| Author |
Message |
Sheldon
Gamorrean
Joined: 03 Dec 2003
|
 Posted: Dec 03, 2003 09:56 Post subject: I thought T3 was dreadful... |
   |
|
and I really loved T2!
I watched Terminator 2 over and over. I thought it was a great movie with a soul. The acting of Eddie Furlong was terrific, and he taught Arnold what it was to be human. I was crying at the end.
But T3 seemed just nothing, an empty shell with a phoney car chase just for its own sake.
Hey, and I want to thank Fenwar, NW, Jackson, and Matt K for keeping the site up. I havn't been here in some time due to real life problems I don't want to discuss here, but it is good to know the site is alive and all you people out there are around.
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 03, 2003 11:03 Post subject: |
 |
|
Hm... well, actually, I enjoyed T3, but I do agree it wasn't as good as T2 or T. I agree Furlong was great in T2, and I too loved the human angle of that movie. I also missed the Future War scenes of the previous movies in T3 - all we got was a very short dream sequence... nothing real.
|
|
Taton
Trandoshan
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 03, 2003 12:55 Post subject: |
|
|
I personally liked T3 also, though I need to go see T2 in its entirety...
*Runs off to Hollywood Video*
_________________
"A fight should be clean and elegant, without waste"
-Asuka Langley Sohryu, Evangelion
Last edited by Taton on Dec 03, 2003 23:54; edited 1 time in total |
|
Matt K
Dark Trooper Phase 1
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 03, 2003 14:17 Post subject: |
|
|
For what it was, T3 was pretty good. But you're right, it didn't have the soul or vision of T2 -- I'm guessing this is because of the director change. The almighty James Cameron directed the first two, while a relative newcomer, Jonathan Mostow, directed T3.
And it's good to see you back around, Sheldon. 
|
|
The MAZZTer
Death Star
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 03, 2003 18:24 Post subject: |
|
|
At first I thought this was thread where you're bosting about your new T3 internet connection or something. O_o
_________________
http://www.mzzt.net/ | I am a respectable admin with a respectable sig. |
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 04, 2003 22:29 Post subject: |
|
|
Mattias Welander wrote:
Hey, that's a quote, I promise! I think someone's cheating...
Sorry about that... I removed it since I thought that it really wasn't worth asking... I tend to edit my posts up to 20 times within 5 minutes of making them... Yes, that IS a quote...
Mattias Welander wrote:
Actually, in my opinion, T is probably the best of them all. While it's not as heavy on effects or human emotion as T2, it's very heavy on foreshadowing, destiny and feeling. I love it.
Then perhaps I should see the original, since it's been MANY years...
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 04, 2003 22:31 Post subject: |
|
|
Mattias Welander wrote:
I have a quarter of your T3 speed, and it doesn't cost me a thing. But then again, I live in a pseudo-communist country. 
Well, in the rather right-wing society of the United States, the government DOES subsidise a large portion of many things... Considering that the economy of the US is nearly as large as the ENTIRE EU... But most of those benefits go to large corporations, and the people who head them.
Personally, I would like to live in a country that was more leftist than right. Then I wouldn't have to worry about making sure I've got my college education covered, despite being a 4.0 student... THAT'S the kind of environment created by a right-wing government, despite the leftist ideas were the foundation of most modern government institutions, in both America and Europe.
Buit still... WHAT IS "Hollywood Wideo"?
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Sheldon
Gamorrean
Joined: 03 Dec 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 04, 2003 22:58 Post subject: |
|
|
Oh boy.  I thought this thread was about the movie Terminator 3.
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
|
Lionel Fouillen
Gamorrean
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 07, 2003 21:22 Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't seen T3. A friend of mine, usually a fan, saw it and said I wouldn't possibly enjoy it as the previous chapters. Considering we share the same tastes regarding specific works, I then decided not to go and see the film. I loved T2 as well, more than T1. And I can download files at 100 Kb/sec with my ADSL connection that costs 25€/month with no State intervention 
Regards to all. Wow, December 7th already! Another year is ending. Hi Sheldon! Glad to see you're still around...
|
|
Sheldon
Gamorrean
Joined: 03 Dec 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 08, 2003 00:43 Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, Lionell, it sure is good to see you also! And for me also, I didn't like T1 all that much, but T2 was outstanding. It was the human interest, how Arnold learnt to become human, and how at the end when he understood what it meant to cry it seemd to me like he gained a human soul. What is life? that is a real question debated amoung scientists and philospohers.
