Yahzi
6th July 2003, 02:07 AM
T1 was a Modern movie. John Connor sends his best friend back in time to meet his mother and become his father. This irresolvable paradox was the basic theme of the movie.
T2 was an Existiantialist movie. The theme is "No Fate:" there is no destiny (or meaning) except for what Man creates for himself.
T3 is, much to my surprise, a thouroughly Humanist movie. The theme is that maybe the future is predetermined and maybe it isn't, but it doesn't matter: Man must continue to fight regardless. Even if the future is pre-scripted and unavoidable, Man must struggle against oppression and fight for right and survival anyway.
WARNING! Spoilers follow!
Some examples:
The good robot is sent back to protect John Conner and his future wife/lieutenant. She asks him, what happens if you fail and we die? The robot says, "I would have no reason to exist." Here the robot is defining the meaning of life as relations with others.
The human characters - who are supposed to be super-hero resistance leaders - are displayed as fallible and ordinary people just trying to survive. While they are competent, they are not super-competent Ubermen like James Bond (or any of Arnold's usual characters). They are heros not because they never fail, but because they don't give up. They fall down, cry, and then get back up.
At one point the only leverage John Conner has over the robot is to threaten his own life. He does this in an attempt to save the lives of others. He's not trying to be a martyr: he's just using the tools he has available. This struck me as a utterly humanistic scene.
The good robot gets reprogrammed by the bad robot to kill the hero. The robot struggles against himself and finally achieves a partial victory: he shuts himself off - a metaphor for death. The robot is prevented from choosing good, so he choose death over evil. Again, to my mind, a very humanistic choice. The robot does not win against evil, or surrender in despair, or redefine evil out of existance - he struggles and then he dies. (Of course, after rebooting, he is cured - but that's just a joke against Microsoft).
The good robot is not sent back this time by John Connor, but by his wife. His wife captures the robot just after it kills him (in the future). Instead of extracting a pointless revenge against a piece of machinery, she turns it to what good she can. No deontological morality here!
End of spoilers
Plus, it's a dang good flick (I was so afraid it would blow chunks!). I can't understand why it wasn't hyped like Star Bores IIXIXIXX: The Boredom. It is a solid sequel, worthy of its forebearers.
I'd like to know if anyone else saw as much Humanism in this film as I did.
T2 was an Existiantialist movie. The theme is "No Fate:" there is no destiny (or meaning) except for what Man creates for himself.
T3 is, much to my surprise, a thouroughly Humanist movie. The theme is that maybe the future is predetermined and maybe it isn't, but it doesn't matter: Man must continue to fight regardless. Even if the future is pre-scripted and unavoidable, Man must struggle against oppression and fight for right and survival anyway.
WARNING! Spoilers follow!
Some examples:
The good robot is sent back to protect John Conner and his future wife/lieutenant. She asks him, what happens if you fail and we die? The robot says, "I would have no reason to exist." Here the robot is defining the meaning of life as relations with others.
The human characters - who are supposed to be super-hero resistance leaders - are displayed as fallible and ordinary people just trying to survive. While they are competent, they are not super-competent Ubermen like James Bond (or any of Arnold's usual characters). They are heros not because they never fail, but because they don't give up. They fall down, cry, and then get back up.
At one point the only leverage John Conner has over the robot is to threaten his own life. He does this in an attempt to save the lives of others. He's not trying to be a martyr: he's just using the tools he has available. This struck me as a utterly humanistic scene.
The good robot gets reprogrammed by the bad robot to kill the hero. The robot struggles against himself and finally achieves a partial victory: he shuts himself off - a metaphor for death. The robot is prevented from choosing good, so he choose death over evil. Again, to my mind, a very humanistic choice. The robot does not win against evil, or surrender in despair, or redefine evil out of existance - he struggles and then he dies. (Of course, after rebooting, he is cured - but that's just a joke against Microsoft).
The good robot is not sent back this time by John Connor, but by his wife. His wife captures the robot just after it kills him (in the future). Instead of extracting a pointless revenge against a piece of machinery, she turns it to what good she can. No deontological morality here!
End of spoilers
Plus, it's a dang good flick (I was so afraid it would blow chunks!). I can't understand why it wasn't hyped like Star Bores IIXIXIXX: The Boredom. It is a solid sequel, worthy of its forebearers.
I'd like to know if anyone else saw as much Humanism in this film as I did.