dominace crotch grabbing jokes some scenes had.

What I'm referring to was the Arnold Terminator & Woman Terminator fighting in the bathroom by smashing toilet bowls on each other. out of all those thosands of places a fight scene could have taken place in this movie & the writers use a disgusting bathroom.

I didn't like any of the scenes where the female terminator grabs the arnold terminator by his crotch & starts throwing him thru various walls. This I found in-appropiate as male terminators don't have functional penis & probably no penis. So to grab him their served no purpose other than for the writers to create perverted humor.

Seeing these two scenes I Mentioned in this reply reminded me of all the potty humor/perverted scenes that micheal bay used to ruin the live action TF movies.

Actually, Tiger brings up an uncomfortable point. We know that Terminators have wangs, as per the first two movies. (The waitress at the beginning of T2 is clearly reacting to the Schwartzenoodle. And, I am given to understand that there is an unfortunate camera angle that makes it clear that the T-800 could pass for a man.) Of course, we do not know if Terminator skin has the requisite nerves and blood vessels to pass that much as a person. (And, somewhere, there is some truly dreadful fanfic about Terminators being fully able to pass.....)

That said, the whole fight between the T-800 and the T-X 9 in "Rise of the Machines" was an innuendo--fest. (And, considering the movie was PG-13, if anybody was old enough to "get it", they were probably old enough to just roll their eyes. So, yes, the scene is wasted.)


Okay, back to discussion.

Here's the thing though, we're talking about character intentions and foundations, so later changes by other authors don't necessarily speak to the beginnings of the character because they aren't inside the mind of the original character creator.

There is a difference between understanding and accounting for original intent and the way a given property is now.

There are plenty of official, even defining, "Superman" comics that have nothing to do with the garbage produced in the 30s and 40s.

At some point or another, somebody at DC decided that they high-concept for Superman would have to change. There is no way that any Golden or Silver Age hack could have written "Red Son" or "All Star Superman". Similarly, Gruenwald's run on "Captain America" is far beyond anything that would have been considered for publication in the 40s.

Ultimately, the owner of the property is the final arbitrator about what the property is and what matters for that property.

"It's all canon somewhere" is tricky though because ultimately you end up with different religions based around each canon, just like in real life.

Something can be official without necessarily being relevant. Yes, copies (including reprints) of pre-CoIE DC comics exist. But, they are not relevant to what is being published now.

Similarly, the Bay TF movies are about as legitimately official as it can get for "Transformers". But, they are not relevant to...say..."ReGeneration One". (The reverse also holds true.) Decisions about what counts and what is relevant are made by the property owner and the license holders.

Did you mean "The owner CAN'T speak to original intent"? Otherwise I'm confused to that sentence. So assuming you meant "can't" because otherwise the "But" in the next sentence doesn't make any sense, keep in mind that we are talking about the character's creation and original intents.

I should have said "The creator can speak to original intent."

No one person even decides on morals, morals are derived by group actions, nobody votes for morals, they are derived by the group for the group's best interest by the group's actions and intents.

Moral standards are determined in aggregate. But, that does not make those standards right. (Consider any number of small or large scale tyrannies that were considered right and proper at various points in history. Did the fact that those tyrannies were seen as being normal make them inherently right?)

If spontaneous sentience is the metric here, then these machines don't measure up to that.

Sentience and self-awareness are the metric, regardless of where they spring from.


Dom
-is "Terminator" an active property at the moment?

-is "Terminator" an active property at the moment?

Salivation sequel was supposed to be in development, but I think it got tied up in rights issues again!

Dominic wrote:Actually, Tiger brings up an uncomfortable point. We know that Terminators have wangs, as per the first two movies. (The waitress at the beginning of T2 is clearly reacting to the Schwartzenoodle. And, I am given to understand that there is an unfortunate camera angle that makes it clear that the T-800 could pass for a man.) Of course, we do not know if Terminator skin has the requisite nerves and blood vessels to pass that much as a person. (And, somewhere, there is some truly dreadful fanfic about Terminators being fully able to pass.....)

It wouldn't be a believable human replicant if it didn't have functionally identical equipment, if they didn't have human genitalia then all the resistance would have to do to figure out which is which would be to walk around with no pants on. And a believable human replicant needs to have requisite nerves and blood vessels to pass because otherwise their skin wouldn't react to wind and other stimuli accurately, like the old-model rubbery Terminators (think about Star Trek First Contact where Data's new skin reacts to the queen blowing on it). Now whether the resistance used whores to ensure which people were real and which were replicants, I think we can assume that may have happened.

There is a difference between understanding and accounting for original intent and the way a given property is now.

There are plenty of official, even defining, "Superman" comics that have nothing to do with the garbage produced in the 30s and 40s.