Like when Deep Blue(or Big Blue?) the supercomputer won the chess championship. Did it think? What is thinking? Humans learn from trial and error, and the synapses of the brain are programmed. Is Commander DATA from Star Trek Next Generation a higher life form?
But T3 had none of the depth, character, or human interest of T2. To me, it seemed like an empty rip-off.
|
|
Kir Kanos
Gamorrean
Joined: 28 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 08, 2003 03:06 Post subject: |
|
|
Was anybody else bothered by the "Judgement Day is inevitable" thing? It kind of makes Terminator's sacrifice at the end of the T2 meaningless.
_________________
"Curse you, Kanos!!! Why don't you just DIE?!" |
|
Sheldon
Gamorrean
Joined: 03 Dec 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 08, 2003 11:49 Post subject: Judgement Day inevitable... |
|
|
Yes, Kir Kanos, the whole thing in T3 was really stupid to me.
In fact, one of the facinating parts of T2 was the scientific basis of multiple time lines, how nothing is predestined and that "there is no fate but what you make". A long time ago, on the old board some people posted references for this theory of time travel.
(And hey, to anyone out there who firmly believes there is only one time line I am not arguing one way or the other, only stating the multiple time line theory is one viable theory. If physics departments at prestigeous scientific universities can seriously reference it as fact, it is not a joke.)
But now, in Terminator 3, we seemed reduced to a single time line where there is predestination which cannot be changed by free will.
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 08, 2003 15:32 Post subject: |
|
|
Sheldon wrote:
Hey, Lionell, it sure is good to see you also! And for me also, I didn't like T1 all that much, but T2 was outstanding. It was the human interest, how Arnold learnt to become human, and how at the end when he understood what it meant to cry it seemd to me like he gained a human soul. What is life? that is a real question debated amoung scientists and philospohers.
Like when Deep Blue(or Big Blue?) the supercomputer won the chess championship. Did it think? What is thinking? Humans learn from trial and error, and the synapses of the brain are programmed. Is Commander DATA from Star Trek Next Generation a higher life form?
But T3 had none of the depth, character, or human interest of T2. To me, it seemed like an empty rip-off.
I haven't seen any of the Terminator movies, so I wouldn't really know... Of course, I may eventually see T1 and T2, but I've heard enough about T3 to know to avoid it...
As for the name, the computer was called Deep Blue. Big Blue is the nickname for International Business Machines, which made the computer.
As far as machine intelligence, it is very far off, if not something that will never be seen, as far as silicon is the basis for our computers. Silicon is very inorganic, and thus prohibits what is widely held to be one of the hallmarks of life: physical, autonomous growth.
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Matt H
Dark Trooper Phase 1
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 08, 2003 20:38 Post subject: |
|
|
When T3 was over, I was asking myself the question "Did I like that?" It was strange, because I enjoyed watching it. I found it to be entertaining in an mindlessly-violent-action-flick kind of way. I wasn't really looking at it having a lot of depth. The action sequences were sometimes over the top, but pretty well done.
But T3 also completely undermined T2, a movie I really enjoyed. It went 180 degrees from the message of T2, that saying "there is no fate" etc. That really bothered me, the feeling that if I buy into this movie, accept it as part of the Terminator story/universe, then T2 was kind of pointless.
Plus the ending was kind of a downer (nuclear war and all) which brought the mood down. It's hard to leave a movie and be happy when most of the population on Earth is wiped out.
At the same time, I applaud the non-Hollywood happy ending. It's a gutsier move, giving it more weight. I also appreciate some other aspects - like the fact that all the messy time paradoxes that T2 had/caused are now resolved. I like how humans were developing the technology on their own that we later come to see the machines using. Before, it was all self-generated (coming from the original Terminator's CPU etc.) It's still a little farfetched, but even 11 years later from T2, it's a little more believable. And I especially like Skynet's connection to the internet, especially since in 1984 the internet wasn't the huge thing it is today. It makes the prediction of the future they made all the more plausible, which is kind of cool.
I also liked how they didn't go into exposition about the new terminator robot, rehashing what we already know. They went in saying "you know how this works." She obviously has some the ability to create some complex machinery (which the T1000 didn't have) while also have some of the liquid metal properties he had. It T2, when T1000 was shot and the liquid metal hit marks remorphed back to himself, it was "ooh, look at that effect, look at what he can do." This time, she did amazing things but they didn't go overdo showing off the effects. Again they took the "you get it" approach.
So all and all, T3 left me conflicted. I mostly liked it, though some things left me a bit unsettled at the same time.
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 08, 2003 21:54 Post subject: |
|
|
I must agree with most of what you said, Matt H.
|
|
Zev
Ree-Yees
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 08, 2003 22:07 Post subject: |
|
|
NTK, what exactly do you mean when you say inorganic? Just a question.
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
|
Sheldon
Gamorrean
Joined: 03 Dec 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 09, 2003 20:24 Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, as far as I'm concerned Commander Data from Star Trek Next Generation is as alive as any human.
The fact that his brain is not carbon based does not make a difference.
Hey, in fact on STNG the question of what life is was raised many times. Does anyone remember the episodes with Doctor Moriority with the Holmes holo-deck? He became aware of his own consciousness and indeed he himself declared the definition of life to be "I think therefore I am".
I really loved STNG - too bad I've seen almost all of the episodes so many times I'm sick of them now. You can only watch reruns so much.
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 09, 2003 22:20 Post subject: |
|
|
Mattias Welander wrote:
Anyway, Nottheking is correct in stating that silicon is not suitable for a biological growth process. However, there is nothing that stops it from being grown through nanotechnology.
Of course, even growing simple crystals with nanotechnology is currently not worht the effort in most cases. So far, I've only heard of scientists contructing nanotubes, and other such microscopic components. Making an entire being that could sustain itself would be a mind-boggling task.
Of course, even if you can create such a being, how will it acquire the materials it needs to grow and reproduce? Life on Earth is lucky enough to be all based upon compounds that area found throughout most species. Silicon may be the second most plentiful element in Earth's crust, but soils would require too much energy to process into workable materials for an autonomous being.
I wouldn't be surprised if some researchers were to create new life in a laboratory, but it will most likely be carbon-based.
Silicon is just not feasable for intelligent life. That's what makes us humans different from computers: The human brain is primarily constructed of three elements: hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, whil computers are primarily silicon, with various metals such as alluminum, copper, silver, and gold. The microprocessor, while incredibly fast, cannot build new circuits. The human brain can, and does.
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Sheldon
Gamorrean
Joined: 03 Dec 2003
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 10, 2003 05:32 Post subject: |
|
|
Nottheking wrote:
So far, I've only heard of scientists contructing nanotubes, and other such microscopic components. Making an entire being that could sustain itself would be a mind-boggling task.
Strange. I've heard of nanoengines. And no, I don't think it's that hard a task - it's only a matter of time until it's feasable to create artificial, silicon based, nanomachine life.
Nottheking wrote:
Silicon may be the second most plentiful element in Earth's crust, but soils would require too much energy to process into workable materials for an autonomous being.
Ever heard of electric power? We're talking about tiny amounts of matter here.
Nottheking wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if some researchers were to create new life in a laboratory, but it will most likely be carbon-based.
I strongly doubt that, at least in the foreseeable future. When artificial life is constructed, it will most certainly be nanotechnological and not biological. And so far, silicon is better suited for nanotechnology than carbon.
Nottheking wrote:
Silicon is just not feasable for intelligent life.
Silicon is just not feasable for natural intelligent life. It's quite well suited for artificial intelligent life.
Nottheking wrote:
The human brain is primarily constructed of three elements: hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon
I think you forgot nitrogen.
Sheldon wrote:
Tell the Silicon thing to all the silicon based life out there, and see what they say.
Sorry, but no one really believes in silicon based life anymore.
|
|
Fish
Gamorrean
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 10, 2003 11:43 Post subject: |
|
|
Quite surprising, with what confidence you are writing about some things regarding artificial life.
In the first place, the whole question depends upon your definition of life. If one accepts Stephen Hawking's viewpoint, which claims that life is anything that is able to reproduce itself and save its entropy, then we have already produced an artificial life form - computer viruses. I personally like this definition, though it's main drawback is that beings that happen to get unfertile are treated as non-living.
Anyway, regarding that question, I have already heard dozens of arguments about the nature of the biological viruses. Are they alive? It is completely behaving like a life form, while actually being nothing more than a huge molecule. I guess it's anyway senseless to argue about that question, but that shows at least that the border between the living and non-living is not sharp.