At some point or another, somebody at DC decided that they high-concept for Superman would have to change. There is no way that any Golden or Silver Age hack could have written "Red Son" or "All Star Superman". Similarly, Gruenwald's run on "Captain America" is far beyond anything that would have been considered for publication in the 40s.

Ultimately, the owner of the property is the final arbitrator about what the property is and what matters for that property.

Perhaps, but aside from TM, nobody I've seen considers T3 and TS to be improvements on the franchise, they aren't building, they're only imitating and tearing down because they are the most recent sucker to try to outdo the previous film despite not having the right intentions and skills to do so. They certainly aren't making Skynet a more believable, credible, fleshed-out character from anything you've described.

Something can be official without necessarily being relevant. Yes, copies (including reprints) of pre-CoIE DC comics exist. But, they are not relevant to what is being published now.

Similarly, the Bay TF movies are about as legitimately official as it can get for "Transformers". But, they are not relevant to...say..."ReGeneration One". (The reverse also holds true.) Decisions about what counts and what is relevant are made by the property owner and the license holders.

"Official" and "canon" are not the same thing. Pre-Crisis comics are part of the published canon, the stories that come after use what came before as canon by virtue of CoIE itself. Nothing connects RID to G1, nothing canon anyway.

Different expressions can get away with different canons, movies and comics are different expressions with different driving forces and different goals.

I should have said "The creator can speak to original intent."

Ok, close enough.

Moral standards are determined in aggregate. But, that does not make those standards right. (Consider any number of small or large scale tyrannies that were considered right and proper at various points in history. Did the fact that those tyrannies were seen as being normal make them inherently right?)

Either the higher power decides on what "right" is, or the society decides on what "right" is. Those tyranies you speak of are either enforced by violence, or supported by the belief that their higher power imbued their leaders with those rights.

If spontaneous sentience is the metric here, then these machines don't measure up to that.

Sentience and self-awareness are the metric, regardless of where they spring from.

The key word there was "spontaneous" sentience, sentience that wasn't intended when the software was created or fostered into creation.

-is "Terminator" an active property at the moment?

Yes, it has changed hands again and the plan is the new owner is going to make Terminator 5, I believe not based directly off TS, and then she claims she's going to give the rights to James Cameron.

Now whether the resistance used whores to ensure which people were real and which were replicants, I think we can assume that may have happened.

The dogs were more efficient, though.

Yes, it has changed hands again and the plan is the new owner is going to make Terminator 5, I believe not based directly off TS, and then she claims she's going to give the rights to James Cameron.

I can't remember if it was Terminator or Aliens that Cameron said he would "never" work on again because "the sequels ruined it."


Dumb idea: They should do a sequel to just the first Terminator, ignoring all the other ones, where a bunch of soldiers fight an army of them. TERMINATORS. (It's like Aliens, or Predators.)

Onslaught Six wrote:Dumb idea: They should do a sequel to just the first Terminator, ignoring all the other ones, where a bunch of soldiers fight an army of them. TERMINATORS. (It's like Aliens, or Predators.)

Why is that a dumb idea?

Onslaught Six wrote:

Now whether the resistance used whores to ensure which people were real and which were replicants, I think we can assume that may have happened.

The dogs were more efficient, though.

Yes, it has changed hands again and the plan is the new owner is going to make Terminator 5, I believe not based directly off TS, and then she claims she's going to give the rights to James Cameron.

I can't remember if it was Terminator or Aliens that Cameron said he would "never" work on again because "the sequels ruined it."


Dumb idea: They should do a sequel to just the first Terminator, ignoring all the other ones, where a bunch of soldiers fight an army of them. TERMINATORS. (It's like Aliens, or Predators.)

I think the worse offender to the Sequels thing is Sylvester Stallone with his Rocky & Rambo movies.

Rocky 5 is the only truly bad movie in the franchise. The rest are pretty good, especially the most recent one. (Sorry, but Rocky 4 rules if only for its soundtrack. HEARTS ON FIRE, STRONG DESIRE!)

I have actually never seen Rambo 3 or the 2008 Rambo movie. I guess I should, considering my upcoming album...

Yup. Rocky IV is amazing. Saw that in the theatre when it came out, and just lost my goddamn mind over it. Of course, I was what, nine or ten at the time. But still, that was a helluva movie.

So the thing about Terminator robo-wangs has me wondering something really dumb. So Terminator robots are shaped like skeletons, right? And the outer skin part is cloned human flesh? So like, do they have stomachs and digestive systems? I presume they're usually not active long enough to worry about maintaining their organic material, but if that's human-ish flesh, it'd need some kind of fuel if it was gonna go on for awhile, right?