I think it makes no sense to just generally exclude some elements as candidates for the artificial life (whether nanotechnological or biochemical). Maybe they are not too promising in the environment that we are used to, but keep in mind that intelligent biochemically based life might exist in other environments, that we treat as deadly, only because it is deadly for us, carbon-life.
For example, on extremely low temperatures, covalent and ion atomic bonds are weaker, but hydrogen and Van Der Waals bonds become relatively strong, what enables a whole new wealth of possible molecules and chemical forms, and thus maybe even low-temperature bio-life. Keep in mind that the chemistry of extremely low temperatures is still not researched very well, and there might be many surprises ahead.
There is analogue case for the high temperatures. Another factor that can change many things is pressure.
A large amount of biochemistry knowledge is related to the environment found on the Earth surface, but the extremely hot, cold or compressed worlds are still a terra incognita, in which there might still be biological wonders possible.
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 10, 2003 13:21 Post subject: |
|
|
Fish wrote:
Quite surprising, with what confidence you are writing about some things regarding artificial life.
I have been studying Computer Science with focus on artificiall intelligence and cognitive science for eight years at one of the world's foremost universities in this particular field. While this covers more than just artificial life, it is most certainly an issue I have dealt with extensively before.
Fish wrote:
In the first place, the whole question depends upon your definition of life. If one accepts Stephen Hawking's viewpoint...
Who isn't an exobiologist... not even a biologist, in fact. Case closed. You don't have to be a biologist to discuss things like this, but unless you are, any new theories will have little scientific significance. Hawking's is a cosmologist. If he suddenly raised his voice one morning and claimed Big Bang never happened, the scientific world would listen. But he's not a biologist. If he one morning claimed to have a new definition of life, no scientifically minded person really should care.
Fish wrote:
I have already heard dozens of arguments about the nature of the biological viruses. Are they alive? It is completely behaving like a life form.
Actually, they aren't. Virii can't reproduce.
Fish wrote:
I think it makes no sense to just generally exclude some elements as candidates for the artificial life (whether nanotechnological or biochemical).
If you mean that in a philosophical sense, then I agree completely with you. If you mean that in a physical sense, then I disagree completely. It is simply physically impossible for any other atoms than carbon to form the kind of complex molecules needed for natural life. Since those are the laws of nature, it's really not an issue of if it makes sense or not - it's just the way it is.
Fish wrote:
For example, on extremely low temperatures, covalent and ion atomic bonds are weaker, but hydrogen and Van Der Waals bonds become relatively strong, what enables a whole new wealth of possible molecules and chemical forms, and thus maybe even low-temperature bio-life.
Unfortunately, low temperatures mean low energy... which means life's in trouble.
Fish wrote:
A large amount of biochemistry knowledge is related to the environment found on the Earth surface, but the extremely hot, cold or compressed worlds are still a terra incognita, in which there might still be biological wonders possible.
I agree. I'm fairly certain there is life on Mars and Europa, I'm fairly certain there was once life on Venus, and I can even go so far as saying I can imagine the possibility of life on Titan, something very few exobiologist would claim they believe in. But I still believe that life in all those places will turn out to be carbon based. They might very well be carbon-hydrogen-sulfur-nitrogen based, and not carbon-hydrogen-oxygen-nitrogen based as most of life on Earth is, but the primary building block will still be carbon.
|
|
Fish
Gamorrean
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 10, 2003 16:01 Post subject: |
|
|
Mattias Welander wrote:
If you mean that in a philosophical sense, then I agree completely with you. If you mean that in a physical sense, then I disagree completely. It is simply physically impossible for any other atoms than carbon to form the kind of complex molecules needed for natural life.
Yes, in a philosophical sense. It's wrong, I think, to say that there is only one valid recipe for life in our environment.
Mattias Welander wrote:
Unfortunately, low temperatures mean low energy... which means life's in trouble.
You might be right - the energies are low, but Van Der Waals and hydrogen bonds in the low-temperature world have a lower bonding energy as well, meaning they need less energy to recombine. So there might be a solution, although these bonds are not so widely useful as covalent and ion bonds.
I know, low temperatures might induce some problems with wrong molecular stability, which is required for the life to exist. The stability of molecules of the Earth organic life is ensured through the enzymatic catalysis, and it's questionable if the same processes could happen in the low-temperature world. However, I'm a physicist, not a biochemist, so I'd rather not go so deep into low-temperature biochemistry what's not my expertise.
Mattias Welander wrote:
I'm fairly certain there is life on Mars and Europa, I'm fairly certain there was once life on Venus, and I can even go so far as saying I can imagine the possibility of life on Titan, something very few exobiologist would claim they believe in.
Well, that's quite optimistic, to say the least. Of course, neither of us can yet know if you are right or not, but I agree that sulphur might, in some cases, replace the role of oxygen.
Environments on Mars, Titan, Europa and Venus are far from "usual" in comparison to the environment on Earth, so they also belong to the mentioned terra incognita, where there might still be enormous surprises for the biologists. We'll see one day. Hopefully.
Of course, that all has little to do with Terminator 3.
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Dec 10, 2003 17:48 Post subject: |
|
|
Fish wrote:
Of course, that all has little to do with Terminator 3.
That may be the case, but the subject's still interesting...
Mattias Welander wrote:
Unfortunately, low temperatures mean low energy... which means life's in trouble.
It might be possible for life to exists in low temperatures (I imagine you're thinking -100C/-148F or lower), but chances are it would be radically diffferent from Earth life, to cope with such a low ammount of natural energy availible. It may be that life would live much more slowly, relying on an internal temperature of far less than the typical 32-43C/90-110F that is typical of Earth animals. Of course, there's plant life on Earth that survives at low temperatures, and perhaps there could be cold-blooded animal life that would thrive at -100C/-148F. Of course, this is all in theory...
Mattias Welander wrote:
I'm fairly certain there is life on Mars and Europa, I'm fairly certain there was once life on Venus, and I can even go so far as saying I can imagine the possibility of life on Titan, something very few exobiologist would claim they believe in.
Fish wrote:
Well, that's quite optimistic, to say the least. Of course, neither of us can yet know if you are right or not, but I agree that sulphur might, in some cases, replace the role of oxygen.
Environments on Mars, Titan, Europa and Venus are far from "usual" in comparison to the environment on Earth, so they also belong to the mentioned terra incognita, where there might still be enormous surprises for the biologists. We'll see one day. Hopefully.
Personally, these are the probabilities of life having existed before on the aforementioned bodies, as I see them (and thus, you may feel free to ignore them, as I have no credentials in the field  ):Mars.......................99.99%
Europa...................80.00%
Venus.....................20.00%
Titan.......................0.15% The reasoning behind these is as follows:-Mars: Mars could have very well had life at one point. It has an atmosphere, and it is primarily carbon dioxide. The CO2 in the air could have very well once O2, but have ben converted to CO2. The second component is Nitrogen. However, the life on Mars may very well have been merely anarobic bacteria. If there was arobic life here, chances are it's long gone.
-Europa: If some hypothesi hold true, then this moon holds more water than any other body in our solar system. It is quite probable that there may be some anarobic life here. However, there seems to be a lack of pure oxygen, or anything that may have been pure oxygen, unless there was a considerable period of time where the hydrogen in the water was not present.
-Venus: The only body in the system more inhospitable to human life, aside from the sun, would be Io, with its permanent volcanic activity, high tides from Jupiter, and lack of atmosphere (a result of the tides, of course). However, the planet does seem earily similar to Earth: it's almost as large, and two large continents can be distinguished on the surface. The atmosphere is largely CO2. It is somewhat strange that the atmosphere contains a quantity of sulphur. The only other proven occurance of sulphur in the atmosphere is the negligable percentage that has been put into the air by burning fosil fuels. Some still retain the notion that Venus is what Earth could potentially become. Of course, there's a virtual 0% chance of life still being there; it would have to be able to survive the obscene temperatures, live with without oxygen and very little water, and be resistant to the high level of acidity.
-Titan: I have my doubts that this moon would harbor life, or even once done so. The atmosphere may be the only thick atmoshpere that, like Earth, is primarily nitrogen. On Earth, methane happens to be a sign of anarobic life, but that's unlikely to be such a case for Titan, as there is an extremely high amount of it. The fact that it possesses an atmosphere is probably due to the fact that, of all large moons, it has the most gravitational control; the large moons of Earth and Jupiter are very close to the planet, and thus lose any gasses that they may obtain. Also, the moon is absurdly cold, too close to absolute 0 for the comfort of any species that I can imagine. Of course, I could be utterly wrong on all of these accounts...
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
|
